To Quote EM via Cut and Paste (my bold on the quote from M Courtney).

M Courtney

Look, Entropic man has raised a real issue.
He has said that political acceptance of a scientific theory makes those who disagree irrelevant. That's us Sceptics.
As real science costs money to perform tests - and that money comes from the State - he has a valid point.

Discuss.

Thank you. It is an issue that needs to be discussed. Personally, I do not think it is a matter of funding for sceptic science. If you had. a scientific case it would be obvious. Measure climate parameters and the data does not care about your ideology.

The real problem is political. Noone outside the political right wing listens to you nowadays. Perhaps you need better poster children than Donald Trump.

Personally I think sidelined would be a better word. The arguments put forwarded against both theory and adjustments are still valid and unanswered*. But because the political and media worlds are 97% convinced Climate Change is Real and Man Made then Sceptics have have become Deniers. This isn't the first nor will it be the last concensus.

To implement tyranny, the aspiring tyrant should do as follows:
1. ‘Us’ and ‘them’: use prejudice to foster the (fictional) notion of the existence of superior and dominant in-groups and inferior and powerless out-groups.
2. Obey orders: insist that all people under your wing are to obey your orders.
3. Dehumanize the enemy: emphasize on making inimical factions look less than human.
4. ‘Stand up’ or ’stand by’: suppress dissenting or opposing opinions to your own.
5. Suppress Individuality: foster the development of group identities while suppressing the individual.

All five currently in operation.

All valid points, but omitting the crucial facts concerning who pays for it, and what is the true cost?

As a country bumpkin, I have grown up with the natural world, and caring about it. Power cuts, whether caused by a fallen tree, or industrial action, are part of what I accept as 'Situation Normal'. The prospect of power cuts due to failed political dogma, is not appealing, any the electorate are not going to be very forgiving.

Obviously people dying in under developed countries due to lack of power, water, medical aid etc have no vote in the matter, but I have never been asked to vote for genocide either.

The people who pay for it all, are beginning to wise up. If the BBC broadcast stories about the NHS in crisis, BECAUSE OF CUTS TO PAY FOR FAILED GREEN POLITICS, the BBC would be so much more credible. I wonder why they don't?

Look, Entropic man has raised a real issue.
He has said that political acceptance of a scientific theory makes those who disagree irrelevant. That's us Sceptics.

Well, the Mandy Rice-Davis wiki has a separate section devoted to the famous answer to that statement:

"He would, wouldn't he?"

I don't believe Entropic Man has any real interest in seeing the details debated. He merely wants to persuade the uncommitted. This is standard politics to gain the affections of low-information voters by saying "Look. We've already done the thinking for you so you don't have to. Now just sign on the dotted line. And shut up."

This was the whole point of the consensus-thing from the get go: An attempt to forestall genuine open debate by saying that it is already over, and you lost. Well, no it isn't, EM, and no we didn't.

Thus we have Prof Phil Jones famous lament:

"I recall giving lectures in the past when there would be one person who would disagree with something or all I said in an invited talk. The internet has allowed all these people to find one another unfortunately." -Climategate email #2621

Given the above, the politician will then also often attempt to marginalise opposition by saying "...and don't listen to those other people. They're just extreme left wing/right wing nutters.

And, lo!, Entropic Man then immediately moves on to do just that by bringing Donald Trump into the discussion. What he fails to see is that many people are voting for Donald Trump precisely because they are fed up with being treated this way by politicians from the Left and Right.

michael hart, so you have noticed the link between failed politics and failed climate science aswell. Have you also noticed the link between failing politicians and failing climate scientists? They all seem financially linked too.

Some of the biggest scams have involved the more traditional right wing, but as humanitarian care has always been the lowest priority, human greed for money and power is the common link.

The human need for some money and reliable power, is going to undo climate science at the ballot box. Climate scientists will have to fall back on the money missing from other people's savings.

Golf Charlie, there is another thing that has often gone unremarked-upon in Prof Phil Jones' complaint about people who regularly had the temerity to disagree with him while he was trying to politically strong arm a whole branch of science:

I have have seen a lot of university/academic lectures/seminars/presentations in the real sciences. When a prominent speaker regularly has someone with the balls to publicly stand up and challenge him (sometimes her) and call bullshit, then I can tell you there are an awful lot more people in the audience who are are glad that that person did so.

He clearly learned nothing from his audiences. Peer-review works in more subtle ways than he understood. He and Kevin Trenberth only saw one, controlling, facet of peer review. A sad thing to have written on a metaphorical scientific-gravestone.

I perhaps have should have made it clearer that just as traditional politicians think that controlling the MSM political-message is all they need to do in order to win, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth et al thought that they just needed to control academic publishing in order to extirpate all dissenting views. That was their game strategy.

