I don't really believe in global warming, but I do believe in our climate constantly changing, as it has since the beginning of time.

No, I don't understand all the scientific data that apparently points to global warming, however I really can't imagine that us mere humans could have any real impact on such a huge, natural event as climate change.

Oneundergod, you must live on youtube online? Why anyone would take the evidence of such a website that any moron could write on or send in videos etc, is beyond me!

Do you have a huge page of website addresses in front of you while you answer these posts or what?

Good luck to you anyway.

"So, when the climate change sceptics can just get around to putting forward their own hypothesis, based on hundreds of thousands of PhD hours, as to why the exact amount of pollution that is *just right* for the planet (which was doing fine before human population became significant) *just happens* to be whatever we *just happen* to make, I might have the slightest time for them."

Rusty, when you can explain why carbon dioxide -- which is necessary for all plants to survive, which makes up only about three ten-thousandths of the atmosphere. which is produced by virtually every living thing on the planet, and which stimulates plant growth when administered in larger-than-atmospheric proportions -- is 'pollution', then people may take you seriously.

Or not.

Just a few little snippets here: particularly for IanC and Curmudgeon.

Firstly, from Carl Wunsch,Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the chief consultant scientist for the GGWS:
"Mr. Steven Green
10 March 2007

I am writing ..about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled... Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. ..a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation. ... This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4."

And this little gem from Steve McIntyre, courtesy of Deltoid:

McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source:

Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith

In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.

He had it all along , despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal"

Cheers

Sancho, as the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore has a starring role in "Not evil, just wrong". Ian Plimer does not. But as every scoundrel knows, the best form of defense is attack, hey?

bushbred, in my experience, it is those living closest to the inner-city - in other words, the most removed from the natural environment - who are the most eager proselytizers of AGW, while those who live in rural areas like I do - the people closer to the natural environment - are more likely to be skeptics regarding AGW. They are also most especially opposed to the Rudd Government's "CPRS", because they know full well that they'll be the ones paying for this latest scientific fad.

Does Sancho or any other reader have a reference to back up his allegation that Durkin "retracted his graph and publicly announced that not only was it misrepresentative, but he had doctored it to make it so"? In the absence of such a reference it seems that Sancho must have made the story up.

Sillyfilly, you need not have bothered posting an extended extract from Carl Wunsch’s letter to the chief consulting scientist for TGGWS on my account. Of course I’ve read that letter, and much of the voluminous documentation relating to a series of complaints about TGGWS to the British Office of Communications (Ofcom). In my opinion, the best summary account of the affair is Steve McIntyre’s at “Ofcom: The IPCC Complaint” (www.climateaudit.org/?p=3335) .

It is revealing that Ofcom described ‘the IPCC’ as a complainant – the complaint in question had come from four present or former officeholders of the IPCC, who offered an inaccurate account of IPCC processes. I don’t think the intergovernmental panel knew anything about it.

Sillyfilly also thinks that I should be interested in a ‘gem’ by Deltoid in which he (Tim Lambert) argues that Steve McIntyre made a big fuss about securing data that he had had ‘all the time.’ Well I’m not. I’ve read McIntyre’s side of that story in his post “Core Counts and Reverse Engineering” (9 October), available at www.climateaudit.org/?p=7328#more-7328 , and I’ll be interested to read any comments that may come from dendrochronologists, including those whose work must now be reviewed in the light of data that had previously been withheld by Keith Briffa.

Oh dear Mark, I guess someone forgot to send the memo to the entomologists. An interesting and factual article from May Berenbaum, Professor and Head of Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html

Compare and contrast these two statements:

Mark: "That adaption doesn't apply is obvious. What explanation is required? DDT is not being used on the general population of insects, just in the houses, ergo there is no chance for the general population to adapt. The problem of insect adaption to insecticides, as you know, is well studied."

May: "Genes for DDT resistance can persist in populations for decades. Spraying DDT on the interior walls of houses -- the form of chemical use advocated as the solution to Africa's malaria problem -- led to the evolution of resistance 40 years ago and will almost certainly lead to it again in many places unless resistance monitoring and management strategies are put into place"

There seems to be some conflict, who to believe? The professor of entomology or the journalist? I just don't know.

Something else interesting:

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/july/ddtinsects.htm

DDTs reputation overblown? No, I don't think so. But it appears to me that you are not so much concerned about malaria as this being a vehicle to be able to point and laugh at environmentalists. Which it isn't. Not evil, just wrong.