Yes, Mr Squeers, the trouble with democracy - as with genuine science - is that it does not depend on faith, in rulers, in authority generally, or with the Word, but is healthily sceptical. Not cynical, or denialist, but quite properly sceptical. Read your Popper.

I watched your videos and was even less persuaded. Sorry.

Joe

get your hand off it. popper would be absolutely disgusted with the denialist garbage being spewed.

"trying to exercise their craft of evidence-based logical positivism-"

Or stated another way ; trying to exercise their craft of turning Bullcrap into Gold .

You Scientists have betrayed the Trust of the Common Man .

Now your faced with the dilemma of regaining your Bono Fides ; well here is my say : You will not succeed by snarling adjectives at the Common Man he has a faculty called scrutiny , honed by Experience .

A well written article by a working scientist. We need more scientists to get more vocal; the continuing attacks on the best available understanding of the impacts of human activities on the climate we depend on are only going to get worse as real attempts to do something about it begin.

Thanks Andrew. Don't let the tirades by the mistaken, misled and misinformed stop you from expressing your views. There are lots of people who take this issue seriously.

Over time the science from the world's leading institutions will be widely accepted and hopefully result in significant action that will avert the most serious climatic consequences.

I cannot believe a real Scientist would say this:

"Using some emails by scientists who desperately try to alert humanity to the looming climate catastrophe, the denialists tried to sabotage the UN Copenhagen conference."

What?! 'Some emails'!! He conveniently left out the fact that the emails were blatant evidence of a conspiracy to defraud at the highest levels.

If the information about AGW was accurate and self-evidently true why would they need to change any data? To make it 'more true'??

I've never heard of a Scientist having to change data to get the correct answer. Except when they start with the answer first and then went looking for facts to back it up.

Well Ken Fabos if sweeping assertions which the auther has so far not been able to substantiate, is what passes for the calibre of research coming out of the main stream institutions you are referring to, then I am afraid you will be waiting a along time.

I think Glikson's piece herein is a perfect example of why climate science is in such trouble, and has to resort to nefarious tricks and subterfuge.

Even the Chairman of the IPCC Pachauri is now looking more like a Gore clone than a competent independant chairman.His conflicts of interest are just beggar belief.

As they say in the classics a fish rots from the head down and we can follow the smell all the way to the bottom