Sniggid's limp offering: "What a dopey post followed by the usual suspects lambasting Andrew Bolt who is currently on holidays." Not a fact or an idea in sight.

Runner's limp offering: "Its amazing how much the loony left have in common with Islam. They preach fear, hate those who expose their half truths and then use what they call science to back up highly suspect theories. No wonder they love hollywood movies so much." Again not a fact or an idea in sight.

When will you guys learn that throwing insults is doing your side more harm than good? Arguments please. Or have you run out of ideas?

Sniggid, seems like you are one of the modern front-of-the-mind smart-arses who believes that man has never hurt the earth but achieved only good.

As one who has thirteen great grandchildren and the oldest one going on seventeen, could reckon if you are still alive by AD 2100, reckon those 90-year-old former kids, will really have your guts for garters.

Could suggest you get out back of beyond by yourself and really reason a bit, matey, remember the old saying, that it is from deserts the prophets come.

I suspect that Lambert wrote this article with the intention of refuting Bolt’s refutation of Gore. Like Bolt, rather than attempting to objectively analyse each “inconvenient truth”, Lambert conveniently chose scientific papers that supported his own prejudice. What would politicians, journalists or computer scientists know about climate anyway?

Interestingly this piece by Tim Lambert was published at OLO today as it is considered one of the '40 best blogs' written in 2006.

Given its content, I can't imagine the judges of the '40 best blogs' know that much about global warming?

But they should have known Andrew Bolt has a great blog at the Herald Sun ... and they could have probably found a much better written and more factually correct piece at his site.

Maybe they will consider a piece from Andrew Bolt for the 2007 'best blog' anthology?

Cheers, Jennifer (Marohasy)

I'm not aware of all of the facts on Global Warming. Few members of the public truly are.

In such a polarised debate, everyone seems to adopt a viewpoint and hold on for dear life.

As nobody else here seems to be addressing the facts in the article, I'll just summarise the way I see this issue. As I don't know the hardcore science, I'll leave that aspect to other posters.

1. The fact that climate change is occurring is disputed by none. Whether it is man-made appears to be the question.

2. The vast majoirty of scientists have asserted that man has, at the very least, contributed to climate change.

3. Many of those who deny global warming have vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
May I ask, what are the vested interests of those who say it is due to greenhouse gases? Can it compare to the vested interests of the other side? (This is the main point for me. One side has clear motive, the other doesn't - whatever self gain they may have is dubious at best).

Overall however, I wish we could stop playing the blame game at least, and while we can keep canvassing whether it is caused by man, couldn't we have a separate discussion about what we can do about the effects of climate change, man made or not?

It's a bit disappointing that these comments have remained virtually content free, especially when Lambert makes so many gaffes himself that it makes handing out marks to Bolt laughable.

Just working from the top. Claim 1. So what if Peiser didn't count correctly. Just one scientist who doesn't agree negates Gore's claim. If you check the abstracts republished on Lambert's blog you get this quote from the first one: "More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record."

Claim 2. Doesn't really matter whether Revelle died in 1991 or not, if he didn't think the scientific evidence was certain enough, he didn't think it was certain enough and Gore couldn't have possibly been convinced of the dangers by him.

Claim 3. It doesn't matter what Severinghaus says, not only does the record show CO2 increasing after temperature increases, not before, but it also shows temperature decreasing as we go into ice ages, despite increases in C02. So, you can't hang Bolt on this one.

Claim 4. This is the first one where Bolt appears to be half wrong. Would appear that temperatures haven't changed in this area of Africa, but precipitation has, and precipitation changed around 125 years ago, so probably not global warming related. If he'd left the trees out he would have been OK

I could go on, but the word limit won't let me.

If Gore's agit-prop was half-baked, and it was, Lambert's is raw and barely digestible.