What Happens When Real Scientists Question Global Warming

Back in June I wrote about the predicament of Dr. Mitchell Taylor. He's the Canadian polar bear specialist with 30 years of experience who was ostracized for proving that polar bear populations are growing, not declining towards extinction. When Taylor expressed doubts about whether human caused global warming was causing a decline in bear populations, he was told by his own peers that his opinions were "unhelpful" to the cause of global warming.

Now, Joanne Nova has written a caustic original analysis of Taylor's ostracism for the Science and Public Policy Institute. She writes:

The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field. What follows is an example of a scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a meeting, but then-without discussing the evidence-applauds the IPCC and recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy?

Hat tip to WUWT.