I think I see your point of view and won’t argue with all of it t. Ideological prejudice is to be found all over this debate, not merely amongst the right-wing sort of denier But I do think there was merit in saying that MH’s policy position is closer than one might suppose (perhaps even than he supposes) to those who doubt the efficacy of (say) hardline Kyoto. Discussing the efficacy of different responses to climate change is worth a shot, even if one agrees to differ about its causes (and even bits of its nature). I do think MH is at odds with the mainstream Kyoto-ism (though at today’s date [late August] it’s worthin noting how even the mainstream may soon splinter as it deals with the new Lomborg book).

“MH’s position is radical because it puts him outside of and at odds with the position of the environmentalists, mainstream political parties, and indeed everyone except the reviled sceptics or deniers.”

But scepticism and denial pertain to science, not policy, and MH disagrees with them on the science. If the AGW “sceptics” truly were honestly sceptical, rather than being intellectually dishonest ideologues who form their empirical beliefs to conform with their ideology rather than with the facts, then their positions on policy, if the science were to become conclusive in their minds, would range across the spectrum, and there would be no particular reason to expect them to align with MH.

But no, so-called “sceptics” who pejoratively label as “warmist” the 97% of climate scientists, including MH, who accept AGW wear their ideology on their sleeves and have no credibility on either the science or the policy.