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)