Further, one is shocked by the opinionations of so many of our OLO contributors. Instead of admitting that what the Greenies and Demo’s are on about could concern a safer future, they are so smart-arse and sure of themselves, many seem as if they too have dropped down in the last shower, drilled like some of the young dim-wits who have been caught in our long-running real estate boom.

The lesson is, of course, that to try and hold back something preventative and beneficial as our OLO smarties are doing to the Greenies et al, is breaking the same natural laws, as when the smarties get caught in real estate booms.

So what will be the gain if types like Durkin and Deane are proven right? What sort of world will our great-great grandkids inherit if they get their way - hold things up, and are proven wrong in the long run?

rstuart shows clearly the mentality of many on the side of AGW. He comments "The opening statement of the piece effectively said "Climate change supporters are liars". If this isn't open aggression then I don't know what is."

A quick perusal simply shows the author of the article stated he was skeptical about AGW. To many, like rstuart, to disagree with them is to call them liars and an act of aggression. Such an attitude is certainly an effort to stiffle debate and in no way a scientific or rational approach to investigation.

rstuart also throws around a suggestion that 90% of a 'community' (assumedly the scientific community) support AGW. This is somewhat unsupported and more than likely false.

I agree with brushbred that we need to ensure we are always moving forward to more efficient, less polluting sources of energy and not simply being wasteful. However, I am also skeptical of AGW. The 'solution' that many AGW supporters are pushing is more harmful than all our wastefulness and pollution.

It is ironic, that the very environmentalists who argue that our natural resources are limited, seem to ignore that our financial resources are also limited, and that spending trillions of dollars to combat an uncertain somewhat small temperature increase, necessarily takes resources away from combating poverty and helping the developing world develop.

"A quick perusal simply shows the author of the article stated he was skeptical about AGW. To many, like rstuart, to disagree with them is to call them liars and an act of aggression

Posted by Grey, Friday, 13 July 2007 2:21:58 PM"

A quick perusal of what? The statement that people who say GW is true are liars is in the first minutes of the "swindle" "documentary".

I too watched with some interest to see how our pathetic media would handle this doco and was not surprised. The stand out was Bob Carter who looked so out of place surrounded by an incredible assembly of truly loopy and whacko people including Tony Jones. Jones simply doesn't understand how to interview nor moderate in a debate .... being more concerned with his precious self than being productive. Much the same with another member of the crazy media priest class....... Robyn Williams ... a no nothing if ever there was one.

Quite frankly the ABC's loopy, laughably alarmist treatment of Durkin's doco offered a sneak view into the madness, power, politics, funding and control of the global warming industry. e.g. After the doco, wacko Jones inserted some crazy scientist making an analogy to the small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere with the Ebola virus. Boy that certainly was top shelf derangement and only matched by a real fruitloop ... David Karoly. He looked off his face with all this CO2 original sin.

People should be seriously embarrassed with the manner in which our national broadcaster handled this doco but it points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy.

The nutters really came out last night and on this spot as well. How some of these people function on a day to day basis is scary.

If the denialist members of the audience are representative of denialists generally, you guys are in trouble.

Following an implausible 'documentary' which claimed climate change is a conspiracy theory of the capitalism-hating left, started by Maggie Thatcher no less (not generally known for her communist tendencies), the questions from the audience were amusing.

The violinist with the funny hat in the front row was something to behold and the dude yelling "carbon 14, what about the carbon 14" clearly frightened even Duffy.

Tony Jones could have done the whole promo-thing the Swindle fans would have preferred, and just let the Swindle fans in the audience demolish denialism in their own eccentric way.

Yes, it's a good thing the ABC ran it, yes, Jones was heavy-handed and yes, the whole thing was staged to make sceptics look like idiots. But if you're prepared to be honest about it, Swindle's reputation was shot long before last night, and whatever shreds of dignity the denialists had left were gone the minute the audience was let loose.