The true believers are in a rightful flurry over this shifting public perspective.

They've gone the alarmist route because it sells better than facts, figures and reasons. The science isnt easy to understand for the unititiated and this inspires doubt.

Whether true or false, there's a general reluctance for people to believe its their fault and they have to change (read, moderate). It wont take much in the way of opposing facts and figures to breathe a sigh of relief.

Dont know if it will be enough to shift the political and economic direction, with its aspiring windfalls being leveraged off this thing.

Can see why both sides are resorting to insults, along the way. It started with the advocates doing the name calling. Now the other side is doing same, which is kinda funny, because on their side, by default, they have the natural tendency of people to skepticm, doubt, caution, reluctance, uncertainty, path of least resistance etc.

Now this camp has got some data to do what they've seen done. And it hasnt taken much. Nowhere near as much effort as the advocates. Plus, the name calling and vitriole looks bad, especially after having been apparently reasonable and scientific (along with escalating alarmist images and notions).

The name calling ensues and one wounders whose gonna fall on what sword.

It is interesting that posters like Northwestshelf want OLO to censor any opinions contrary to their own."Oh come on Graham ,you can do better than this."Fait accompli.

Well the matter is far from being resolved and the true believers need to put their religious fever in perspective.We won't be brow beaten by environmental religious zealots.

Nor, Arjay, will those who accept anthropogenic climate change be swayed by the blizzard of opinion pieces masquerading as science that is being pumped out by RightThink talk shops and routinely republished across all media. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has produced zero original research, spending its webspace instead promoting Fred-smoking-is-good-for-you-Singer and the mining industry funded Lavoisier Group
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition
Its few members include a yank and a queenslander, which suggests geography is not their strong suit, or were they scrabbling for a little camoflage any way they could.

Why do AGW deniers play so dirty? "environmental religious zealots", "terrifying our children", 'hysterical green lobby', “chicken little”, ..

Because they're hoping to drag everyone else into an emotional/illogical mode of thinking, much the way tv soapies get you prepped for the adverts.

I expect they'll keep succeeding.

Somewhat of a false accusation, Arjay, as you'll note I stated my support for a continuing debate on the subject! But I do grow a little tired of articles based on falsehoods, such as this one (as Chade and other commenters have demonstrated).

I also query the worth of publishing polemical articles by authors who are not really qualified to write on the subject (and I note that this applies to authors on both sides of the debate with respect to the AGW issue).

Unfortunately, even Bob Carter's OLO articles consist largely of talking points and attacks on his opponent's motives, notwithstanding that he is in a position to explain his scientific objections to AGW to his readers.

I concede my original language was intemperate (although it is clear that the author's claims, even viewed in their most charitable light, involve distortion of the facts). In part I was reacting against Peter Ridd's article, another disappointingly fact-free rant from a scientifically qualified author who is in a position to write something more informative.

But I suppose I must take the blame for the storm of name-calling that has ensued on this thread. I regret it.

Liam & NWS,most of us sane people are not deniers,we just want to see the hard core scientific proof.Most sane people are open minded about evidence,but it is not forth coming.I will not deny anything that has gone through the rigors of true scientific research.

Smoking causes lung cancer in many people.Accepted.CO2 an minor global warming gas which makes up .04% of our atmosphere has nowhere near the evidence of other cause and effect scenarios.

How can you logically deny something that is not self evident or even proven by meagre scientific methods?To deny means to defy facts & logical analysis.This is not the case with most of us sceptics.There is good reason to be sceptical since the science at best,is circumstancial.

"I will not deny anything that has gone through the rigors of true scientific research."

"To deny means to defy facts & logical analysis.This is not the case with most of us sceptics.There is good reason to be sceptical since the science at best,is circumstancial."

This is the main problem with the "sceptics" position. They sit back, fold their arms and say "Prove it to me beyond all doubt". They make no attempt to explain these phenonema through the same methods that wold impose on those who actually undertake research. In addition they turn the doubt aspect of the scientific method into a "beyond any doubt" test which is completely unreasonable.
It was Houdini and Conan-Doyle where the original public sceptics, they actively set out to uncover charlatans, the current crop of "sceptics " are actually gainsayers , they refuse to mount the debate based on the published research preferring to throw mud and fringe statistics.