From Stockholm to Sydney to Sicamous, September was a bad month for science.

In Sweden, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change e on human-caused global warming. As expected, it downgraded predictions of temperature rise in the face of 15 years of measurements that show little or no average surface temperature increase.

The official spin also went as expected. The revelation that more than a dozen computer prediction models have all more or less agreed, and all have been wrong, was played down. The IPCC went from 鈥渧ery likely鈥� to 鈥渆xtremely likely鈥� to affirm its belief in human-caused warming, even as its own core evidence went the other way.

Again and again we are told that the vast majority of scientists believe in human-caused warming, and those who don鈥檛 are labeled 鈥渟keptics鈥� or even 鈥渄eniers鈥� with hidden agendas. The problem is, science isn鈥檛 supposed to be done by polls or popularity contests, or assertions of faith like those that greeted Galileo鈥檚 wild claim that Earth is not the centre of the solar system.

Before the angry mail starts to arrive, let me hasten to add I am not arguing for or against the theory of human-caused climate change. You can label me a 鈥渟keptic鈥� as I view the temperature readings and the shifting theories advanced to explain them.

Speaking of temperature data, David Suzuki had a problem with that at a TV town hall in Australia. Polite, well-informed questions soon revealed that while Suzuki rails constantly about the horrors of global warming, he doesn鈥檛 actually know much about the latest science.

As I鈥檝e written before regarding his CBC-funded attacks on Canada鈥檚 oil and gas industry, Suzuki is not only behind on his homework, he resorts to cheap, sensational tricks to exaggerate and misrepresent hazards. His tactics are identical to the U.S.-financed environment groups that obsessively target Canadian petroleum.

As for his appearance on Australia鈥檚 public broadcaster, don鈥檛 take my word for it.

After being questioned on his stale climate change information, Suzuki then got in trouble on what was once his specialty, genetics. His decade-old attack on genetically modified crops was sharply contradicted by two senior scientists, one in charge of the 's efforts to end famine in Third World countries.

Back in B.C., local politicians gathered in Vancouver for their annual convention. One of the most intense debates was over a call to the provincial government to declare B.C. 鈥済enetic engineering free.鈥�

The heart of this movement, which has resorted to vandalism in Europe, is hostility towards Monsanto鈥檚 鈥淩oundup ready鈥� seed. Speakers at the municipal convention warned of sinister 鈥渃orporations鈥� trying to contaminate and control our food supply for profit.

The debate pitted hobby farmers against professionals. Peace region grain farmers said such a ban would put them out of business. Others pointed out that the province has no jurisdiction and that scientific decisions shouldn鈥檛 be influenced by emotion.

The session ended with a classic pseudo-scientific claim. A woman who used to have a couple of bee boxes said someone鈥檚 bees died and there was a Roundup-ready canola field next door. Case closed. The misguided 鈥淕.E.-free B.C.鈥� motion was supported by a narrow majority.

As it turns out, there are agricultural pesticides that may be harmful to bees. The David Suzuki Foundation is part of an effort to get one of them banned in Canada. The problem is, it鈥檚 not Roundup, and it鈥檚 got nothing to do with genetic engineering.

They鈥檙e called 鈥渘eonicotinoids,鈥� because they鈥檙e similar to nicotine. Old sheep farmers may recall using a crude version: tobacco soaked in water to kill insects on sheep.

It鈥檚 ironic that as the 鈥渋nformation age鈥� accelerates, our society, overwhelmed by conflicting messages, slips back towards superstition.

Tom Fletcher is legislature reporter and columnist for Black Press and  Twitter:@tomfletcherbc