Because there is no hard evidence of Tuvaluans being forced to flee rising seas, scientist Lambert links to a transcript of a Living on Earth radio show -- do you reckon they might have an agenda? With his excerpt starting off "Seeing themselves as climate refuges..." it is immediately suspect. The transcript also contains the following:

"Over the last decade, the islanders have come [to New Zealand] for many reasons – better jobs, college, overcrowding on the islands – and to escape what many see as a threat of sea level rise, caused by global warming."

Tuvalu has always been an iffy place to live, its physical problems now exacerbated by social and economic problems related to its growing population. Tuvaluans are leaving for New Zealand not because they’re fleeing rising seas; they’re leaving in search of a better life.

As Lambert offers not a scrap of proof that a single Tuvaluan has fled the islands to escape rising seas, this one goes to Bolt.

Any comment from the editors?

1. After a long and tedious process Peiser has finally admitted that only one article out of the 928 "rejected or doubted" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming, http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm . This was a non-reviewed committee report in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin. Peiser says he withdrew his criticism of Oreskes' study in March 2006. Oreskes said she analysed abstracts from refereed scientific journals, so I don't know how this committee report got on to Peiser's list. Gore was referring to reviewed scientific papers as stated by Oreskes when he said not one disputed that man’s gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures (quoting from Bolt). Bolt 0. I'll continue when I have time.

“Pure casuistry” (to use Perseus’s term) on both sides, including from Perseus himself.

Surely global warming is too important to warrant a point-scoring game between OLO correspondents and apologists for a populist columnist.

Maybe Gore and Lambert exaggerated the case. Maybe Andrew Bolt sits in a pig-headed corner. Are we capable of debating the real issues with a calm examination of the evidence?

Benny Peiser told Media Watch on 12 October 2006: “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

“Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (… see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i-detect-first-tiny-rumblings-of.html)

“Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.”

Yet an open mind may be a necessary, but not be a sufficient, response. If Gore is wrong, and nations have taken measures to prevent a catastrophe, what is the harm? If Bolt is wrong, and we’ve done nothing, what is the future of this planet?

Jennifer, you regret OLO has published Lambert’s piece because “the general impression that most readers will take away from the piece is that: Andrew Bolt is a dill and Tim Lambert knowledgable”. Are you being condescending in your assessment of OLO readers’ intelligence? A touch preemptive? A touch too ready to censor views that you disagree with?

FrankGol is quite succinct in his assessment; though the devil's advocate in me wants to point out the significant costs of investment that will be required to reduce the impact of global warming in any way.
Overall however, this investment would be a drop in the proverbially swollen ocean if even a fraction of the foretold damage occurs.

I just can't help but wonder what's in it for the climate change scientists who say we have just cause to be worried.
It's easy to see what's in it for the deniers. There are many people with a vested interest in the status quo.
Can anyone give me any reason as to why these scientists would do such a thing?
If I stretch my imagination I can conceive of a few, but they certainly don't stack up to
A: The obvious vested interests of powerful people in maintaining the status quo.
B: The number of scientists who fall on the 'global warming is happening' side of the argument.

I'm sorry, but the argument "they're all fundamentalist green lefties" just doesn't cut it.

So... if global warming is a farce, can anyone give me a convincing reason as to why so many scientists are convinced global warming is happening?

If not, then what on earth are we arguing about?

TurnRightThenLeft has got it exactly right with the question of motives. I can think of no rational motive to fabricate evidence in support of the suggestion that mankind is damaging the globe. There are, however, plenty of motives to fabricate the opposite.

Still, there's alot of uncertainty with the science behind understanding whats happening to the globe, which is upsurprising, given the fast array of potential causes and incredibly complex systems of the planet.

But it's definately not a matter of Left v Right. Its our world we're talking about. Its not politics, its the health of the planet. We should all be intent of finding the truth, whatever that may be, not searching for reasons to take stick with our 'team'.

Far be it for the green house gas bags to distort, cherry pick and misrepresent information in the promotion of their own agenda.

Noooooooooooooo, they are above such tawdry tactics, like quasi-celebrity fronted info-tainment stage spectaculars. Ohhhh, look at all those lights and graphics and numbers. Its sooooo compelling.

The 'global warming' debate is a larf. Each side has taken to criticising each others crticisms of each other.

Yet still, no actual proof. Ah, humbug, who needs proof when you've got a mountain of computer modelled correlation is causation spin.

As for argueing the presented fact(oids). bwahahahahha. Since when do overt interests with an agenda to promote ever place any importance on OBJECTIVELY and INDEPENDENTLY VERIABIABLE facts. Gore is a politician and so is Bolt... and these types deal in grey areas and opinions with just enough (but not too much) merit to keep the noise levels up.

Here's a fact... they could just appeal to peoples intelligence and say that pollution is a bad thing and we should reduce it, with diligence. Instead of patronising us behind a littany of cherry picked nonsense used to validate their political agenda. They could stop treating us like children who dont fundamentally understand the nature of politics and the deserved skeptism with which all politically motived offerings should be received.

Personally, l reckon the greenhouse facts are a bunch of hot air, none of which stops me from consciously reducing my personal contribution to waste and polution. The merits of reducing pollution are so blindingly self evident, l hardly need a bunch of factoid agenda driven reasons to justify it.

This is high jinx at its most paradoxical. Thanx for the larfs.