Any consideration of the potential economic consequences of climate change depends critically on the physical evidence for this process. In this response, Andrew Glikson questions the Dual Critique authors’ understanding of the science. Also, the paper’s repeated use of the term ‘alarmist’ and other derogatory language reflects adversely on the professional integrity of climate scientists, whose ethical duty it is to draw attention to observations of potential concern to society, and does nothing to advance the science or logic of the criticisms made. ‘Scepticism’ is inbuilt into the scientific method, where working hypotheses are subjected to tests based on a range of perspectives. By contrast, inherent in ‘climate change scepticism’ is a pre-conceived negation of anthropogenic climate change, followed by a search for real or imagined errors in climate science—an approach reminiscent of that used by creationists who attempt to challenge Darwinian evolution.