I don't understand exactly why, if he is a climate change skeptic, he would be so forceful in expressiong his opinion. Does he feel it somehow threatens God's rule over everything? Maybe if he accepts the science on climate change then he feels he needs to accept the science on big bang and everything else that runs counter to traditional literal religious views?

Most other Christian demoniations I believe see climate change as a theat to God's gifts of life and beauty.

For Dr Tim Stephens and posters to this article to complain that Cardinal Pell is, in effect, a loudmouth who knows little about climate science is absurd. In fact, the whole debate has been full of loudmouths who know little of the science, of varying degrees of eminence, and the vast, overwhelming majority of them are on the greenhouse side.

Despite being a catholic prelate, Cardinal Pell is ahead of 95 per cent of the would-be greenhouse othodloxy defenders I have encountered, in that he is aware that there are contrary opinions on the matter, and what those opinions might be.

Stephens refers to Pell relying on Prof Ian Plimer's book, which is the stick which Dr Ayers tried to beat him with. However, Plimer is the only sceptical scientist Greenhousers ever mention, because he is one of the few they can handily attack. As I pointed out to Ayers at the time, there are a legion of others..

The more prominent critics of the IPCC line include Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts in the US; William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Colorado State University; and Roger Pielke Jr, a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA recently wrote a book Climate Confusion (Encounter Books, 2008). There are many more I could cite. What supposed errors can Dr Ayers and Dr Stephens point to in the writings of those sceptics?

Obviously the greenhouse side can point to their own, longer lists of scientists supporting greenhouse theory, and even longer lists of distinquished people who have made their views known, even on behalf of their own institutions. To complain that a distinquished someone has bobbed up on the sceptic side is absurd

Maybe Cardinal Pell was around not to long ago when the 'scientific consensus'was that we were in for an ice age. That religion was debunked by a few warmer years and now the current alarmist religion should of proved an immense embarassment for the doomsayers. Instead they push on with their 'flat earth'theories ignoring the huge amounts of snow and rain dropping where computer models predicted would not happen. Most Australians have woken up to the fact that the idiotic belief that taxing Aussies will change the weather is absolute nonsense.

Pell is an idiot, but even idiots get it right sometimes. As for the claim that the 'University of East Anglia scientists were cleared' of wrongdoing, this is only true in the sense that the Nazis were 'cleared' of the Reichstag fire, and the LA police 'cleared' of bashing Rodney King -- that is, a carefully-selected group of cronies with vested interests in pushing the same barrow blinked once or twice at the evidence and dutifully agreed that everything was OK.

I notice, by the way, that unlike OO, the SMH no longer gives AGW sceptics the opportunity to comment on their climate propaganda articles -- I wonder why?

partTimeParent,

'Religion' doesn't mean what you think it means. I think you've mistaken 'ideas' and 'evidence-based conclusions' for 'religion'.

Whilst it is a common rant to deny climate evidence, I'm actually quite curious about the feminism one. How do you work that as a religion?

Also, have you any insight into the harm & bad these 'religions' will cause?

Quoting bj:

>> It will be interesting to hear how the Cardinal and Abbott spin the report released today by the Climate Commission.

The preparation of the report was overseen by Will Steffen ...

It's been interesting to listen to Sophie Mirabella, Barnaby Joyce, and other conservative politicians rattle on about it. Apparently any threat to the status quo of Australian business is untenable, even if it will actually save said business, and the society in which it operates... They're still deliberately and explicitly spreading associated memes such as the lies there is uncertainty in the cause of global warming, and that we can't do anything until the rest of the world does.

Of course, perhaps they really do believe this nonsense. If this is the case, then all I can say is that Australia truly is the land of opportunity, that fools and idiots can rise so high in politics (and Church).

Personally, I think that these people are so desperate to be in power that they'll say anything to get it (as Abbott has said). Abbott's persistent childish whining for an election typifies this - in the past we elected politicians knowing their philosophical inclinations, and trusting them to act during their terms as they saw fit. Under Abbott's new approach, if we went back to the polls whenever a contentious decision was to be made we'd be voting every other year ...

The national discussion about pricing carbon has been long known, as have the scientific claims that action needs to be taken ... The Australian public has already shown to be in majority support for such action, and it is only after corporate vested interest and politically conservative propaganda pulled the wool over the lay public's eyes that sentiment for action dropped away.

It's dispicable that the Plimers, Pells, Bolts and Abbotts of the country are willing to sell our planet's future in order to fulfill their own personal ideologies, profits, and ambitions. <<

Markudgeon, I see you are a poster boy here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/oreskes_and_switzer_on_the_dru.php#more

Pity you took your bat & ball home.