If we're all 'deniers'....

Apart from the physics, those of us who who have taken even a cursory look at the 'science' of CO2 driven climate change / global warming and smelled a very large and noisome rattus norvegicus may well ask the following question; why, if the 'science is settled' and the 'truth is indisputable' do those who raise valid concerns and opposing views need to be gagged or silenced. The 2008 Manhattan declaration which stated that the science was far from 'settled' attracted over 31,000 signatories from the scientific community. 114 highly qualified specialists actually attended the conference, 707 specialists with appropriate qualifications openly endorsed the document. How much media coverage did it generate? In the mainstream, very little, and much of that dismissive.

Surely if we're all wrong and the 'truth' on CO2 driven climate change / global warming so self evident, then there would be no need for this sort of thing.

In the words of ABC's Chris Uhlmann "Denier" is one of those words, like "racist", which is deliberately designed to gag debate. And what is wrong with being a sceptic? The Greek root of the word means "thoughtful" or "inquiring" and that used to be a virtue.

What's wrong with being a sceptic anyway? The guys who're watching the rest of humanity about to leap off a metaphorical cliff and saying "Er, guys. Are you making a mistake here?" Is that such a bad thing? Even the so called 'father of global warming' Roger Revelle called for caution as far back as 1991, only to be slandered post mortem. David Bellamy, a man for whom I still have much respect as a TV Eco-evangelist got sidelined because he said publicly the whole CO2 climate change thing didn't sound right. Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory and contributing author to the IPCC's 2004 report. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear expert barred from December 2009's up and coming Copenhagen climate summit.

The list is extensive and damning. Only those no longer dependent upon the public purse for research funding can afford to voice an alternate view. That is how rotten things have become in this area of science.

This begs the question; If these guys are / were so 'wrong' why should they have to be gagged at all? What about empirical proof? Or is it as I suspect, that the CO2 driven change / warming 'proofs' and 'models' are all highly suspect and should not be acted upon.

H/T Antikva for the Herald Sun article.

Gosh, all this row over the weather eh? To think it was once deemed to be a safe subject for conversation.

Update: H/T Wattsuwithat. Letter re 'consensus' to the US senate from 160 Physicists.