I for one am glad those weather predictions didn't work out.
The church has got good reason to be worried about science, they have been supporting mythology for hundreds of years.
Extreme weather patterns around the world is somewhat a worry. We have got to get onto reducing our dependance on oil, and cut the pollution in the atmosphere down.
With the political situation it is going to be hard to make unpopular decisions, about forcing change, especially when the other side does not believe in climate change.

What 'persecution'?

Which 'establishment' is this?

Not the Church or State

Are climate 'denialists' persecuted? So far, they seem to be winning.
All these govmints who apparently are so anxious to throw huge amounts of money to scientists to prove AGW is real, don't seem so anxious to do anything about it, do they?
We laymen can't stand up and argue against scientists, either for or against; that would be arrogance of the first degree. But what we can do, is carefully analyse the arguments presented, and check for obvious inconsistencies, fallacies and logical flaws; starting with the one that profit driven science bodies should be more credible than science bodies funded by governments which are clearly reluctant to act on the recommendations of the science bodies.
So called 'sceptics' keep trotting out the argument that scientists will falsify or flavour their evidence to appease whoever funds them.
Which government, anywhere in the world, wants to hear that they should raise taxes to make life better for voters yet to be born?
Certainly not in this country.
For the record, I would describe myself as a climate sceptic. I have no faith in the reliability of predictions on climate, anymore than I have faith in the ability of BOM to predict the weather more than 3 days in advance. Yet I keep finding myself arguing on the side of the so called 'alarmists'; largely because no one has managed to convince me that:
a) pollution is a good thing;
b) squandering irreplaceable resources is a good thing;
c) that ignoring the needs of future generations is a good thing.
I happen to believe that incremental changes in the way we do things do not have to be costly; in fact, the main problems in the environment and the economy all appear to stem from rampant consumerism.
If we just stop consuming so much and particularly wasting so much, most of our problems would evaporate.

GrahamY ‘tars and feathers’ all climate scientists by his flippant and fallacious remark:

“Perhaps being a climate scientist doesn't actually give you much insight into climate at all.”

It seems you are embedded in one particular camp - a 'travesty' for an editor.

AGW orthodoxy was not always as it is today, Graham. The establishment ‘persecuted’ Arrenhius’ ideas long before they became orthodox, a fact conveniently ignored by many ‘sceptics’, doubters, denialists, realists, whatever they are called now (I can't keep up).

Whether the dire consequences of AGW “will turn out to be correct as Galileo we’ll never know, because we’ll be dead by the time the answer is available”. Hopefully, some of us will have descendents.

Grim, good post.
For the record, neither BOM nor anyone else “predicts” climate (long-term average weather). On the other hand, they can “predict” short-term weather in advance (it has been getting better, btw).

Grim,

Your comment, that "I keep finding myself arguing on the side of the so called 'alarmists'; largely because no one has managed to convince me that:
a) pollution is a good thing;
b) squandering irreplaceable resources is a good thing;
c) that ignoring the needs of future generations is a good thing."

is something of a non sequitur: pollution and the squandering of resources is one thing, global warming another, and the two are very indirectly related, if at all.

In fact, one of my concerns about focussing the discussion on global warming is that issues relating to pollution, species diminution, abuse of resources, etc. get periperalised. The issues are separate, and they are equally significant: we can do something about both at the same time (in fact, we have to), but they are separate issues.

About terms of abuse, such as 'alarmist' and denialist': it is legitimate to be concerned about the effects of CO2, etc. on long-term climate. It is also quite proper to be concerned about being hoodwinked, and about the need to be, if you like, passionately sceptical, about all issues: it's part of the scientific method, after all. Morons at both fringes may have little argument, and so resort to name-calling, but let's take it for granted that most of us are sincerely, legitimately and passionately concerned about such issues, and engage in discussion in that spirit. To wit, that very few of us are in the pay of evil conspirators, we merely hold beliefs and opinions, often very passionately.

My concern, coming from the very different field of Indigenous affairs in general and Indigenous tertiary education in particular, is that the castigation of people who sincerely hold differing views from the 'mainstream', and the destruction of their careers and even of their lives, will not be repeated in this field of climate science. The references to Galileo are therefore quite relevant. At least one person on this thread knows exactly what I am talking about.

Joe Lane

Joe –Loudmouth

I found this today while reading up on something else. It fits in well with what you were saying about scepticism.

“Some problems are so complex that you have to highly intelligent and well-informed just to be undecided about them”
[Dr Laurence J. Peter –Former Professor of Education at University of Southern California and inventor of The Peter Principle “]

PS: Some great posts from you.