leo and co take your tin foil hats off and read a few science journals, and no listening to alan jones on the wireless or reading a right wing web site doesn't count.

@VK3AUU: "Can somebody tell me why there is so much venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW. Why can't you engage in reasoned debate without all this cant. How about looking dispassionately at the evidence before you come up with irrational conclusions."

I've been looking at the evidence nearly every day now for about five years, courtesy of Watts Up With That (winner of the Science Blog of the Year twice running and the single most popular climate science site by a factor of ten or so). I can't say I've always been dispassionate, because some of the claims put forward by AGW alarmists are infuriating and others are just bloody hilarious. But somehow I think that by 'the evidence' you mean 'MY evidence'. So prove me wrong; how many WUWT posts have YOU read?

What evidence would that be VK3?

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global climate.

If you know of any such science, please let us know.

The only known bases for the support of AGW are ignorance or dishonesty.

That is the simple fact, hence a rational conclusion.

Happy, now, VK3?

"Can somebody tell me why there is so much venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW."

More humour; must be tongue in cheek surely.

AGW isn't an idea; it's an ideology; a rotten ideology. For me the best representation of the science and rationale for AGW is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og

"venom being propagated by those who are opposed to the idea of AGW."

Mate, you are out to lunch.

Here's a link I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

"How do people reject climate science?"

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

Apparently we should be on the lookout for "...cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs."

Go 'em all here.

That should be "Got 'em all here". (And we have them in spades)

Just noted Jon J's hilarious reference to WUWT winning the Science Blog of the Year - twice running!

Well, whoopy-do! Shame the guy isn't a scientist. Isn't he the one who said he'd back Muller whatever conclusion he came to?

Strange how all the "skeptics" have disowned the "genuine skeptic".