There's been a furor recently about some of the viler climate change hysterics advocating the capture, show trial and hanging of those who have doubts about the current political consensus regarding climate change. I think it would be a more honest expression of the sentiment if we burned them at the stake after torturing them for a while trying force them to recant their heresies. We'll burn them in any case but it would be good for their souls to recant before death. This should be broadcast to "the masses" in gory detail.

I hadn't intended to comment on this crushingly stupid turn of events but noticed that for some reason, perhaps related in some way, there's been a lot of hits on an old post, Must I believe?.

The joking caricature - "I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything" - almost fits me. Almost, but I'm not a scientist. The rest is pretty close. I like the notion that the way to respond to evidence and theories is not to ask "can I believe in this", but to ask "must I believe in this". The answer is very, very seldom yes, you must believe.

So I try, not always convincingly, to keep a sceptical distance from global warming belief. I do succeed in avoiding global warming hysteria since that is plainly dumb as well as mean spirited, and usually instrumental - an excuse for authoritarians to try yet again to seize control of society. So, I always welcome a new paper by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Also noted and quoted in that old post is Ján Veizer, who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation, albedo and related climate effects. He's a renowned scientist, for example he won the 1992 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, worth $2.2 million Cdn, representing the German government's highest prize for research in any field. Veizer has had strong doubts for a long time, but kept quiet.

Questioning the fundamentals of climate change -- the theory that man-made gases such as carbon dioxide are building up and warming our climate -- is a fast way to start a nasty, personal fight in the science world. . . for years he held back on his climate doubts. "I was scared," he says.

It isn't just that the political loonies have progressed from sociopathy to psychopathy, it is also the effects such behavior can have on society.

Scientists still fear being tried for heresy. That's not news either but it is worth considering the implications: there are surely many scientists that harbor many ideas on many subjects that they neither express nor pursue because they fear professional and/or public reprisal. Academics natter on about the value of tenure in freeing them to be more open but it isn't so, tenure only protects the inadequate, not the heretic.

Veizer and Lindzen are main stream, highly competent scientists with fairly secure positions. Still, they have been hounded and intimidated for their thoughts and speech about a scientific theory. I remain baffled by our collective response to this. Our most pressing problem isn't climate change, it's that we fail to refute and denounce such behavior. Think back, remember where this sort of behavior has led.