I was led out of the Ivory Tower and the securities of academia to the jungles of the internet over a year ago, mainly in this blog.

I have learned a lot. Whereas in the scientific community, I am known as a big skeptic, a cautious scientist, usually criticizing both sides of an argument, requiring an abundance of well documented and reviewed studies before I ‘believe’ it is valid enuff to say ‘This is the way it is.’ And usually adding, ‘So far.’

Nevertheless, in the blogosphere I am often called a “Priest of Global Warming”, a chicken little who is worried about an apocalyptic end from GW. But despite a logical reading of my statements showing that both accusations couldn’t be farther from the truth, (just review this thread) the accusations continue. It is a consequence of the fact that people feel free to say almost anything, not worrying at all about the truth of it, when they are hidden behind a pseudonym. This syndrome is receiving much interest from another quarter these days.

Recently, the NYT Cohen articles revealed that this feeling extended even into the academic community. As one (denier link to a typical) blog revealed:

“The politicisation and hype of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) over the last 30 years that created the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) delusion and panic, could result in a backlash from the public, politicians and media that damages the reputation of all sciences.

“When ‘the chickens come home to roost’ the politicians and the media won’t say, “It was all our fault”. They will say, “It was the scientists’ fault”

Perhaps it is time for all scientists to look more closely at AGW theory in the interest of science.”

My comment to this is:

“I read your ABOUT section and I agree with it. But I was looking for some information as to who you are? What are your credentials for understanding and intelligently commenting on this most complex of sciences?

As a climate modeling & satellite global data scientist (refs e.g. at http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/index.asp ) I felt obliged to enter the dialog just because it is a fascinating question/science problem. As a content Emeritus professor, I hopefully have minimal bias or incentives. So where does an objective reading of the dichotomy lead me? It kind of appears to me at this point that the scientists are in danger of being blamed. For just fearing being wrong, or simply too cautious, so that consequently in the US they have utterly failed to get any concern about GW across. The US is doing almost nothing to mitigate any warming effects, and consequently hampering work all over the globe. That’s the status, the GW Deniers have won the day. So you may have to add: They will say, “It was the Deniers fault”. It’s still up for grabs, but if I had to bet, I’d put my money on warming in our future — caused by fossil fuel burning.”

What is it about all this that isn’t OBVIOUS?