Martin A. Precisely what I meant, it must be me, so many people misunderstand me, I've clearly got a communication problem.

Dung this whole thing is about politics, not science. Alarmists have won the scientific argument in the decision makers minds hands down. They had been in the field since 1988, the theory of CAGW is a useful tool to drive through other agenda so they set up the IPCC to give it an imprimatur of scientific respectability. They then went to work putting in the politicians mind that anyone who had a scintilla of disagreement with the "science" was beyond the pale, a flat earther or anti science. The GWPF realised this and quickly made it clear that they accepted the science of the IPCC but disagreed with the policies and the basis of adaptation (doing nothing) was preferable to putting up the price of energy in a futile attempt to curb CO2 emissions.

In politics, and indeed in life, it's the winning that matters. There is nothing to be gained from being right and losing. I happen to agree with your view of the effects of CO2 nigh on 100%, but you have to be careful how you phrase it (look who's talking!), saying CO2 doesn't cause some warming by retaining some of the the 4 micron and 15 micron energy in the atmosphere is going to get you/us put into the skydragon bracket. (the go to paper for this is Harries et al 2001). It clearly does. But, as you rightly say, there is no paleoclimate evidence that there a link between CO2 and atmospheric temperature, so it appears to warm the atmosphere, but not raise the temperature. That is clearly a concept we are not going to sell to anyone without presenting empirical evidence, and I doubt that even empirical evidence would help given the propaganda machine they have at their disposal.

Because it's a political battle first and foremost the most important thing is not blemishing your political position, or giving your would be detractors the opportunity to infer you're a crackpot on the science (h/t to Martin A). The science will sort itself out. Perhaps I'm being optimistic but AR5, WG1 at least looked pretty calmed down to me compared to AR4. But there is still a massive movement behind this with two objectives, to de-industrialise the world and to transfer vast amount of wealth from the developed to the developing world. Being right about the science won't stop them, they'll do what they always do and move the goalposts.

We are having small victories here and there, mainly because we live in a democracy and the troughers can see the downside of increasing energy costs and losing jobs in term of their own snouts. They are still convinced by the science, but hitting practical problems that are causing modifications of their policies. I can't see any quick win, look how McIntyre and McKitrick demolished Mann's work, then look how badly it affected his career. They were right but they lost, at least in the short term.

I went to a De la Salle school and they taught us that it "isn't the playing that matters, it's the winning". Everywhere I look the alarmists hold the heights. They have a political entity, the IPCC, set up specifically to give a scientific imprimatur to their political plans, so the public, who by and large have great faith in scientists, believe that the science is in. They have effectively closed off debate on policy in the MSM, they have green lobbyists acting in senior positions in democratic governments throughout the world, they have effectively labelled us as "deniers" deliberately implying that we're refusing to see the scientific facts, they have branded us right-wing extremists. In short we are similar to the UK in 1940, our particular island is the WEB and our spitfires the moderate blogs like BH and the reasoned voices in it. They are the Luftwaffe outnumbering us in every way with a myriad different aeroplanes and blitzing us and the public with faux reports of upcoming disasters. But they can't cross the channel, victory is eluding them and they think it's because of our spitfires and want to bring them down. Don't help them by giving them the chance to make out we're wierdos (which you most certainly aren't Dung) is all I'm saying.

"What evidence is there that his career was adversely affected? (not saying there is none - just asking)"

Sorry it was a bit opaque. There is no evidence his career was adversely affected, on the contrary he's gone from strength to strength and is a hero to a lot of the scientivists, although I suspect a lot of the others feel a bit queasy about him. That's the point I was making. Admittedly opaquely.

McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 comprehensively showed that he'd made many schoolboy errors and used an algorithm to centre the PCs that gave a hockey stick from red noise. Moreover, their statistics were endorsed by Wegman, (who immediately became a target for these sorry scientists). But nothing happened to Mann. The truth was ignored first by his co-conspirators replicating his work with the same data, and then by quietly dropping it from the IPCC reports.

How do I think it will end? Slowly I believe, the next generation of climate scientists don't want it to end because of the endless funding (who wouldn't in their shoes) and seem to be having trouble telling themselves the observed data are wrong. They have painted themselves into a corner, unlike politicians in their naivete they have not left themselves an out, and aren't likely to recant. (Unless there's funding). Maybe the slow, but steady, desertions of the older scientists will trigger something, I don't know. Interest is waning for sure, they have bombarded the public with four blitzes in the form of IPPC WGI, WGII, WGII and the recant NCA and they've barely made a ripple. The politicians too are beginning to realise their mistakes in the energy policies (one has to wonder who it was that persuaded them that wind power and solar were viable alternatives for fossil fuel) and are busy backpedalling. It will be slow, too many important people with egg on their faces and, of course the malignant human hating greens lobbying continuously will slow it down.

Back to Dung's beef. I have explained why I believe he was deleted, I'm not sure I would do the same, but please let's don't stop having discussions about CO2, just don't make statements that out of context make us look mad as hatters.

Here's an example, on a recent thread I started a sentence by saying, "I'm not a conspiracy theorist..." and then went on to say that there were people with plans to de-industrialise the world, and re-distribute wealth from the developed world to the developing world. EM instantly pounced on it and described me as a "conspiracy theorist", even though I had pointed out it was in the articles of the Club of Rome and Agenda 21. Now Joe Q. Public won't take the time out to read the relevant documents (and I don't blame him), and his common sense would tell him that there could be no such agenda, so hey presto! if we had had that discussion in the presence of said Joe Q. Public I would have looked a "crackpot", and EM the voice of reason.

"You have a way of diverting attention from the central stuff doing real damage to a consensus bent on destroying so much."

I don't think so Richard, we're all here voluntarily exchanging ideas. I've read Robert Brown and Nic Lewis, but still believe we've had a discussion which made some reasonable progress in us understanding where we came from. I'm a little surprised that Dung's comments were erased by the moderator too, while Chandra, an absolute content free zone, is often allowed to rattle on for days and days. (Not that I want to censor Chandra, just that if we do have censorship let's keep it on and even keel).

Dung it's my fault, I am clearly confusing you. I am NOT saying don't tell the truth, I am saying be careful how you say it. My EM example was to try to explain how telling the truth could backfire on you because someone could take your words and say that you were a conspiracy theorist, even though you'd plenty of evidence that there was a plan, if not a conspiracy, to bring certain events about. But nobody is going to check why you passed this opinion and it gives the totally wrong impression of your views.

To take it to a more mundane, if realistic level, do you tell the truth when your wife asks if her bum looks too big in these new jeans? No, you respond truthfully, without giving the real truth.

Richard, I've had a bad time communicating on this thread, but I never suggested banning Chandra. I think he's an obnoxious idiot, but I actually said was "(Not that I want to censor Chandra, just that if we do have censorship let's keep it on and even keel)".

I'll leave it there, except for this. Don't tell lies, but be economical with the truth if it offends, insults or is going to be twisted to misrepresent what you actually think.