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.

I wonder how much the Heartland Institute is paying Poirot to defend AGW & the IPCC on OLO?

I mean, I can think of few things more damaging to a cause than having Poirot spruiking it. I am sure she must be one of those Heartland/Tea Party fifth columnists!

SPQR; please, we sceptics have standards; Poirot just doesn't cut the mustard; as a climate Mata Hari she makes a good Phyllis Diller.

Denialists are fond of rubrics such as "science is not by consensus". This is a confusion between the progress of science and its application to public policy. Science progresses by those at the forefront constantly challenging consensus, but the sane course for the rest of us mortals is to listen to their collective wisdom at any given moment.
In the current debacle, we are faced with many persons of influence preferring to put their faith in their own ignorant opinions. Of course, they can always find a few half-credible mavericks to back them up, which is why consensus matters. It's up to the rest of us to draw attention to their folly.

"Yet consensus is not the way that the scientific method works"

The Scientists reach a "consensus" when the evidence all points in the same direction. Is there a consensus on Germ Theory or can I make something up and have my side of the "debate" listened to ?

"There are many reputable climate scientists, however, who do not agree with the IPCC paradigm."

what, many ? you don't go on to list them ? That's a bit of a hodge podge list you do have. You don't list the many thousands of climate scientists that do. That aside, I thought you were about not censoring ? Surely the thousands of Climate Scientists should also be listed to give some "balance".

"It is that the bulk of people who advocate for them deny any validity for those who disagree with them. Science does not, and should not, work like this."

The bulk of Climate Scientists is something like 95%. The Scientist don't "deny" any climate scientists, you're mistaking media hyperbole for Science. Roy Spencer for example has trouble funding his work because it's mostly flawed science that's been shown to be flawed but he's still out there.

"The Guardian should be leading discussion, not playing the censorship card"

This is tripe, would you give equal access to the debate that the Earth is not roughly a spheroid but flat ? Would you give equal access to Holocaust deniers ? Would you give equal time in a debate to people who deny evolution ? Would you give equal debate to those that deny Germ Theory or the efficacy of vaccination. I suspect you would not. You might listen, even politely but when the dribble flows you will probably roll your eyes and point out the stupidity of their position. So, if 95% of the experts in the field agree, then how's about assigning 5% of the time to the other side of the "debate" because there is no debate within the Climate Community on the link between CO2e and AGW, the debate is on the sensitivity, the forcings and the timing.

(continued)

"If CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, then what should be done to combat it?"

If your head hurts when you head butt the wall, what should you do to ameliorate the pain ? Deny the pain, take a Panadol or stop butting the wall ? Perhaps the first step is to stop the emissions. Assuming you want it planned, then it becomes an Economic and Political question as to how to proceed not a Scientific one, they have already stated we need to cease emitting CO2e if we want a livable biosphere, the Planet doesn't care either way.

If you're not going to listen to the experts in the field, who are you going to listen to. Every Scientific Organisation on the Planet is behind the climate change CO2e link, every nation on the pLanet except Saudi Arabia has said there is a link. At what stage do you drop this pretext there is a debate ?

If anyone has demonstrable research that contradicts the current AGW link to CO2e, they would win the noble prize. There's a reason no one steps forward, lack of Science to show it.

Interesting article I read today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24904143

"In their strongest statement yet on this issue, scientists say acidification could increase by 170% by 2100."

"They say that some 30% of ocean species are unlikely to survive in these conditions."

"The researchers conclude that human emissions of CO2 are clearly to blame."

VG, don't you know that, according to the OLO illuminati, there is no proven causation by CO2 of GW? And the truth is even more amazing, higher levels of CO2 will have no link to surface air temperature in the future, to which the recent hiatus attests. Relax, GW is all over.

Also, anytime soon somebody will be discover a hitherto unaccounted for driver of warming explaining the coupling of CO2 concentration and temperature known to exist for at least the last 800000 years. Mark my words and relax.

And it gets better! What happens in the ocean stays in the ocean. Out of sight, out of mind, so nothing to get excited about there either. What's it there for anyway, other than the occasional dip, which sharks are stopping us from enjoying lately, but not for much longer. Plusses and minuses, Relax.

I didn't believe half this myself until I read it right here, on OLO. What an eye-opener! Apparently it's all a conspiracy to redistribute wealth! I've stopped reading those greenie-pinko rags and stick with Rupert. He wouldn't let me down, and nor would corporate Australia which would obviously stand to lose money if all this crap was true.

There's one more thing, the warmer it gets the better, with even a 4 degree rise having huge benefits. So we must find a way to warm the earth, given the inability of rising CO2 concentration to do so, to avert an ice-age. But we're not stuffed yet so relax.

It's all crap, VG, so pin your ears back, crank up the air-con, and let's make money. We're relaxed and comfortable and open for business.

(Sorry folks, got a bit bored on night shift)