Nice article in todays Australian

Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24122117-7583,00.html

Runner,
God gave a man a bag that contained the seeds of life. The man realized it was important so he decided decided to defend it against all commers. Many doubter said it was just a bag of seeds. So the man used the bag to beat a few into sumission even killed some others.
Eventually as an old man, he opened to find it contained dried and shrivelled seeds... the seeds of life. He died disallusioned.
Moral 1: it's what YOU do with the seeds that determines their value.
moral 2: Best you look at and learn what God meant and not what you think he meant. God is about love/tollerance not beating people over the head with mistaken beliefs/prejudices.

BTW Do you really believe that the "Australian's" journalist without training in the science are any more qualified to talk about Climate Change than any other wanna be entertainer?
Newspapers sell advertising. To do this they entertain to get readers. visa vie their existance depends on those who benefit most from Status Quo.
My Granny used to say: Believe 1/3 of what you hear, 1/2 you see and none of what you read in a news paper.
Why don't you take up my challenge and put forward your hypothesis and give the scientific evidence to prove it. (Peer reviewed) my evidence is widely published.

This link is interesting and seems to have slipped well under the radar in our media. Apparently "31,000 scientists" petitioning against AGW - AND its more fence-sitting cousing - anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

mil-observer wrote: "Apparently '31,000 scientists'" ...

This I am sure you would know is old news and has been dismantled on many previous occasions. The list began in '98 when over half of the signatures of self-described scientists or engineers or "equivalents" were collected. Many may have changed their minds by now, but will still be listed. It consists of slips of paper, and later, internet submissions, sent in by people promising that they hold various qualifications, in an unscrutinised process. The list of signatories has been shown to contain people who are not scientists/engineers, people who are dead, duplications, company names, and fictional characters, such as "BJ Honeycutt" from MASH. The vast majority of the other signatories are from unrelated disciplines. Only a fraction of the legitimate scientists on the list hold PhDs. None of the petition editors have climate science qualifications. The senior editor is also on record as saying "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths."

More can be read on SourceWatch:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Now for some new news:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-climate-change-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html

... "Exxon Mobil acknowledged it had been doing something similar. It said it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change. Exxon's decision came after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the company to take climate change more seriously. "

... "Brad Miller, chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, last year said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion". The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes which house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005, Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". Its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat."

You'd think Roger Jones would tackle the most important fact that since 2003 the ice core data reveal that CO2 levels follow warming by 800 yrs.Prior this it was accepted that the reverse was true.How does he exlain this?It is suggested that heating causes the release of CO2 from the oceans.Co2 is a minor GW gas.The Jurassic period had CO2 levels tens times that of the present and life thrived.We have increased CO2 levels by only one third.The antartic ice remains unchanged in surface area.The Artic Sea Ice appears to be growing back.The world has moved into a much cooler period even with the growth of China and India accelerating Co2 emitions.No tell tale hot spots have been found 10,000 m above the equator.

Bob Carter has photographic proof showing lots of official US Govt temp recording stations being re-located near air conditioning units,on bitumen,near buildings etc.The general urban heat island effect also has an impact as cities grow.Could this be distorting their data?

Politics ,money power and reputations have now stolen the debate.$50 billion has now being given to the scientific community since 1990 for climate research.They had to find something or lose their funding.The models the IPCC bases all its arguments on,are totally inadaquate.The IPCC is an arm of the UN which they are using to expand their power base.They want to be the epicentre of the Penny Wong's "new world order."


No scientfic model can possibly replicate the complexities of climate and the case for AGW is far from proven.To be honest,I smell a rat.

Thanks Sams: I thought it seemed a bit easy to marshal that many scientists! The polling method seemed too fast and furious too.

I was concerned to see some the "conspiractist" assaults via the sourcewatch link though. It starts to look very much like hyperbole from the other (AGW) direction.