- Bishop Hill blog - Climategate as a reality check

The interview closes with what I would describe as a significant pause. Hulme discusses the pressure on him to take a particular line on climate, first discussing a discussion with some green campaigners who harangued him for discussing uncertainties, and then goes on to discuss his conversations with his colleagues. There is what appears to be an almighty struggle, as he tries to conjure up a diplomatic form of words to describe the pressure he is under. Take a listen.

Climate Lessons: Background for teachers: smear-tactics against critics of CO2-alarmism

The logical legerdemain of 'appeal to authority' is widely used by scaremongers about CO2 in the air, and is easily spotted (e.g. 'the IPCC says...', as if the IPCC were worthy of trust!, or the appallingly misleading '97% of climate scientists agree...', as if a self-selected tiny-minority response to an obscure questionnaire had inductive merit). Perhaps less obvious, if more unpleasant, are the smear tactics to discredit 'opponents' (for the alarmist are waging a battle, as they solipsistically see it). A blogger called Russell Cook has collected examples of this , and has written several essays to draw attention to them:

Climate debate rages in The Australian | Watts Up With That?

I’m pleased to offer some essays and letters with links that have recently appeared in The Australian newspaper. One of them is an essay from my friend and fellow skeptic, Jo Nova, in Perth, who does a superb job with her rebuttal to an attempt to shut down debate on climate change.

American Thinker: The Case of the Curious Climate Covenant

So which is the bigger sin? Failing to stop a so-called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the 9th Commandment in order to be sure scientists' criticisms aren't taken seriously?