A recurring theme of those using "science" to justify the continued existence of their convenient world-views (which happen to support their beliefs or apparently destructive yet lucrative actions) is that the true findings are being ignored by the scientific community, or at least a consensus is being presented when the data is unconvincing. And then it seems to turn out that the science is bad. Or quite imaginary.

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

Best of all, apparently the latest figures being cited by climate change deniers result from a typo.

I shall try to refrain from pointing to George Monbiot's site in future, as every new article would probably seem linkworthy to me.