Maybe it is time that we came up with an AGW equivalent of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Umm – the CotFSM is already an AGW church. There’s a graph and everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

And then demanded equal time on the ABC and other fora for our views in the interests of balance.

It clearly needn’t have any relationship to real science. In fact, the less the better. I actually think that AGW data is a scientologist plot. Perhaps we can get some senators to raise the matter in Parliament.

Any better suggestions?

I’d also like all media treated with utmost suspicion to:
1. taping of all inteviews to test veracity of “quotes”
and
2. preference to all journos who do a checkback
3. All journos who verbal or repeated pseudo-scientific claims to be given one opportunity to retract or be black-balled (no interviews)
4. Some media outlets to be banned permanently until they pledge to abandon their war on science (established through organised violations of 3 at the editorial level)

Pseudoscience (e.g., climate denialism) would have to be established at the peak scientific body level and only the most egregious examples chosen to allow genuine scientific disagreements and differences in interpretation to survive. A register of such examples would need to be made public.

Therefore I would not expect anything like this to get up (cannot see any peak scientific body acting in its own interest in such a risky way).

And before anyone complains about freedom of speech, it’s freedom not to speak because what you say will not be reported accurately.

And as for the Quad, agree Gummo T, fair shake of the sauce bottle!