I found this to be a very interesting and stimulating argument. Clearly there can be no fool proof way of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. Matt Ridley offers several interesting examples; especially interesting in this regard is when a onetime heretical viewpoint becomes the orthodoxy of the next generation.

My approach is that one must consider the evidence and weigh the pros and cons, then exercise scientific judgment. Which theory fits in best with my previous scientific experience and training? So I come to a judgment which is not necessarily the same conclusions as that of other people. Not being a climate scientist I cannot think of experiment to decide between science of climate and the pseudoscience. But climate science is for the most part an observational and statistical discipline and presents little opportunity for direct controlled physical experiment.

The questions raised by some climate scientists are not themselves scientific; rather it is the interface between science and societal concerns. The adjective “dangerous”, or “lethal” to describe changes in global temperature, or by the same token radiation exposure are emotive not scientific terms. They determine a belief system. I cannot help but notice that the most prominent and vocal advocates of anthropogenic global warming are frequently of the political left. A further observation is that some climate scientists, who are committed to global warming theory, are not arguing the science, but have adopted the technics of political advocacy.

It is by no means clear to me that the prognostication of a catastrophic increase in global temperature is reasonable. Or that political intervention such a as a carbon tax will in some magical and miraculous manner avert an imaginary environmental disaster

The author only deals with the problems as a matter of the climate science. He doesn't even mention the fatal defects as a matter of ecological science nor social science, which are perhaps even greater.

What I find annoying about the discussion is that both sides are focussed on the positive question whether there is a sufficient warming trend.

But even if there were, the normative question is even more glaring... so what? That doesn't mean that government is presumptively capable of
a) knowledge of the upsides versus the downsides, as between present human values versus future human values and
b) even if they did which they don't, knowledge that a given policy action would produce net positive, as versus net negative consequences.
c) and that's only as to knowledge. But similar glaring defective abysses yawn also in front of the question of government's presumed selflessness, and capacity.

Thus quite apart from the issues of positive science, there is even more of a flagrant bankruptcy of reason and evidence in the warmist posture towards the social science.

Yes they are already killing people by the hundreds of thousands - after they were correctly warned this would be the result of their methods.

Runner,

"It is beyond belief that any non deluded scientist could believe in such nonsense."

What, in fossils? I assure you that fossils are real, runner. I've held them in my own two hands, which is more than you've done with your deity.

Runner probably still thinks that the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth.

David

The Acolyte Rizla,

Fossils are certainly real but they certainly make a mockery of the evolution tale.

Runner,

Ah yes, God planted all the fossils to test our faith when he created the world 6000 years ago.