Tom Tiddler,

You're really onto something. Suggest you contact Garth Paltridge ... there's got to be a Nobel in it - chemistry or physics no doubt.

The quicker the onslaught, the more obvious that you have pushed some buttons.

Protog, you’re ad hom attacks are off message. It’s “dinosaurs”, not “Dad’s Army” at the moment.

Q&A, thanks, that's an impressive list.

Ho Hum, ho hum.

This is a wise, brilliantly written article.

Some extracts from Robert Youngson’s book Scientific Blunders:

“The history of science is littered with remarkable errors, many of which are, of course, no more than aspects of the scientific ignorance of the time. Even so, they are among the most momentous errors in the history of humankind and many of them have had serious consequences…Some blunders are the result of carelessness; some arise from plain, stubborn wrong-headedness; some from arrogance (…hubris has always been common in the upper echelons of the scientific establishment); some arise from wilful and culpable ignorance; some from spectacular bad luck, and some from human moral frailty.

“The scientist who finds himself, or herself, ignoring – or explaining away – uncomfortable results that don’t fit in with the preconceived hypothesis is on a slippery slope and is liable to end up in disgrace and ruin. Most scientific workers are aware of their fallibility and take precautions to avoid the blunder of bias in the interpretation of results. The best of them are said always see to it that if findings are susceptible to such bias it always acts AGAINST the favoured hypothesis. I may be cynical, but I take leave to doubt that such angelic behaviour can be very common. Scientists are just people and are not exempt from the human weaknesses that beset us all.

“Some of the most breathtaking blunders have been the work of non-scientists – groups motivated by political, religious or other ideologies. The influence of such groups in opposing demonstrable truth can be enormously damaging.”

The Professor is right about the one-eyed view. Climate science is ticking all the boxes for blunderama

A beautifully written article by Garth Paltridge on how political correctness stands in for the real thing in climate science. I am encouraged to purchase his book. The fastest way to put an AGW promoting scientist on the back foot is to ask for the actual evidence on which he/she bases their beliefs. When you look under the hood, what you find is.... nothing. Are the real scientists going to turn up one day, or is junk science now the norm for the next couple of generations at least?

Q&A,

I've never visited most of the 50 sites which you say "are commonly referred to as anti-global warming sites or so called 'denialist' blogs", but I regular visit a few of them including Climate Audit, Lucia's Blackboard and the website of Roger Pielke Jr.

These are NOT 'denialist blogs'. In all of the hundreds of posts by Steve McIntyre, Lucia and RP Jr on the excellent websites that they maintain, I challenge you to find any statement denying that the world may be warming and that humans may be the cause.

Incidentally, Steve McIntyre is currently attending a conference of the World Federation of Scientists at Erice, Italy, at which Garth Paltridge, Bill Kininmonth and Richard Lindzen are making presentations.

A good article, and the point made is well understood, that vested interests (the eco and AGW lobby) don't like competition, and people with their minds made up don't like discussion.

The usual combatants are all here disparaging anyone who dares to disagree or have an open mind.

I note some who spray around "denialist" don't like to be branded what they are, "believers", but then again when did the fervent ever tolerate dissent?

The disinformation abounds and the implications that anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" must be paid to do so, or gets all their information from coaching sites, as the devout surely do since they quote it so often so fluently. Link references stack up but rarely change anyone's mind since the opposite is always available somewhere.

I'm happy for communications and information to flow, but find it fascinating to watch the ones who clearly want it shut down.

"Consensus" of belief has been wrong in the past, it will be wrong in the future, hubris will not save your reputations. Consider the Australian scientists who went against the entire scientific community and the consensus that stress caused stomach ulcers. They were right, it is possible for a minority view to be correct, science is not democratic - Nobel prize stuff.

I have no idea what the weather is going to be like next week, or next year, or in fifty years time, and I have strong doubts that anyone else does with any certainty, either.
Does that make me a denialist?
What I don't understand is how anyone can look around at what is happening to the world by Human action (or simple existence, in such large numbers) and think it is a good thing.
Whether AGW is real or not, the outcome for the planet, the environment and for unborn children for centuries to come must be improved if we treat it as real, and stop raping, desecrating and befouling our habitat.