Well, yeah, nobody disputes that the climate changes, and the CO2 theory may be sound. The whole policy issue is how long will a cycle last, what factors are involved, how big is the effect, and what can be done about it. When short term models continually fail and the people who make them swear that their long-term models are accurate, something is wrong.

I agree about East Anglia…good to see it’s making a comeback.

You are correct, however, that this issue has become so politicized that normal scientific progress is skewed. When a small group of people with an agenda gain control of the journals in the area, there is a big problem. It probably means he scope of those journals is too narrow and it has become too inbred. No reputable scientific journal would allow people to withhold their data. Most make sure to put at least one of a person’s rivals on the reviewing team. I had a paper that was held up for a year because a reviewer required more than the ordinary amount of proof for a point. In your list of villains in this fiasco, the journals need to be listed prominently. The journals also need to retract all of the affected articles. Retracting the articles would have a big effect on the climate debates because it makes all of that work uncitable and unusable.

On a lighter note. How did the University of East Anglia become so powerful? I thought East Anglia lost prominence in the time of Alfred the Great.

Your actions are far more praiseworthy than mine. I sometimes run afoul of this sort of person on my blog, and to my great discredit, I usually leave the “Amusing, accurate, but uncivil zinger[s]” in there.

I am quite certain that were this my blog, my civility would have broken down far quicker than yours, and he would have been banned after the message which included, “It’s not a “minority” view – the ‘other side’ is the non-scientific view.” He must not be aware that the number of scientists who have expressed skepticism about anthropogenic global warming publicly exceed the number who have expressed support. You deserve a lot of credit for your restraint.

It has been a long time since I have seen such extraordinary, unprincipled elitism as DavidCOG displayed in this thread. It is truly a remarkable, even gobsmacking sight.

This belongs in the Hall of Fame for many reasons, good and bad.

I went back and deleted many of my nastier comments to David in the thread, and also noted that I had, so it would be clear in any review that I was retracting, not redacting. I’m writing a blog post about it, because it’s a good lesson. Civility isn’t easy, especially when the other guy isn’t playing fair or practicing it himself.

It sounds like you two don’t even have differing views on the subject… but he’ll never know that. Did you notice he didn’t even read or respond to my comment?

He apparently didn’t find “Denier” offensive and continued to use it. I wonder if he finds the “n” word offensive, and if he doesn’t, if he uses it. This is an ethics blog, so I think we’re done here, but I just wanted to thank you for the display. I think there may be lessons for that Internet Code of Conduct you posed for us a few days ago.

You have the ideal intellect for the U.S. Congress, I’ll give you that. [ Mean comment, but left in anyway by author, because it is true.]

That’s your last comment here, though, my friend. I told you to cut out the “denier” slurs four rants ago, and that was it. Go share scientific certainty stories with the Fellowship of the Gullible, Biased and Weak-Minded, because your mind is too closed for rational discourse here.

[Amusing, accurate, but uncivil zinger deleted, with regret.]

“The science has been wrong before!” This, in particular, really exposes your bone-deep ignorance of the science. It’s not just an idea that someone had one Friday afternoon and a few other scientists just said “Sounds good! Let’s go with that!”.

It’s a massive pyramid of science from multiple disciplines that has been built, tested and retested over the course of over 150 years. Google ‘history climate change’ and educate yourself a little. Or you can just call me arrogant again. Whichever you think will help you most.

Now, Jack, see if you’re capable of just a slither of introspection and try to spot the hypocrisy in you bleating about civility while calling me arrogant, ignorant (along with the planet’s climate scientists), intellectually dishonest, a bully – I could go on, but to a reasonable person that’s enough evidence to demonstrate your hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

Finally, Jack, try and absorb a few irrefutable facts and consider the implications: every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet, representing thousands of scientists, confirms that human activity is heating the planet. 97% (at last count) of published climate scientists confirm the same. No climate papers published between 2000 – 2008 reject or contradict the conclusions put forward by the IPCC.

So, are all the planet’s climate scientists confused or lying – or is it Jack Marshall who, despite his colossal intellect, really doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about?

P.S. I can near-guarantee the answer, Jack, because the problem with those who are ignorant, delusional and suffering from Dunning Kruger is that they are incapable of recognising that they suffer any of those afflictions.

P.P.S. You said earlier: “There no reputable scientists…none, zero…that oppose the fact of evolution.” It’s clearly not only climate science that you’re ignorant of. Try asking a creationist (evolution Denier) if there are any reputable scientists who oppose it. They will perfectly mimic the performance that you’ve put on in these comments. Think on that, Jack, and see if it helps you any.

I’ll leave you to your comfortable denial and cognitive dissonance now, Jack. And let’s be clear – as the rest of the world moves on without you Deniers, that cognitive dissonance is going to become deafening!

[Unnecessarily harsh comment deleted by author] I will politely ignore your “Dunning Krueger” insult. [Derogatory comment deleted by author.]

Who to believe?! Such a difficult decision… for those who can’t separate science from a hole in the ground.

Jack, you really need to consider the possibility you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Go look up ‘Dunning Kruger effect’ – you’ve got a bad dose of it.