Well done, Graham, another climate change sceptic given the podium while time for action ticks away.

Are we going to see a detailed rebuttal of this blog by a scientist qualified and specializing in the field? In the interest of balance, I sincerely hope so.

The author makes several snide references to the supposed pecuniary gains made by prominent AGW proponents. Again, in the interests of fairness and balance, we need to see exactly who is paying this little piper. And what pecuniary benefits he's deriving from playing the tune that provides such welcome music to the ears of big business.

Bronwyn,
Come on! There have been heaps of articles by 'global warmerists' for years and yet no real evidence has shown humans are responsible, only supposition.

Now you are whinging because a few articles now are coming forward questioning the 'religion' of AGW.

Bronwyn,
This article was posted as one of the Best Blogs of 2008 as judged by a panel. Graham was not on the panel that judged this particular piece. It was posted at Club Troppo to enable commenters to engage in a civilised debate on the topic. If you follow the links to the original Club Troppo post you can follow the debate there.
Susan Prior - ed

There’s nothing new in this piece, all of these have been addressed time and time again. In the end there will always be people who refuse to except the obvious. For those interested a quick search on the internet will find the other side of the argument... oh but then again they are just part of the big.....
Mr Evens if you want to know why sane people get abusive towards you very quickly go talk to a creationist, and try a talk about the over whelming evidence for evolution.

It's much more than a few articles, Banjo. The sceptics have consistently been given free reign on OLO, at least for the three or so years I've been posting anyway. At one stage when this issue was being debated I did a count and the articles by climate change sceptics and deniers definitely outnumbered those by proponents of the science.

This issue of balance has surfaced several times now that I'm aware of and Graham has been involved in the debate each time. I know he's busy, but he could easily end the speculation on the part of myself and others, once and for all, by revealing the numbers of articles he's published on OLO from the two sides. He hasn't done this. Why hasn't he? Because he knows the results will prove that this site is a haven for climate change sceptics.

Even if he were to publish the count, how reliable would it be? Graham is after all a sceptic himself. What he might view as a balanced article on the side of human induced climate change, others would possibly view differently.

Susan

I understand the article was a Best Blog and all. That doesn't negate the need for a balanced rebuttal. I do understand also that the editing decisions don't rest solely with Graham, so I know in fairness the comments I'm directing at him should in fact be directed at you and anyone else making editorial decisions as well.

Would somebody please tell me who these 'vested interests' are? Sceptics repeatedly talk about vested interests and how they want to change the world but no-one actually names them, or how they might benefit from promoting global energy efficiency and a close look at how we use finite resources.

How about it? Who are these people? Who intends turning the planet into a socialist nirvana using - of all things - climate change theory? Is this simply an echo of the republican meme whereby oil producers get tax breaks and consumerism is promoted as a panacea to depression? Is it a vehicle to have a dig at 'science' overall?
After all, 45% or thereabouts of Americans believe in creationism; scientists and their evil empiricism just can't be tolerated, y'know.