Were Thomas Kuhn (once Professor of History of Science at University of California, Berkeley) alive today, he would no doubt be delighted at watching his theories play out exactly as he had described in his seminal book: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in the context of the current contretemps over "global warming"! He postulated that scientific research ("normal science") tends to gravitate to a consensual point of view constituting a "paradigm", which becomes so politically powerful that anyone wishing to offer research evidence against it has a very hard job of being heard. Eventually, though, the negative research might become far too much to be summarily fobbed off, with the possible result that a "scientific revolution" might ensue in which the old paradigm is replaced by the new.

The presentation of a review of Professor Plimer's book, "Heaven + earth: global warming, the missing science" in the NS issue for 23 Nov 2009 falls exactly in line with his observations: summary rejection and vilification - he would have seen the peremptory rejection of Professor Plimer's work by your review panel in its paragraph "Stone cold" (p. 33), and the vilification implied in its inclusion in "the Villains" half of the "Green" survey, as predictable and unconvincing. Both the IPCC and Professor Plimer have derived their positions from their respective selections from the corpus of published research in relevant journals - and have come up with opposing views. This must mean that the corpus of research has gaps and uncertainties; would it not benefit the rest of us more if, jointly, the two camps could identify those gaps and uncertainties so that further research could be devised to resolve them? Has the IPCC not the moral obligation to continue to refine its understanding of current climate mechanics to place itself to offer the most accurate advice to the UN. rather than attempt by such means to sustain an attitude of infallibility?