Ladies and gentlemen, I propose a simple experiment. We take something for which there is no evidence -- a Martian invasion, say -- and offer large grants for research into it. We make the amounts of the grants, and their continued payment, closely contingent on findings that support the conclusion that said invasion is imminent and will have catastrophic results. I guarantee that we will have some positive findings within a few months. Any negative findings, of course, we simply bury. They are ours, after all -- we have paid for them.

In stage two of the experiment we release the positive results to a media which is avid for tales of disaster and destruction. They disseminate them in turn to the populace, who, becoming scared, turn to us for solace. We reassure them that we have the answer, and they merely have to abandon a few trivial rights and some minor worldly possessions to our control. They in turn vote us into power so we can continue our largesse to researchers.

No conspiracy -- who needs a conspiracy to explain people doing what comes naturally? Governments want power, scientists want grants, the media wants scare headlines. Work up a good apocalyptic scenario, and everyone benefits. Except for the public, of course, and who cares about them?

My experiment is ready to roll. All I need is a hundred billion dollars or so. And I bet I could get it too -- if it hadn't already been spent on funding AGW research.

None of the denilists commenting above have shown any evidence, as Michael is calling for, against AGW.

It is just repeated misinformation typical of polluties.

Ah PeterA, I love a bloke who has firm convictions, who can wrap up an argument, no ifs or buts:

"It is just repeated misinformation typical of polluties."

End of story. All else is folly.

Michael, you're right about how issues become politicised. I just hope that those who are seen as being on the wrong side, even if they are sincere in THEIR convictions, are not persecuted and penalised, and ultimately driven out of their fields of employment. The destruction of a person's life-purpose can be devastating, as you may know.

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Politicians will always believe whatever is personally advantageous for them - whether it's concocted visions of mythical WMDs or a massive armada of refugees coming over the horizon to rape our women and plunder our social services. It's always been done with an eye on the next election.

We have a senior opposition member who solemnly claims to believe in AGW yet quietly ferries some loony between venues in his electorate to speak out against the very same notion. One story for the public - another for his constituents.

The difference is that now equal time is given to all manner of denialist crackpots in the media and this seems to give them some sort of phoney authority.

It's interesting how, when it comes to discussing anthropogenic forcing of the climate system, there are now lots of people who will preach that everyone must learn to respect the scientific method, skeptical scientific enquiry, peer-review and the scientific consensus as determined by examination of the overall body of the scientific evidence and peer-review.

And yet when it comes to the examination of certain other scientific issues - for example, the worthiness and value of nuclear energy - the rules seem to change, and we're back to the same anti-scientific thinking, willful ignorance and resistance to knowledge, lack of skepticism, lack of critical thinking and lack of respect for the scientific method that seems to define so much dogmatic anti-nuclear pseudoscience.

PeterA, there is something I need to say to you.

Most of us would accept that if we need for instance, legal opinion, we would consult with a qualified legal professional. The same would apply to finance, investment, medical and a whole range of professional disciplines.

If the matter is of a critical importance it would be reasonable to seek a second opinion in order to validate the advice. The two (or more) opinions can then be “compared” to ensure that all the issues critical to me have been addressed in order that can I make and informed decision.

Does this make sense so far?

What we would NOT do in this situation is contact a journalist for legal advice, we would not contact a psychiatrist for financial advice and we would not ask an unqualified member of the public to go on the internet to find us a medical cure for a life threatening disorder.

If I did ask for a second opinion on any such matters, I would NOT expect to be told by the provider of the first opinion that I was a “denialist”, nor would I be told “the matter was settled” or that I was a “flat earther” or suffer public vilification from those who happen to think that the first opinion was “the only opinion”, correct or not.

It is irrelevant whether your opinion is right or wrong, what is important is that I am entitled to a second opinion on issues important to me.

I take AGW very seriously and I would like to get a second opinion, that second opinion must come from a dialogue between two or more equivalent professionals that disagree, and should cover all the issues I believe to be critical.

I don’t need you to tell me the professionals I wish to consult are, in your opinion, worthless and therefore not allowed.

That choice is MY business and NOT yours.

When next you post, please consider just how little you add to your credibility when you call people “polluties”.

Now do you get it?