The author is, by his own terms, in no position to criticise Professor Plimer because the author is merely a 'dissenting amateur' in relation to Prof Plimer's work and not qualified in the field.

It should also be pointed out that dissenting amateurs are in no worse position than supporting amateurs as neither has any intimate knowledge of the field.

The author has given himself over to the 'climate experts' despite the fact that Climate Science is more a corrupt business than a Science.

Rational reasons for dissent? OK.. what about...
1. Manipulation of data. e.g.The great Hockey Stick con where data was deliberately tainted to give a hockey stick graph no matter what figures were put in.
2. Deliberate exclusion of dissenting Scientists from peer reviewed journals.
3. Climate Science is dictated to by the IPCC which has been inflitrated by Environmental activist groups and whose former chief climate scientist was a Railway Engineer Rajendra Pachauri with no Climate quals at all.
4. One third of Copenhagen report reference were not peer reviewed and contributed by green 'activist' students.
5. Multiple failed predictions including mild winters for UK and no snow on Austrlaina snowfields and 50 million climate refugees by year 2010.

These are simply what comes to mind in 2 mins. I could find more than 50 without any trouble at all.

It would help if Steven Meyer would bring himself up to speed with the basic arguments already kicked around for many years before launching into this long appeal to authority, most of which is irrelevant.

The study of the use and abuse of experts and how much they can be trusted to get the answer right, particularly when it coems to forecasting, is in fact a field all in its own right. The trouble is its in business, specifically in marketing, grouped along with the study of forecasting systems.

One of the key points about the use of experts is that there forecasts are of no more value than layman in their own field, unless they are using theories with established track records. Thus you pay attention to a heart specialist as there are extensive studies on disease prognosis and heart treatments with established track records and so on. Same thing for astronomy and quantum mechanics. Those theories have established track records. Most of Meyer's examples fall into that category.

There is nothing in climate science that establishes any such confidence. Seasonal forecasting is now getting better, sort of, albeit by using climate cycles. But it is still far from clear even what effect humans have had on climate in the past few decades (although there is room for human influence in what is known to date), let alone what effect it might have.

The field is still far too young for the confident predictions we have seen. Meyer should re-examine what he thinks he knows about the history of science to ask himself why an undoubted majority of scientists are supporting the forecasts that are being forced on us, when the field has no track record.

The corollary to that curmudgeon is of course that most of the alternative theories that 'skeptics' like to hang their hat on as being a more probable explanation of the data (in their view) have even LESS of a 'track record'.

Cosmic rays anyone?

Do catch up Bugsy.

I'm happy to admit that my first thought at the suggestion of cosmic rays was "Oh my god".

However experiments have proved they do have an effect in the formation of cloud.

They may still be a bit fat fetched, but their effect are more provable than CO2, & that's with some billions less funding for research.

And thus your faith is exposed Hasbeen.

I didn't they they were bunk, I said they had less of a 'track record' than the established one, as do most of the alternative theories that you prefer.

Do catch up.

"What a load of codswallop!"

Well, there speaks an open mind... Nice to know that Steven hasn't sullied his impartial assessment with any preconceived ideas or received wisdom from the warmistas.

Just to make it clear what these respected 'climate scientists' have been up to:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/14/why-i-want-mike-manns-emails/