Gosh, Leo Lane, I am flattered that you have so honoured me, putting me in the company of some people I truly admire: Ross Garnaut, James Hsnsen, Al Gore, Phil Jones. Now let me add a few more names to your list: Bill McKibben, Christine Milne, Tim Flannery, Penny Sackett, David Karoly, Megan Clark, Will Steffen, Ian Lowe, Graeme Pearman, Ian Dunlop, Nicholas Stern, Barry Brook, to name a few most prominent names of people whose informed views and expertise on climate science I respect. They all acknowledge the truth of the climate science, though they may differ on some of its policy implications.

On your side - who? Christopher Monckton? Ian Plimer? Andrew Bolt? No contest, Leo. Denialism is empty of content, selfish, and tiresome. What gives it political power is the ideological strength and fanatical dedication to the present industrial status quo of the vested interests it represents. I despise climate denialism, because it is trying to steal our children's and grandchildren's chances for a safe climate future. It is all set out in my book 'Crunch Time'.

Thanks, Tony. All we need to know now, is whether you are unbalanced, fraudulent, or both.

Are you distancing yourself from Michael Mann and Phil Jones, now that they have been exposed? I do not expect you to mention all the fraud backers, with which you align yourself, there are too many of them, but we see where you stand.

I take it that you acknowledge that there is no scientific backing for your baseless assertions.

You are significantly silent, on that main issue, of the absence of any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and overflowing with words on matters of no weight or moment whatsoever.

You have the same credibility as the IPCC. No proof, but 90% certainty, of AGW, based on nothing but empty, unscientific, guesses.

Good luck, Tony, you will need it. You have no merit.

Hi Tony,

I would have more respect for AGW advocates like yourself if they even tried to address the issues raised by the hard-working and usually unpaid researchers you contemptuously dismiss as 'deniers'. What is your personal take on the Urban Heat Island effect, for instance? How much do you think it contributes to global surface temperature figures, and why? How is it that the GISS temperature series showed Canada as having a warm winter, when most of the residents were seeing more snow and ice than they ever had in their lives before? How is it that upper atmosphere temperatures have not risen as they are supposed to in the AGW models? How is it that the last fifteen years have seen a steady rise in CO2 but no significant rise in global temperature?

It's really not hard to find this 'inconvenient' information: but it's apparently impossible to counter it. At least, nobody has done so to my knowledge. Find a way to reconcile AGW with these facts and you will have earnt the right to call for change.

Jon J - they may be hard working, but they are probably unpaid for the very good reason that their opinions aren't worth anything.

[Deleted. Referred to earlier post deleted and was abusive.]

There is a definite pattern with all the deniers here. They respond to the presentation of evidence with initially scorn and spurious references, followed by supercilious posturing and then attacking the individuals who put up anything that opposes their pre-conceived notions.

Loxton/tonykevin 1, this is appalling stuff.

Your posts have driven the case for AGW to new lows. Many supporters of AGW on OLO at least put in enormous effort into research, articulate conclusions, check facts and more importantly, have moved forward with the developing debate. You two have single handedly pushed the debate into the dark ages.

Shame on you both

I think it is all appalling stuff and from many on both sides. I was reading the thread and some of the abuse of Tony and wondering whether to wade in when he responded in kind, so I've left most of it alone, but will be keeping an eye on the thread and won't be tolerant going forward on it.