...it is so sad that those who have chosen to wholly and completely adopt the mantra of AGW have essentially taken over this Podcast, alienating a huge group of rational and reasonable sceptics.
Anthropogenic climate change is not a “mantra”. It is a well-tested scientific theory, backed up by mountains of supporting evidence all the way down to some very basic physics. You cannot be ‘sceptical’ of that. You can be ignorant of it or… in denial.
> It also smears them, by association, as being anti science when the vast majority of them are basing their opposition to AGW on a sound and reasonable debate on the science.
Why not produce some “sound and reasonable” evidence-based science?
> Now I have no problem with debate.
Science is not a matter of debate. It is not a matter of democracy. You don’t get to debate what is true.
> But I abhor the assumption that one side decides IT is the champion of Science while their opponents are on the side of anti-science.
The science is only on one side.
> This is a deeply bigotted and prejudiced attitude and as an attitude it is indeed itself deeply anti-science. It reminds me of those that claim God is on THEIR side.
No, it’s the other way around. You’re experiencing the science community’s scorn because your position is anti-science. You are a denier of science.
> The CoI should not be in the business of adopting one position or another, where a reasonable and debatable controversy is in existence.
There is no “debatable controversy” in existence. There is no credible debate in the scientific community about the core science. The ‘debate’ is only amongst weathermen, economists, political ‘scientists’ and a mountain of sideshow blogs. It’s no different to ‘evolutionists’ and creationists.
> It should not be allying itself so transparently and openly with one side of ANY debate where there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
Really? How about intelligent design? How about astrology? How about voodoo? How about leprechauns?
> And more than anything, it should not be vilifying one side of a debate while wrapping itself in the cloak of ‘science’.
Why have you scare-quoted ‘science’? Do you know of a higher method to determine the truth?
> Whether you agree with me on AGW or not. Whether you have accepted AGW or not -
You’ve provided nothing to agree with. I accept and understand the overwhelming science.
> ...I urge CoI to change it’s course and resume a position where scepticism is welcomed instead of being vilified,
And immediately before you said:
> I only listened to the intro of this Podcast and it said enough for me.
You are not a sceptic. You deny all science that demonstrates that you are wrong.