"Middle Ages" intolerance in GW debate

In a great article in The Age today, David Purchase makes two fundamental points which are right on the money: (1) that there is no rational debate on GW - it is now a religion, and any criticism of the dogma is heresy; and (2) that all good science is based on scepticism.

Dare to challenge the "inconvenient truth", that global warming, leading to climate change, is man-made, and heaven help you. In ages gone by, it seems you either died of the black plague, were drowned as a witch or burned as a heretic. Life choices were thus somewhat limited.

He quotes Ian Plimer, professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, who recently said:

Science is married to evidence, scepticism and dissent. Noise, political pressure or numbers of converts does not validate a scientific concept.

When the president of the Royal Society says the science on human-induced global warming is settled, one is reminded of a previous president who said it was impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly!

This is a key point - good science is, and always has been, based on scepticism and challenge. If the AGW case is strong enough, it will survive those challenges on its merits, if not, it will fail.

It is time we returned open, reasoned debate, genuine inquiry and a genuine sharing of ideas to this discussion.

Religion or not, I say "Amen" to that!

Read it here.