Name calling in any reasoned debate is unhelpfull. As is using emotive terms such as "anxiety", "rhetorical smears" and "bullying" for arguments you disagree with.

It's been fascinating over the last year or two to see the wheels starting to fall off the global warming bandwagon. I expect to see many more articles like this as proponents of anthropomorphic global warming begin to prepare themselves a soft landing when they leap off the decks. When a conservative mass-market publication like the UK Daily Express (the self-proclaimed 'World's Greatest Newspaper') starts to cast doubts on climate modelling then surely the end cannot be far away.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

The sad thing is that we will never get back the time, money and energy that has been wasted on defending the indefensible and preparing for a non-existent disaster.

Gentle men (authors)
As far as it goes (albeit slightly weighted to one side) the plea for a rational approach is well noted and should be noted by BOTH Sides.
I would make a few aditional points
• Extreme views either way are currently equally unfounded.
• There is a big difference between an “expert in the field’s” educated guess and an “arm chair theorist’s” opinion. Most of us, including me fall into the latter. So it might be prudent to remember that when expressing those opinions.

I’m a little uncomfortable by your usage of the term ‘orthodoxy’ in the context of the overall debate. As it implies Status Quo and is often projected as supporting “do nothing” or “business as usual “.

Without getting into the debate all three seems to make the implicit assumption nothing needs to change, a tendentious assertion at best. Akin to the man jumping off the top of the empire state building and repeating after passing each floor “So far so good Where’s the problem?” It also implies that we are in a resource infinite world one where the environment is irrelevant to human existence.

The need for commenters to be more circumspect with their comments is evident by some posts to this topic.
One could be excused in thinking without reading the article that it was yet another blurb on “Global Warming” (sic) when in reality it was about HOW to discuss the issue.
Then again some don’t let relevance get in the way of an unsupported opinionated rave.

Skepticism is the product of thinking. It comes from curiosity and desire for understanding. Its a bit ironic to thwart something as natural as contemplation in the name of saving nature.

Still, who needs thinking in a credential crazy world of ready-made factoids.

Vigourous discussion about complex issues of far reaching import can be a useful thing, when its done rationally and honestly, which is not really the norm when something becomes policised.

It also helps to be cautious about the big decisions of state, lest they slip in some back-door nonsense that bites us all on he bum down the road.

Generally with this stuff, l tend to follow the power (money and regulation). Carbon taxation is a potential windfall of exponential proportions. Not to mention another tool in the box for the politics of fear, guilt and control.

It was only ever those who were gullible or had a political agenda that was going to fall for gw. That covers many posters from OLO. I wonder if we will be reverting back to a global cooling scare. I finally find something I totally with agree John. J. on. The GW High Priests have won their awards, made ridiculous predictions, become rich and have made their many pseudo science followers look stupid.

A rule of thumb for assessing anyone who calls themselves a "sceptic" in whatever field----they are usually and almost inevitably dogmatic true believers who use the word sceptic as a gambit to add "legitimacy" to their own dogmatism(s).