In the public debate surrounding man induced climate change it appears that ignoring the weight of evidence is an increasingly common position to take. This is despite the fact that there is a vast amount of scientific reporting supporting man induced climate change and only a small amount contesting it.

Science, however, is not an adversarial courtroom where an outrageous defence can be argued to create a seed of doubt and therefore set the guilty free. In science there is no right or wrong, there is only data and theory that best fits the facts of the data. Consensus goes with the weight of the data and the theories that best explain it. That is how science works.

Even a cursory review of the literature makes it clear that man induced climate change is supported by the vast bulk of scientific discourse on the topic. The current consensus of the scientific community is that man induced climate change is real. To declare otherwise is a plain and deliberate lie.

There are and always will be outliers at odds with the mainstream, this is true of the data and of the people, who collect, collate and interpret it. In science this type of opposition is a perfectly valid approach and in the broader scheme of things it leads to incremental improvements in the dominant theory, over time it makes the science better!

That is how the current view on man induced climate change was arrived at. In the 1960s it was a minority view but over time, based on the data and the supporting theory, it has come to be the dominant theory. Over time, this too may change.

Some folks make a good living from doing nothing more than opposing dominant theory, in science, politics and the media. For example Jan Veizer, a well-respected scientist in the field of Geology, writes newspaper articles that thump the tub for an audience with little knowledge and a lot of opinion about climate change.

Unfortunately there will always be opportunists prepared to exploit ignorance to win support to achieve their own ends. That is true of all parts of the spectrum of political belief but it has become a strong feature of the climate change denial movement.

But that is separate from the science; the media debate should not be confused with the scientific debate. Jan’s articles and others like them, entertaining though they are, are not part of the scientific literature and do not contribute to it.

Leon Ashby and his band of dedicated 'skeptics', or religious writers like Pete Ridley on Senator Fielding’s blog are excellent examples of those who refute the dominant theory on man induced climate change based on belief.

Challenging dearly held beliefs through these fringe arguments may be interesting but the resultant discourse does nothing to advance a common understanding of the science.

The conversation is, however, sometimes entertaining, particularly when it comes to conspiracy theories as to how man induced climate change came to be the dominant scientific theory and the main driver for public policy. Strange tales of international conspiracies and bizarre attempts at world domination feature large in the deniers’ dialogue.

The truth behind the paranoia is that it happened in the literature over the last 50 years. There is no grand conspiracy there is only the inexorable evolution of the literature.

Of course it is possible that Steve Fielding, Wilson Tuckey, and other professional opposers, genuinely deny the existence of man induced climate change based on their strongly held beliefs.

However being opposed to the dominant scientific viewpoint because you 'believe' does not make your opinion valid. Learning difficulties or no, our public representatives must be held to a higher standard of intellectual rigour.

If Steve Fielding has a better theory or new data concerning climate change then he should put it forward in opposition to the current dominant theory, that is, that man induced climate change is real and is happening right now!

Organising a gaggle of professional naysayers to attend a meeting with a predetermined outcome (as orchestrated by Fielding) was deliberately divisive and did nothing to contribute to the debate. All that it did achieve was to demonstrate the inadequacy of the mavericks’ position in opposing dominant scientific theory without using the time-honoured method of peer review.

Publish a paper in a relevant journal, prepare an essay, write an article, do something! Don’t just sit there with your fingers in your ears and your eyes squeezed shut pretending that man induced climate change is ‘just wrong’ because you don’t understand it.

The public interest should no longer be held to ransom by a loud and tiny minority unable to accept majority professional advice because it offends their world view.

There is no argument against public representatives, who hold strong opinions, contributing to the policy debate. But there is a strong argument that they should be prepared to logically articulate the positions they put forward.

To date this has not happened, the deniers have raised a Kangaroo Court of the opinionated and ill informed who do little more than add to the confusion and attack those with relevant expertise.

These lovable mavericks are attempting to push public opinion in the opposite direction to the science. The danger is that public policy tends to be based upon public opinion.

In the case of man induced climate change it should concern us all that, for the sake of a few votes or a few readers, the ten-gallon hat, iron bar, climate with a K crowd and their media stooges may well be endangering the future of humanity.

Written by Joe Purcell