Following my rant on the two professors bemoaning the potential loss of faith in science caused by over-egging the climate change hypothesis, there is a nice article on a similar theme by Michael R. Fox on the Hawaii Reporter.
The practice of science has historically been driven by positing a hypothesis, making observations of the real world, then determining whether the hypothesis explains the observations.
It doesn’t make any difference who the theorist is, how smart he is, or how powerful he is, or how many awards he’s won, if the hypothesis can’t explain the real data observed in the real world, it is false, and must be revised or abandoned.
That doesn't happen with climate change science, though. The hockey stick is still used even though it has been demonstrated to be flawed. When anyone dares to challenge the AGW hypothesis they are usually met with criticism - not for their science - but for who they are.
For example, Professor Tim Ball recently received death threats for his skeptical statements regarding global warming on Hannity and Colmes program the week of March 12 (http://tinyurl.com/2p46f4).
The ad hominem attack is not only not nice; it is a logical fallacy with little integrity. It goes:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
That's how it works. That's what they do. Fox points out that there is now a McCarthy style witch hunt against sceptics with suggestions of "Nuremberg style trials for "deniers"!
Read it all.