*Flame "bad scientists" - tick, poor old Ian even gets his personal beliefs questioned, as if that cheapens his scientific view, isn't that a little old fashioned Lyn? That's old attack the man not the ball, that you were against in a previous life, how things change when you need an income eh?

*Flame big oil for spending money - tick (really, is $1.6M such a big worry - what's the income of your new organization?)

*Identify how reasonable are the "good scientists" - tick (BTW, Barry Brooks who evidently says, "it's silly to debate the science" then devotes a large part of his website (Government funded) to coach on how to deal or debate skeptics. Is Barry religious, does it matter, if he's a good scientist?)

*Insist that the press is censored - tick, would you like Murdock papers to only reflect his views, or are you in favor of an open press - or is it optional on your whim?

*Accusations of undermining scientific consensus - tick. Science is not democratic, questioning of science should be welcomed, not seen as a crime.

This seems to follow the template of so many eco clubs attacks on open debate.

I heard this one today, and it seems to fit so well ..

A priest, a rabbi and an AGW hysteric walk into a bar ..

Rantings like this do more damage to the climate change pushers, than does the science. I'm afraid the almost rabid rantings of the former Senator make me so grateful that she no longer has any seat in the Parliament.

For instance calling George Pell a "notorious" Catholic. Heck Lyn, I'm sure you know who he is (wears the frock and all).

Those from the "climate change is real" side continue to push the line that if you don't believe it, then you're a heretic. Well Lyn, there are plenty of them around and they seem to be growing. Shall we burn them at the stake? Of course after purchasing the correct carbon offsets of course!

Let there be debate on the matter. It's the expression of democracy and extremely important if the issue is as a important as Lyn says.

A wonderful example of why Lyn Allison and the Democrats are political cadavers.

"Professor Ian Plimer, a mining geologist, is one such scientist happily cashing in on his speaking tours".
He might be crying all the way to the bank. How does Ms Allison know what Professor Plimer feels when he receives payment from his speaking tours? As much as she knows about nearly everything else I guess.

Excellent article, rational, considered; an insightful analysis of the blatant corporate propaganda machine that is denial.

"It is time to stand up for science, indeed it’s our only hope for survival of our species."

Since when did 'standing up for science' mean 'shouting down the opposition and blindly following the loudest group'? AGW proponents may be right, but they have yet to prove it. And if we're going to play the man and not the ball, how much has Tim Flannery made out of his doomsaying, I wonder?

"further undermining current science and polarising the debate..."

So 'polarising' means 'demonstrating that something has two sides' now, eh? This is a new meaning I haven't encountered before.

Nothing to see here, really; just an AGW fellow-traveller ticking the box to show she's paying attention.