"...review in scientific journals, conferences, workshops and the like." is just another way of saying "consensus".

It has been said a thousand times I know, but scepticisms is not 'denialism' or dogmatism - that's basic semantics and logic.
The use of the coined word 'denialist' smacks of 'Stalinist language' in the same way as the patently undemocratic regime of North Korea describes itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Taswegian and Eclipse Now refer to GW - short hand for global warming.
Whether the Earth's climate is warming, constant or cooling is a matter of evidence and scientists can argue about the validity of that evidence.
But global warming entirely or mainly due to human activity, at this stage, is clearly highly speculative.

A recurring theme here is that this subject should be left to the 'high priests', the scientists (presumably climate scientists).
On the contrary, everyone will be affected by the outcome of this debate and have a perfect right to comment.

Who cares about all this hand-wringing? All those folk in NSW/Victoria who fear AGW can move to Qld/the NT for a few years and experience it first hand. You may be surprised at how easily you adapt to sudden and significant (and catastrophic) permanent "climate change". Those wishing to sample the opposite (hey Dave from Darwin, have I got a deal for you!)will quickly understand why global Cooling seemed so alarming in the 70s. Yawn....

If the University of Adelaide were to establish a chair embracing the field of zealotry and disinformation, Ian would a prime candidate to fill it.

The article is peppered with instances of the very stuff he rails against.

Just one of the many is the statement:
“The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary - life thrived”.
To say that life thrived through it all is, to put the kindest spin on it, disingenuous: so similar to that of a particular Architect some years back conning the public for funding of an “Archaeology” dig on Mount Arrarat.
Life strived and generally expired, rather than thrived, during those changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Is Ian now suggesting that the good Lord did, after all, make life compatible with those great changes, rather than be forced to extinction and be replaced by new species evolving to cope with them?

Bushbred, congrats on drawing into comment, on this particular article by an economic geologist, your days of singing “When it’s Springtime in the Rockies”.
Perhaps even better, for such an out-of-reality blog, might be “In the Big Rock Candy Mountains, where you never change your socks; and little streams of alcohol come trickling down the rocks.

You've got to admire Ian Plimer. I remember seeing the documentary about him taking on the creationists and losing nearly everything. There's no doubt he is a tough character.

However, him accusing anyone of being a zealot is hilarious. I'd recommend everyone read his book "Telling Lies for God". Even though I agreed with its point of view, I thought it the most agressive, over-the-top, furious attack on the creationists that I've ever read. There are times when he becomes almost incoherent, almost hysterical, with rage.

Consequently, I don't think accusations from Ian Plimer of anyone being a 'zealot' can be taken terribly seriously. 'Pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind.

snowbird,

Svensmark's research was related to the possible role of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) in climate change. His theory is that GCRs penetrating the Earth's atmosphere create ions that attract water vapor molecules resulting in the formation of clouds. It goes on that if the Sun is creating a high level of activity, its magnetic field prevents large amounts of these GCRs from reaching Earth, reducing its cloud cover, leading to global warming.

The role of cloud cover in global warming is one of the most debated in the field, as clouds can contribute to both warming and cooling by preventing radiated heat from escaping back to space (warming) and reflecting light before it reaches the Earth's surface (cooling).

Svensmark's research and conclusions have been countered by a number of climate scientists, taking issue with his methods and noting that the related cloud cover fluctuation could be caused by a number of other factors. In any case, they have found the role of GCRs in climate change to be quite small.

Here are some references on the subject...

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (Nov 29, 2002)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732

Cosmic Rays Are Not the Cause of Climate Change, Scientists Say (Jan 21, 2004)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html

Possible satellite perspective effects on the reported correlations between solar activity and clouds (Jul 31, 2004)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021167.shtml

Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays (Dec 6, 2004)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin (Oct 16, 2006)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming (Jun 28, 2007)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf

You are absolutely right AdmiralVS, “everyone will be affected by the outcome of this “debate” and have (sic) a perfect right to comment”.

However, they will be more affected by the outcome of the decisions of the policy makers in dealing with the issues raised by the scientists – not the science itself.

This is where you, I and everyone can contribute more to the outcome. For example:

APEC is in Sydney in early September, this is going to be big, in more ways than one – and Howard still might pull a rabbit out of the hat, and Bush might still undermine the UN, yet again.

An even bigger debate will be in Bali in December, the UNFCCC meeting that wants to move the world ‘post-Kyoto.’

Can we all agree that climate science is very complex and can be very technical?

If yes, then who are we (who are not experts and haven’t devoted years of our life to the study of climate) to suggest we know more than the scientists themselves?

If we don’t understand the science but want to know more, is it not better to go and learn at websites devoted to it, rather here on some obscure forum. If you want to ‘debate’ the science, those forums are much better, and your not limited to word counts.

“Whether the Earth's climate is warming, constant or cooling is a matter of evidence and scientists can argue about the validity of that evidence.” I agree Admiral.

I take the Admiral’s point about semantics. Maybe he is a sceptic, not in the scientific sense of course.

But what of Plimer’s use of term 'global warming zealots', or others’ use of the term “high priests”? Maybe we should all pull our heads in and show some kind of respect.

Scientists have egos, most people do - but the vast majority won't spruik scientific doctrine from the pulpit like Carter and Plimer do, and yes, even James Hansen.