There's a lot of passive voice in that article, and unnamed "activists and the media" who, crowned and sceptred, command mild-mannered dissenters to silence.

Go on, name names, show us some evidence (inarticulate posters above notwithstanding). Has *any* representative and articulate activist or journalist actually used the word "sceptic" incorrectly? Has *any* activist even *tried* to shut down debate, let alone using such a mild word? Has *anyone* succeeded in silencing critics on this subject?

Self-respecting activists, upset over wilful denial of basic evidence and basic physics, are far more likely to accuse sceptics of "denialism" than of being sceptics. "Sceptic" is a flattering (sometimes accurate, sometimes not so much) self-description of those who "buck the orthodoxy" and choose to ignore evidence, quibble over details or adduce magical theories of cosmic ray cloud formation.

It's quite alright to be sceptical, especially about policy (which is always a matter of opinion, "evidenced-based policy" notwithstanding), describe them that way is hardly to "damn" them, and it certainly doesn't silence them.

In a democracy, no-one gets freedom from public criticism of their opinions!

--

Oh and "one under god" -- Water vapour is indeed the most significant greenhouse gas. Its concentration in most of the atmosphere (anywhere reasonably wet) is in direct proportion to temperature. Warm the air and it carries more water. Cool it, and watch it rain. Water vapour responds to temperature-altering effects (the jargon term is "forcings") but is not one itself.

The real key to global climate change is the consumption of energy.To become a leader in climate change many people have to come to reality that soon you and i have to pay to save the climate through consumption.If science can build a motor then it can build a air plant that can filter the air from carbons and other chemicals at the publics cost .I am willing to have $5 dollars placed on my rates if it meant fresh air machines could filter the air before it too late .David.

xoddam,

You ask for names. I can start by referring you to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/22/aclimateofcensorship

It mentions:

- British foreign secretary Margaret Beckett likening climate sceptics to terrorists, implying that they should be denied media time;

- Columnist Mark Lynas, who claimed that sceptics "will one day have to answer for their crimes" in some sort of international court. That is, for thought crimes.

- An American 60 Minutes producer who put a ban on climate sceptics on the basis that "There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible."

- Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth who suggested broadcasters think twice before allowing climate-change sceptics on air, because "allowing such misinformation to spread would cause harm."

To these, I might add Clive Hamilton's recent attack on OLO.

As this current article points out, the term covers a broad range of views on differing aspects of a complicated issue. Having anybody appoint themselves with the authority to decide who should be labelled this way, and/or censored, and/or tried in court for their views is not a matter to be taken lightly.

Thanks Q&A.

Fungochumley; “3rd what? Not child I hope…”

Ooow crikey no. Horrible little rugrats! Nope I haven’t got any of them, thank goodness ( :>)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2258

So just what is it that you disagree with?

rpg,

The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is that the answer to each of Monbiot,s four questions is yes. (See my earlier post.)It is ridiculous to ask for proof each time a scientifically recognized fact is quoted in support of an argument. I know that Einstein's general theory of relativity is true as no doubt do you but I bet you can't prove it without a great deal of effort (and feel no need to). I certainly am no atmospheric scientist nor mathematician and cannot personally prove Einstein,s theory nor how CO2 absorbs the sun's heat that is reflected back from the earth's surface.

If a sceptic or two with the necessary qualifications were to prove that any of the answers to Monbiot's questions was no (in a pier reviewed paper) I would certainly pay attention.

Fully agree with the OP. Whether anthropogenic catastrophic global warming is real or not, the increasingly fanatical manner in which AGW skeptics are demonised, often via thinly veiled attempts to liken them to Holocaust deniers, is alarming. It calls to mind historical persecution of skeptical minority views by the established group-think, such as the persecution of Galileo by the RCC. Such desperation is born from AGW advocates having jumped the gun and declared the science "settled", when it is not. From such a position there are only two choices when faced with continued and valid opposition- either swallow a little humble pie and step back to a more tenable position, admitting that we understand much less about the workings of the Earth and solar system's climate systems than we have so far pretended, or shout down, drown out, and demonise any opposition with wild-eyed zealotry.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then skepticism is the father of science. Without it, we'd still be sacrificing virgins to please the weather gods.