His comment, “The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point”, echoes that of his predecessor at the IPCC, Professor Robert Watson, 11 years earlier: http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/kyotorpt.htm

Waston was asked in a press briefing about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic consequences.

Watson responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. “The science is settled” he said, and “we’re not going to reopen it here.” (Sound familiar?)

With that, the issue of science was omitted from any discussion at the proceedings.

Robert Watson is now the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor to DEFRA and is the Director of Strategy at the Tyndall Centre for the Study of Climate Change.

Not that this post has anything to do with the various ad hominems tossed at the skeptics, but it seems that comparing climate skepticism to other forms of anti-science cranks and medical quacks seems to be the [not so subtle] M.O. of one blog over at Science Blogs [even if they don't go out of their way to actually make that comparison, having it on their list is enough to give one that impression]: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

To be a climate skeptic is apparently akin to those vaccines-cause-autism people or intelligent designers or moon landing hoax conspiracy nutters, if you believed what these people had to say on the subject.