I can't agree with the assertion that because a scientist has links with the oil business one shouldn't be at least skeptical about his or her motivations. The contrary position that the pwo-AGW scientists are linked to a climate change industry is also valid. Although given the dirty tricks that big business have employed when threatened (think Big Tobacco) one has to expect that if there is a case for dangerous anthropogenic global warming that they will counter this to guard their own interests.

The fact that the global warming debate has degenerated so fast into the banal ideological ping-pong that's today standard would be disappointing if it wasn't so inevitable. Climatology which relies on physics and chemistry and is the study of a non-linear system is far from complete as a scientific project. Most of us are incapable of judging whether or no the IPCC papers are a warning or not and we therefore default to our usual ideological positions, dig in and prepare to fight the 'wicked' others.

This is foolish. Nature does not care about our political beliefs and will do what she will regardless. Such a stink is likely to encourage people to endorse nonsensical, impractical or even harmful solutions (or equally harmful inaction) all in the name of winning the fight.

What we need now, more than we ever have is for science to attain as much as possible its much lauded, seldom realised, status as an objective disipline.

It won't happen.