People are not always eager to lay down good vs. evil thinking. I don't mean to pick on any single commentator but here is one example:
…E T Jaynes is spinning in his grave that you used Bayes to justify an increase[d] belief in AGW based on scientist's personal beliefs when they lacked the to support their own conclusion.
They believed something so strongly they faked data? A scientist should only believe something so strongly because they have the data to support their belief!
This was perhaps the most misunderstood blog post (including by other bloggers) I've written, yet the original text is quite literally clear, though perhaps it confuses people by not offering up the emotional valence they are expecting. I did not try to justify any absolute level of belief in AGW, or government spending for that matter. I'll repeat my main point about our broader Bayesian calculations:
I am only saying that #2 [scientists behaving badly because they think the future of the world is at stake] deserves more than p = 0.
Nor is my point that p is large, but rather if you don't consider this p at all your reasoning is incomplete. People simply do not wish to hear that sometimes they should pay heed — incomplete heed at that — to the opinions of evil others. It's remarkable how many people responded to this blog post by attacking either the scientists or, in some cases, me.