Response to Jedm: Very happy to add ‘reducing consumption’ to the list.

Response to BBgun:
Point 2: Bolt describes a co-written article the words in the quotation are not written by Roger Revelle in 1991 but by Fred Singer in 1990. We know this because the words were previously published by Singer in Environmental Science and Technology Magazine:
Index: http://pubs3.acs.org/acs/journals/toc.page?incoden=esthag&indecade=1&involume=24&inissue=8
Scan: http://home.att.net/~espi/Singer_article_solo.pdf

Bolt adds “And some warming might even be good, he added”, implying Revelle wrote these words, however it’s the 1990 Singer article which says this.

A NASA website says: “In 1957, Revelle and Hans Suess, one of the founders of radiocarbon dating, demonstrated that carbon dioxide had increased in the air as a result of the use of fossil fuels” and “Under Revelle's leadership, [there was publication of] the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a potential global problem.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Revelle/revelle_2.html

Tim Lambert describes point 2 as “misleading”. If told that Albert Einstien wrote an article, just before he died, saying that E=MC2 is wrong, how would you describe that?

Point 3: Bolt asks a question by Professor Jeff Severinghaus, but drops the answer. Asking a question, Bolt claims nothing. This is indeed misleading, because a reader will assume the answer creates a problem for Gore. Only by knowing the professor’s answer do we discover it doesn’t cause a problem.

Point 4: Gore shows several glaciers in the film, but Bolt says deforestation has caused Mt Kilimanjaro to melt. Lambert says Bolt is wrong, but he is more silly than wrong. Here's why:

Take five icecubes out into the sunshine. Sprinkle salt on one cube to help it melt. All the icecubes begin to melt. What caused the ice cubes to melt?

In today's world all glaciers are retreating. Deforestation may or may not effect Kilimanjaro, but cannot explain the others, so it is falsified in the general case. Global warming explains why every glacier is receeding, so it can explain why any single glacier receeds.

More to come!

on a side issue, gore's point about the negative correlation between consensus in scientific papers and articles on global warming in the popular media is perfectly born out by Jennifer's exercise in selective referencing in today's Australian.

it is interesting to consider the differences between Jennifer's article and a previous ipcc report on the effect of global warming on coral.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/247.htm

the problem, which is symptomatic with many media articles on global warming is that Jennifer selectively excludes evidence contrary to her position. in particular the principal (backed by referenced studies in the ipcc report) that the benefits of sea level rise are outweighed by the negative impact of temperature and associated acidity of the water.

the fundamental difference is one of predetermined positions, the ipcc report highlights both the positive and negative effects of global warming and comes to the conclusion that the sum of the negative outweighs the positive. Jennifer, mentions only the positive effects and therefore comes to the conclusion she started with.

"Chris and Tim, do you concede that Peiser does not concede"

GrahamY, what part of Peiser's email to Mediawatch:

"Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism."

do you not understand?

(The above quote from Peiser's email to Mediawatch: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf )

Response to Col Rouge:
Yes, you have explained that global warming is a conspiracy by scientists in publicly funded institutions to get rich and investigate . Well done! The next step should be to ban scientists from our universities. We should get science undergraduates to read Andrew Bolt... by rote! Don't I feel stupid defending those frauds?

Well... No.

Response to MichaelK:
I think its very rude of the scientific community to ignore your common-sense opinion and rely upon their objective research.

David Latimer,

Although your opinion expressed was more than very much appreciated, a reality is much more worse: it is not only simply "very rude of the scientific community to ignore [a] common-sense opinion", but pursuing own "objective research" simply annihilates intelligence -and not intelligence only- of biologically inferior professionals with a very traditional help of playing English at rules-establishing places mates as clear for ones less subtle in mastering tautology.

Jedm,

"Why are current Western governments so obsessed with "productivity"? -because it is simply silly to produce own ammunition somewhere in the third world countries.

Eventually, this sentence needs no further clarifications.

Tim Lambert, there is not much point arguing with you because you don't argue you assert. I've now had a good look at your blog. It's a good example of what I call "argument by bibliography". You obviously don't understand the issues so what you do is link to articles, blog posts etc by people who you assume do know what they are talking about. When one follows those links they frequently lead to blogs just like your own. When one questions your assertions you don't argue, your refer.

The end result is a vortex of equally ill-informed opinions footnoting each other. No wonder you love peer review so much!

I've posted Peiser's email and he says that he doesn't retract his criticism of Oreskes study and your response is to pluck one comment where he concedes one point out of context. You also quote Media Watch, but of course, their claim is undocumented. Their word against his.

I note that you've also opened a post on your own blog this issue so as to take a swipe at me. No doubt there is security in operating in a space where only like-minds congregate.

The fact that OLO publishes varying, but quality, opinion is why we are as successful as we are. It is a space quite unlike your own blog. It's not a ghetto. I got involved in this particular debate because your article was so below par for OLO it was an embarrassment.

And it makes your criticism of my membership of the Liberal Party quite irrelevant. If I were some party hack I wouldn't be publishing a site like this, I'd be publishing one like yours!

If you want references to surveys of scientists showing a significant degree of doubt over Greenhouse, do a proper literature review for once. You might start with the many statements from formal and informal groups of scientists that dispute the "consensus". If that doesn't lead you anywhere come back and I'll see whether I can help you out.