So what's the point about research funding?
That university researchers shouldn't study anything important enough to attract external funding?

If "true believer" means a person who believes the experts until given a reason to suspect otherwise - the count me as one. And then, aren't the "true deniers" also mostly people with very limited knowledge of the science? (ie like 99% of the population).

Finally, a challenge to the author, or any true denier, or anyone else who is interested: just give me one scientific paper, which is either published in a reputable journal, or, if not, is
(1) written by someone who knows how to write a _scientific_ paper,
(2) written by someone who knows the basic science involved,
which supports the views of the "true deniers"

I say this not because I'm confident there are none (I don't know enough about the field) but because the ones I have seen (the ones various "true deniers" have sent me on occasion) manifestly fail one or both of the above requirements.

Jeremy - for heaven sake, there is plenty of material to show that the earth's climate varies naturally with solar and oceanic cycles.. see the paper

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science, December 7, 2001. Bond et al

The paper has not been challenged by global warmers. What they do say is that the link has broken down in recent years. There is also plenty of evidence that climate is subject to major oceanic cycles - see the paper 'Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature letters, May 1, 2008' Keenlyside and others.

Also see material linking Australian rainfall patterns to changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. There is a lot more of that. As you can see this business about CO2 driving climate has been seriously weakened of late, certainly for short term forecasts.

You will see various papers linking the output of numerical models to changes in temperatures, where those models include CO2 (plus changes in water vapour) as a factor. This is the "irrefutable evidence" you are talking about. I'm not aware of any other evidence, just efforts to exclude other factors.

So should we take these papers seriously. No. The only way to test numerical models is to see if they give a useful result (not judgement on past factors). Do the opinion of experts matter? No. In fact there is vast evidence to say that where the experts do not have a properly tested forecasting model on which to base judgements then their opinions are mostly valueless, even in their own field of expertise.

See the book Future Babble by Dan Gardner on sale now. Most entertaining.

Hope that helps.

Alex, Always good to see you published. And there are tenured physicists who say the climate scientists and meteorologist have got the basic physics relating to the thermodynamics of back radiation wrong and this is central to the climate models. Have you read 'Slaying the sky dragon: Death of the global warming theory'?

What should we think of an emotive article from a sceptic criticising unqualified people writing about the science of climate by one not prepared to list their own qualifications?

While not a scientist, my research indicates that the scientifically unqualified make up the bulk of the sceptics. It also indicates that the measured climate trend is more severe than the worst case scenario agreed by panels of scientists trying to get to the bottom of the science.

Burra NSW

Interesting choice of words in the title - "corrupted by public money".

The OZ "Environment" Foundation, Quadrant, Rupert's WSJ and Walter Russell Mead are of course all fellow ideological travelers of the multitude of right-wing think tanks financed and sponsored by the Bradley Foundation.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lynde-and-harry-bradley-foundation

All of which deliberately specialize in deliberately corrupting the space and scope of public ideas, especially in the USA.

Although they oft-times complain about the misuse of public monies they seldom, if ever complain about the public monies spent in the projects described at this site. Indeed they more or less enthusiastically champion such "necessary" research.

http://demilitarize.org/fact-sheets/enfact-sheet-pentagon-universities

Jennifer, always good to see your comments. There are many more tenured physicists who say climate scientists and meteorologists have got the physics right (they still debate nuances, btw).

Have you read 'Principles of Planetary Climate' - Cambridge University Press?