AGW as pseudoscience

Motl explains.

EUReferendum summarises some of the difficulties climate alarmists are facing. I'd take issue with one thing:

It is now hard to think of a situation where there has been such a great divide between the politicians – who remain fixed in their beliefs about global warming, impervious to the increasingly vibrant debate – and the wider world, where scepticism is growing in intensity.

It's easy to understand why climate alarmism is attractive to politicians; it represents a complete excuse to save their voters, and interfere with every aspect of their lives in the process. But it might be a mistake to think they buy the arguments. Their support for most things hinges on a perception of what will be a successful electoral strategy, and little else. In Cameron's case at the moment, nothing else.

If Richard North at EUReferendum is right about the shift in the wider world, this might prove to be a miscalculation for Cameron, gaining little new support (the watermelon vote is not likely to switch to the Tories) while loosening still further the ties his leadership has with traditional Tory voters.

The problem, though, boils down to misrepresentation. Any politician who breaks ranks will face legions of envirowhackjobs, screaming "What about the kiddies??? What about the kittens???", and that's bad PR. Until a robust defence against these exploitative and groundless accusations of destroying the future and exterminating wildlife is developed, the impasse will continue.