Michael

The climate scientists you defend have much in common with medieval astrologers. Both (i) exploit public anxiety about weather and climate; (ii) have their high priests, sacred texts and fundamentalist followers; (iii) derive most of their authority from hypothetical models based on obscure relationships that very few understand (and even fewer audit); (iv) claim their models have infallible predictive power; (v) make alarmist predictions; (vi) urge kings and queens to take immediate action to avoid destruction; (vii) confuse consequence with cause and causation with correlation; (vi) gain financially from their prognostications; and sometimes (vii) depose kings and queens and disrupt kingdoms.

No surprise, then, that "climate change" (aka AGW) is such a politicised issue; and a space where eco-religion and dodgy science collide with reality - the reality of a world in a constant state of unpredictable and uncontrollable change - in a supernova of apocalyptic nonsense?

Enjoy the spectacle!

Alice (in Warmerland)

Alice (and Michael),

Yes, I hope that your analogy does not extend to witch-burning ! So often, in areas where ideologies collide, the Righteous in power feel compelled to identify and excoriate the non-believers or, even more dangerous, the doubters.

I certainly hope that anybody who has expressed scepticism about some of the claims of AGW-proponents does not suffer discrimination and dismissal from their employment for their honestly-held beliefs. This wrong-headedness can have devastating consequences.

Joe Lane

Michael Rowan's claim that the science of climate change is well supported by evidence, indicates that he is very selective in his reading on the subject.

He argues that there is no climate science conspiracy, by suggesting that the conduct of the key players is beyond reproach. For a contrary view, he would do well to refer to Dr David Evans' report, "Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?". See
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html

Grim,

If you think that the key questions asked of "climate scientists" in the article linked in my earlier post are in any way valid, you have a problem. Here they are:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I'll ignore your selective misquoting.

Since pretty well everybody acknowledges that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age, everybody agrees "mean global temperatures" are rising, but earlier periods were considerably warmer. It was a crass question, designed to misrepresent "consensus".

As for the second question, define "significant". And which particular "human activity" are we talking about? Human activity has certainly had an impact through urbanisation and agriculture, for example. That doesn't mean emissions of human-produced carbon dioxide have had any impact at all. Self-described "climate scientists" have been stuffing around since the early 1970s with nothing - NOTHING - to show for their efforts except dodgy computer models. Oh, and inflated research budgets, of course.

One might also ask why the survey specifically sought the views of "climate scientists" - the gang involved in Climategate and their hangers-on - when geologists, astrophysicists and others have crucial perspectives on the issues in question. One thing that came out of Climategate was that at least some "climate scientists" were deficient in some specialised knowledge they were applying - statistics, for example, as we have seen also in the survey in question.

Neither Michael Rowan nor any of the others posting here have challenged a single line of John Reid's posts. Can't have it both ways: put up or shut up. I guess they've shut up.

John Reid observes that these issues can be seen as "science/superstition" "truth/falsehood"or "corruption/integrity",but they are also left/right issues. Rowan's article,in fact, claims "conservative politicians have declared war on science" and he's almost right: just insert "dodgy" before "science" and understand that there are conservative politicians in left of centre parties.

I would refer anybody who is interested in the history of AGW (and similar) skepticism - how and when in came about, who is behind it and why - to read the book "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, or just listen to the recent ABC Podcast here -http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101369.htm

It may surprise a few people.

Rache,

I guess ad hominem arguments can take many forms, from the crudest insults to the more sophisticated inference of satanic conspiracy on the part of one's adversaries, and appeals to authority on one's own part. Thanks for your addition to the genre, but any decent scientist would surely suggest that doubt and scepticism are legitimate positions on any issue. 'Ad rem' should always be the preferred pathway of investigation.

The Inquisition was set up partly to root out doubters and exterminate sceptics but, as Galileo so rightly pointed out, the world still moves. Torture and burning are no longer options, so I do hope that honest and sincere people are not having their careers ruined when they express doubts and demand evidence.

Joe Lane