Liam,

Why do AGW deniers play so dirty? "environmental religious zealots", "terrifying our children", 'hysterical green lobby', “chicken little”, ..

As Trade said, I think the same critisism can be levelled at the AGW believers.

pbrosnan,

'This is the main problem with the "sceptics" position. They sit back, fold their arms and say "Prove it to me beyond all doubt". '

I don't think that's true. All I ask for is for people to keep their minds open, and still consider new research and opinions. It seems to me most have made up their mind, and close their ears and say 'I'm not listening' if anyone dares dispute the orthodox opinion.

The scientific community has come to consensis on many things and changed their minds later when more research has clarified things. I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if in 20 years from now the consensis was that the original view was alarmist.

I think some people would be genuinely disappointed if it turned out we weren't all doomed. Certainly the media would have one less sensational thing to report.

Some of the debate has centred on the notion of scepticism. For those interested in making sense of scepticism, science and public policy will find a good article here http://www.zerocarbonnetwork.cc/news/hyper-scepticism-61.html the core of the argument is that part of the problem is that people fail to distinguish between scientific discourse and public policy discourse. We need and indeed should encourage contending views in the scientific discourse with respect to global warming. On the other hand in the domain of public policy the prudent course of action is to shape policy on the basis of the dominant scientific position.

Usual Suspect

I understand what you are trying to say but it is important to appreciate the difference between “orthodox opinion” in the scientific community and that in the public sphere. The dialogue I had with Don Aitken may clarify this better;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7335#113192

The vast majority of experts believe in something because the vast majority of data supports that belief – this if you like is orthodoxy, in the scientific sense. Can you see how this may differ in the wider community, when people may have an opinion on something they really don’t understand?

Yes, people should keep their minds open, many don’t … their heads are clearly stuck in the sand.

If you want to consider new research, take a look at this snippet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html

You will have to subscribe to get the full picture, but I am sure the synopsis will be reported in mainstream media.

Oh, btw … the article subject of this thread is widely being misrepresented by the “don’t know what to call them anymore” brigade. Have you actually read the Keenlyside et al paper, or do you (like many) get your information from the popular press or blogosphere? I know it’s difficult, but as you say … we have to keep an open mind.

Ignorance is not an excuse and this article is based upon either complete ignorance, clever malevolence or both. All these perpetuated pseudoscientific “facts” are entirely refuted here: http://www.realclimate.org/
Editors need to tighten their rules and check the science behind what they are publishing. Even if their sponsors would not like it. What is sold as “science” is far too often plain gibberish.

BAYGON: << ...the core of the argument is that part of the problem is that people fail to distinguish between scientific discourse and public policy discourse. We need and indeed should encourage contending views in the scientific discourse with respect to global warming. On the other hand in the domain of public policy the prudent course of action is to shape policy on the basis of the dominant scientific position. >>

Excellent point, and one which the AGW sceptics/deniers evidently fail to understand.

QA,

From Don...
'the electorate there is not prepared to forego heat and mobility in the interests of abating greenhouse gas emissions, and my guess is that the Australian elctorate would be pretty similar, if pushed to the test.
'
I agree, and I think many greenies would secretly be in that basket too, and possibly a lot of what I call the AGW 'Parrots' don't even really appreciate the sacrifices to be made.

CJ Morgan,

'one which the AGW sceptics/deniers evidently fail to understand.'

Ho ho ho ho. Another smug generalisation from CJ. I have noticed a history of CJ believing anyone who doesn't agree with him as stupid.

For every holocaust.. oops I mean climate change denier without any real knowledge or understanding to back up his opinion, there is an environmental loony with no real knowledge or understanding either, but the loony just happens by chance to be backed by the scientific consensus. Doesn't make him smarter.

Anyway I cant believe you think we shouldn't encourage contending views in public policy discourse.

As Don said,

'If the science really were settled, then governments would be in a very strong position to say, without risk of instant and respectable disagreement, that AGW was so important that we would all have to pull our belts in.'

I wouldn't class myself as a denier (I mean who would anyway they are considered worse than holocaust deniers), more a not totally accepter.

If every public policy was based on a swift unilateral reaction to the current scientific opinion with no thought of that opinion ever evolving we'd be in a very sorry state. Especially when you look at the complexity of the earth that the scientists are examining, the accuracy of all predictive models, and the consequences of the actions proposed.