Im definitely biased but I much prefer the arguments given in Climate Code Red, a book which was launched here in Oz by that well known extremist the Governor of Victoria.

http://www.climatecodered.net

Meanwhile the key to understanding Evans article is in the first paragraph in his assertion that the humankind induced global-warming advocates are promoting an anti-science medieval world-view.

Which is of course Utter Crapp, as the Black Adder told us.

And that these anti-scientists are thus intent upon a collective exercise in global social-engineering to suit their own "interests"---what interests?

If what they say is true then we are all going to go down the tubes, or suffer dreadfully.

It seems to me that the vast majority of these scientists are doing science in the best tradition of promoting the public interest.

The corollary being that only Evans and his fellow "sceptics", that is true believers, see "reality true" free of any ideological or institutional bias, theories, and social engineering agendas.

One should read Global Spin by Sharon Beder to find out what/whose interests Evans et al really serve.

Which are certainly not my interests or the interests of the billions of breathing-feeling beings on this planet.

White coated scientists have been used by the "authorities" to tell us that smoking was good for us, that nuclear radiation was harmless, and that altogether Toxic Sludge is Good For Us.

The tropical hotspot is a signature of GW? Why? Because Dr Evans says it is.

Personally it sounds like a good place to go next winter holidays.

Hi peeps
was directed to this article by David Evans from a google search, and I have to say it was one of the best articles I have read on AGW. Given that you can only evidence so many arguments within the AGW debate, I thought it referenced and nodded in all the right directions thoroughly, throughout the piece.
Well said. And I am glad there is a platform here to be heard - thanks.
Would recommend any aspiring skeptic to purchase these fine sources of information:
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner
Vaklav Klaus's "Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?
And Lord Lawson's An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming...
...as excellent expose's of the politcal and ideological [mis]use of the science...the history of the supra-national UN, the Club of Rome and more general Communitarian concepts along with a very interesting exploration of the "media" bias associated with AGW.
As David Evans suggests "a medieval outlook", I would in turn suggest a much more recent political analogy: Lysenkoism. A quick google search of Lysenko AGW heralds a few very apt criticisms of the "science" debate...one of which is here:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/parallels-between-lysenkoism-and-agw/

Anyway, it's fun being in a skeptic minority - especially when it starts to turn out you are correct!

Justin Ert

I guess the folks here complaining about the imbalance of articles on AGW are also in contact with The Age, SMH and ABC complaining just as bitterly about the total bias found there and that NO articles balancing the debate can be found - in fact I have seen only one article in 3 years that even mentioned there was another side to AGW in the Age - so why should OLO have to become like those biased outlets? Unless it's a complain just to suppress debate?

Well said Justin .. totally agree.

Dr Evans is proved correct, he gets attacked personally as soon as he documents his point of view, science should be passonless and in pursuit of cold hard facts - not this emotional blackmail about how little time we have left and we're leaving a problem for our children, hysterical rubbish, it has no place in science.

kulu - BTW, there is little research into AGW not happening, as there is little research into the sky falling, it's up to proponents of AGW to prove it, not everyone else to disprove it. There is research into climate, if that helps, but then you have to be wary of the motives of people's conclusions. What do AGW advocates get out of it, well scientists can get funding if they link research grant requests to AGW. Everyone in the MSM love disasters, bad news sells - so be wary of all the bad news, it's just people doing their jobs, that's all.

Quite simply, most scientist can guess what might happen if Carbon level increases, but noone actually know what will happen. There are so many effect of a high carbon level, it changes sunlight, wind, sea level, plant life etc, that it is impossible to know what will happen. The fact that almost all of immediate predictions had not come true, makes it very difficult for people to believe in their predictions.

As for the interesting parties
Scientist get paid $150k to $500k a year to do this research, if their research does not support global warming, they stop receiving funding.
Countries that imports Coal/petroleum etc
Countries that support nuclear power and has the expertise in nuclear reactor

Whooa - that should have been "there is little research into AGW not happening, as there is little research into the sky NOT falling", similar to arguments of why is there no research to prove there are no elephants in antarctica - it does not need to be proved, the AGW believers have to prove there is a link between CO2 and Global Warming, it's "supposed" to be a direct correlation and all the models are "supposed" to prove it - but outside the laboratory, there is a cool 2008 - so what happened? (there is no proof is there, it's all supposition?)

Clearly the variables picked for the models are wrong, the initial hypothesis is wrong - so it appears, by observation, that AGW is not happening, or each year would get successively warmer, which it is not. There may be long term climate changes, there allways have been there allways will be, so what - we adapt, we allways have.

You need to keep questioning, that's science, not adopting a belief system, that's religion.

If the facts change, e.g. every year gets hotter and hotter, and I'll continue to review it, then I might change my mind - but so far, the facts don't line up with the hysterical shouting of AGW believers, there seems to be very little reason out there in that camp, a lot of name calling and demands for control, bullies in other words.