"Given that it all hinges on dodgy science" and ethically why is a claim like that any better than the claim that there are no credible dissenting voices.

Lies and misrepresentation on both sides. There is a vast amount of good science supporting AGW, the issue from this article is about the representation of that science by the IPCC and what other good science may be being ignored when it should be included in the discussion.

It's not the science that's dodgy, it's the way it's been used that's at issue.

R0bert

I have just read the introduction of the Upenn Cross document.
An interesting approach.

It may well be that such an examination should take place in this country.
Perhaps a Royal Commission should be established to sort the sheep from
the goats.
Certainly considering how much AGW is expected to cost a Royal
Commission's cost would be peanuts.
It may well be a very effective BS filter.

Part 1
I have long despaired of a meaningful discussion on AGW/ACC.
What we get , in the main part, are two diametrically opposed sides ignominiously indulging acrimonious sniping. Both seeking the (mythical) magic winning blow.

This analysis is no different in essence than the great unwashed deniers heroes Plimer and Monckton . In that they made a conclusion then appeared to shopped around for “evidence (?) “ that fitted their predetermined conclusion. (essential work for fiction and legal arguments but scientifically wanting. To be fair to the article 's author at least it doesn't appear that he has misappropriated citations as evidence suggests for the former two (sites with proofs are available).

The problem I have with the combative (legalistic) approach and therefore this article is that practically speaking the truth isn't the objective merely to "prove (?)" i.e. 'reasonable doubt'.

This sort of arguing lends it's self to who is the best performer. i.e. Plimer and Monckton.
Inherent in this type of discussion is the underlying false premise is that the answer's binary and therefore demands the combatants are diametrically opposed.

Therefore, he isn't beholden to consider ALL the evidence in order to discover the 'truth' just that which makes his case.

It is a truism of complex science that there will always be those who dissent/have alternative conclusions.

Neither am I impressed by the technique (reduction to the defeat(able)) by means of over simplification of the issue by redefinition.

Part 2
For the record I am a sceptic i.e. I don't believe that the current Theory of AGW is absolutely definitive, unassailable, beyond being significantly altered by as yet unknown factors or mechanisms.
However, the preponderance of evidence and observable issues makes
AGW the best wheel in town by a fair margin.

Clearly I reject the currently binary nature of the discussions.
I also don't accept that all subsequent actions or decisions come as a discrete package i.e. I don't support the ETS as it was. Nor do I accept the notion that alternative power sources
are or will remain uncompetitive ( I refer to the new Switz invention that generates power via windows at a fraction of current solar cells.) . It is a myopic nonsense to suggest that alternative power sources would instantly render the Aus economy to 3rd world status.

Such arguments are political self interested and frankly nonsensical

For those interested in some 'facts'... the following link is to the lawsuit naming Strong as a director of Molten Metals Technology Inc.

http://securities.stanford.edu/1008/AxlervMoltenMeta/200149_r01n_9710325.pdf

See "Summary of the Actions" Page 3

The "New World Order" heralded by the Bush dynasty and the likes of Zbigniew Brezinski,et al, are in serious retreat.There is a new consciousness enveloping the planet,and that is of truth and true democracy via the internet.

OlO may not feel rewarded in an instantaneous gratified society,but their integrity and dedication to truth, will quash the Murdochcracy that lies to us on a daily basis.