[I don't even include Michael Mann in their class, and neither do they. He is just a guy on the make. He knows it. They know it, but still resent the dubious fame he got. Welcome to the supreme arrogance of academia.]

"This is standard politics to gain the affections of low-information voters by saying "Look. We've already done the thinking for you so you don't have to. Now just sign on the dotted line. And shut up." michael hart

Spot on.

M Courtney
Do you think that because it is political that this is a permanent state of affairs?

Reading your comments is quite depressing, mainly due to the fact it is usually a (financial) catastrophe that causes a political downfall, so the only thing that will change the current view is a climate induced financial disaster.

SandyS, there could be a mass suicide, lemming style, of polar bears trying to resolve their over population crisis.

This political problem is going to need a change in politics. The UK Conservatives are no longer a Green pushover, and nobody worth worrying about is howling in protest.

Angele Merkel, (the Senior Leader in the EU) is not going to leave office with a positive legacy in Germany about the EU.

The EU has got itself into a mess over refugees, though the UK has remained shielded by The Channel, much to French disgust.

Whatever the result of the UK's EU referendum, there will be political fallout in the UK (especially the Conservatives) A BREXIT vote would bring a new Prime Minister, chosen by BREXIT Conservative MPs. A Remain vote may widen divisions amongst Conservative MPs.

All of this becomes academic if Trump wins. If any Democrat or anti-Trump Republican Politicians get caught in climate sleaze rows, between now and then, it will be exploited by Trump. Climate Science won't be the only 'Science' to be swept out by new brooms in the White House.

Climate Science has lived by the Politics, and may die at the hands of politicians, squabbling about something else.

Martin A, if you are going for the 1970-75 time period, there is the Vietnam War backlash, plus the emergence of OPEC, quadrupling the price of oil, which is when I was told by a teacher (UK) that oil would run out by the year 2000, and electric everything was the future.

To me at the time, everything sounded exciting and positive about science and the future. There was nuclear, rockets, and HEP, though I don't remember anyone mentioning wind and solar.

I would agree there's been a change in political and scientific thought from making things better for World's population to saving us from ourselves. The "Science" of Climate Change is a prime example, with the political slogans of "Reversing Climate Change" and "It may be too late already".

I started primary school in 1954 so I date the changes becoming clearly visible to an untended consequence of Margaret Thatchers conflict with the Trade Unions which accelerated the decline of Britain as a place where we made stuff, which requires science and technology, into a place where we make money which doesn't. Prior to that science and engineering were exciting. America has undergone a similar change. In both countries we have a generation with no understanding of science but who have a good understanding of modern environmentalism. This generation believes the sun shines 24/7 and the wind blows 24/7 and one wind turbine produces enough electricity for a shopping centre and 1000 houses, so we can leave oil, coal and gas in the ground. Shortfalls can be met by building connectors from China, North Africa and Iceland. Yet these same people don't make the connection between having to recharge their mobile phones twice a day, and the impracticality of a Nissan Leaf and the problems of storing energy in any other way than the ones found by nature. Interestingly Germany is undergoing a similar energy transition under another female president with a scientific background, strange.

The energy crisis of the 1970s triggered the French Nuclear programme, France not having coal or North Sea as energy sources. I have the impression that they too have effectively sat of their hands for the last couple of decades. I take comfort from the number Eoliennes Stop banners I see when cycling round the countryside here, there must be discussions going on in cafes as to why they're not a solution to anything.

Well put Martin A.

Paul Matthews: "If sceptics are so irrelevant, why do warmists spend so much time and effort attacking them?" I've often pondered that given that we've actually stopped nothing in terms of the "fight against climate change". From the President of the USA upwards, politicians, of all colours, in the Western Industrial Societies have bought into the destruction of their own economies and their wealth being shared with the developing world through the various treaties. Laws have been put in place, windmills and solar farms built, coal fired electricity generation plants closed down etc. etc.

And yet they clearly don't think they've won. When embarking on any great enterprise one should always understand "what winning looks like" given that the alarmists don't think they've won, you have to wonder what they think winning looks like for them. The UN, the Club of Rome and the environmental movements all make it crystal clear what winning is, they want the World Government an end to capitalism and the redistribution of the wealth of the Western Industrialises Societies.

Whether the foot soldiers know of, or share, these objectives it's difficult to say, but the introduction of renewables into the national grids of our countries is a long way from them achieving these goals. So maybe they imagine we're a roadblock to the goals of the UN, CoR and WWF et al.

On the other hand they might just want to cement their victory before it goes cold.

"If sceptics are so irrelevant, why do warmists spend so much time and effort attacking them?"

simple - displacement activity - attacking a scapegoat, is much more fun than contemplating policy, etc failures.