The author says
"It is that the bulk of people who advocate for them deny any validity for those who disagree with them"

Generally I don't think this is true, though I'm sure you can find examples of folk having said things which suggest this.

But the substantial point is that the bulk of people who advocate for what he calls "warmist theories" deny any validity for those who proclaim disagreeing views without taking any intelligent interest in the science.

This author has found a list of "reputable climate scientists" but it is not clear how he has decided they deserve to be described as such. Of the ones he mentions, one I know of is Roy Spencer. If you want to know about Spencer's quality as a scientist look at http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model.

So study the science and form a view accordingly, and your views will have "validity" accordingly. Pick the names of know deniers and adopt their views for no good reason, and they won't.

Tim,
I am not a climate scientist but have a reasonable scientific background. I have read quite extensively on the topic of global warming so to answer your “key questions”.
1. I am convinced that the rate of global warming is indeed “unprecedented”. Ice cores, pollen counts and other measures leave little doubt that the rate of change is abnormally high. You only have to look around you, melting ice caps & glaciers, rising sea levels, one in 8,000 year droughts, the list goes on.
2. The abnormal rate of change is also clearly linked to human activity beginning with the industrial revolution and particularly with the start of the cheap oil age. The atmosphere has had increasing amounts of not only carbon dioxide but methane, sulphur dioxide and a slew of other pollutants dumped into it. There is a good correlation between this activity and the observed rate of change. Even if carbon dioxide had no contribution to AGW, its effect of ocean acidification should be sufficient reason to be concerned about it.
3. There are a number of climate models, the consensus is that human produced pollution is the major cause of the observed AGW. Models are models, I don’t think any of them claim 100% accuracy but the overall consensus appears to me that they underestimate the contribution if anything, definitely not “consistently overestimate the effect” .
4. A daunting problem, but just to stick to Australia, we could reduce our population by stopping all immigration, baby bonuses etc. Stop building second airports, desalination plants, road tunnels, freeways. Greatly reduce the role of road transport and build efficient rail services, not TGV’s, but well run modern conventional sort. Accelerate the introduction of fibre to the house NBN which will allow a reduction in necessity to travel anywhere, especially flying around in aeroplanes.
I think the Guardian and the SMH are totally correct in ceasing to publish ratbag opinions (they can still have these on OLO) and material that has been written to deliberately mislead the public.

oh for a sec there I thought he was going to talk about creationism, but then again I think he is.

Let's do a simple test has the author spent more time reading mainstream climate scientist of the fringe people like Freeman (last time I looked he was a physicist’ not a climate scientist but lets ignore that for the moment).

I bet he has spent far more time with the deniers....can anybody say naturopath.

This is such a jumble of thoughts that it’s hard to say much about it. The fundamental question is, on whose authority should we rely for the science of climate as influenced by the emissions from burning fossil fuels? If not the IPCC, then who? By the way, question 4 must be disqualified from this consideration. It’s not part of climate science, though the science must guide the response.

To my mind the answer is clear. It’s the IPCC. Many have tried to denigrate its efforts and have invoked conspiracy theories and the like to discredit it. Dr Florin does not go that far but he does, by implication, suggest that the IPCC did not address the various matters he lists in his first three questions. Really? That’s a pretty serious accusation. Prove it. Or maybe Dr Florin considers that the IPCC is just a bunch of idiots who simply don’t understand, or wish to ignore, or have overlooked, all those pet theories about climate that get trotted out as personal ‘scientific opinions’ in the media. Again, prove it.

I’m a scientist but I would never presume to second guess the findings of the IPCC. I know that the moment I stood before a real climate scientist I would be demolished. Try it, Tim florin, Professor of Medicine. I guarantee you will feel intense discomfort. And ask the scientist if his or her science has been acquired via ‘consensus’. It’s a nonsensical suggestion.

Nothing I say here should be taken to mean that divergent views should be censored. What a media outlet decides to publish is its business, annoying as that may be. If you wish only to read the truth then I suggest you stop reading altogether

Imperial says:

"1.I am convinced that the rate of global warming is indeed “unprecedented”."

He says he has studied extensively; obviously that extensive study was of the back of his hand; the disproof of his preliminary statement is evident in the temperature trend for the first half of the 20thC:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png

In Australia every heatwave and Typhoon is declared to be the beginning of the end; yet even BOM's ACORN temperature network, the cutting edge, shows no temperature rise for 18 years:

http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/acorn-1995-2012.jpg

Dealing with believers of AGW is like dealing with 2 year olds.

Imperial,

"He says he has studied extensively; obviously that extensive study was of the back of his hand....."

Much better to follow the expertise of cohenite and his merry cohorts. He's lawyer who links to cutting edge "skeptic" info from the blogs of a weather presenter and an ex-school principal.

Obviously the IPCC has nothing on those sources.