"Sceptics and denialists misunderstand or misrepresent the scientific process." Rubbish, and we now know that Scientists in climate science do misrepresent data don't we?

Scientists are like anyone else in the community, attracted to money, these are not priests, oh .. I guess in your Consensual First Church of the Settled Scientists, they are.

You're not a climate scientist are you? AGW believers will complain about you mentioning Climate Science you know, or is that only if they are skeptical?

Other scientific areas will be tarnished by this little cartel in the UK, maybe there are other scientific frauds going on?

Usually the MSM are quite defendent of whistleblowers?

What's the problem? (worried about losing funding, a grant perhaps?)

If it's all good data and nothing to worry about - what's the issue?

You need to relax Geoff, methinks you protest too loudly. Do you think your credibility is being questioned? Should it be?

I'm sure if there's nothing in those email and source code, you wouldn't worry about them.

No one doubts that the climate changes or whether it is warming, and you know that don't you - the argument for us the Liberals etc, is whether it is man caused and even if it is, by how much - you try to make out that anyone who doubts, does not believe in science.

Your dishonest article is a typical "believer" attack and tries to weasel around things, tries to make out there's a conspiracy, mentions Exxon Mobil - and you wonder why people are beginning to suspect scientists (climate or not) are not straight up and down - I'll show your article to people to show just how tricky and sleazy scientists are trying to protect their little realms.

Like PM Rudd and all the hysterical ranters, you are alienating people .. keep it up, it helps the skeptical cause no end!

Apologies Ludwig. I wanted to get this article up quickly this morning which meant there was a slight delay between posting it and getting the urls for the graphs. It is all fixed now.
Susan - ed

There’s that silly “climate denialists” whine, again! The way this bloke puts it, people who are not in a frenzy about climate change are now denying that there is any such thing as ‘climate’, let alone climate change. There is no such word as ‘denialist’ either.

There is no point in listening to someone who cannot express himself properly in English, our national language.

This laziness in expression fits in with the climate hysterics’ laziness in the ‘science’ they claim backs up their man-made theory of climate change. Everyone else is wrong; dodgy computer models are right, even though they are not good enough to give accurate forecasts on a day to day or weekly basis,and their graphs and diagrams are right – just like the ‘hockey stick’ diagram?

“The denial of global warming by the Liberal Party is now exposed to the bright sunlight. Denialism lurks also in the other major parties, courtesy of the coal lobby.”

Oh Please! Labelling the Libs “denialists because they didn’t pass Rudd’s ridiculous ETS is typical of the hysteria surrounding this issue. Throw in the coal lobby for good measure! Already we are seeing “experts” from around the globe saying that an ETS is not the answer. If Rudd, Wong et al were really worried about climate change they wouldn’t be swanning around the globe telling anyone who will listen what great warriors they are. They would be curbing their ridiculously huge carbon footprint, employ a little technology (rather than jet aircraft) for meetings and get on with a few practical efforts at home.

Why does our “green” PM reject nuclear power out of hand? Australia should be leading the world in this low emitting technology. The only reason our per head emissions are so high is our reliance on coal fired power stations. Solar and wind power are not going to run Brisbane’s electric train network let alone the factories that produce wind turbines and solar panels. CO2 sequestration will require almost half of a stations output to function (if they could make it work).

Another simple solution would be to legislate for every vehicle (passenger and light delivery) sold after, say, 2014 be powered by natural gas or gas/electric hybrid.

There are many simple, effective solutions but the global power brokers are determined to get richer on the coat tails of carbon trading and ET schemes. In the eyes of the Gores and Goldman Sachs of this world GW is all about profit.

I must be naive but I thought that scepticism was the essence of science, with scientists constantly trying to disprove various theories. This is one of the principal reasons that I am convinced something stinks about the whole process. The hectoring of dissidents, labelling them as "deniers" (with the implied comparison to holocaust deniers), and the way the whole subject has been hijacked towards increased payments to the third world, confirms my belief that it is a put up job. If it were true that CO2 emissions must be reduced, they have to be reduced by everyone, rich and poor alike. The attempt to portray the third world as victims, rather than as villians, illustrates this. It should be remembered that 50 years ago the world population was 3 billion, and next year it will be 7 billion, with the third world responsible for 85% of the increase. Supporters of the third world claim that this doesn't matter because their emissions are so low, ignoring the huge immigration to the west who all soon start emitting at western rates. The proposals to pay huge sums to the third world so they will cut their emissions simply will not be approved. The simplest way to solve this is to tell them that if they don't cut their emissions they will lose the aid they currently receive. If that doesn't work bomb their cities, shell their ports, cut off all trade and aid until they comply. It worked with Serbia.

The other reason that makes me scepticial is that the IPCC assumes that emissions will continue to increase despite the fact that we a running out of oil, and particularly cheap oil. Again, the assumption that we will have continuous economic growth is very courageous considering that we may be entering a 40 year depression.

Geoff. I am a sceptic. But about what, do you think?

There is evidence for local and regional climate change in many places. But is this 'global' climate change (more accurately 'warming')? To my mind that is far from proven. It is evident that the main temperature series have been tampered with. Have a look, for example at the blink comparator of the GISS temperature series used in 1990 by Hansen et al, and that used now. It is evident that the early 20th C temperatures have been 'adjusted' down. It is also very evident that the delta Urban Heat Island effect (by which I mean changes in UHI effects) are contributing to apparent warming.

You seem to be convinced that CO2 is the worst/most serious problem. But how do YOU know that? The case has never been made in a compelling, engineering quality case that would pass normal due diligence required for stock exchange statements. In my view it is highly unlikely that CO2 is the problem. It is certainly not proven.

Focussing on CO2 is diverting attention/resources away from the real problems of AGW to a silly diversion.

The REAL issue relates to land-use factors. In short, we have disrupted natural hydrological cycles in many areas, leading to dehydration of the landscape. There is heaps of evidence that this is so - check Peter Andrews, Permaculture and lots of others. Industrial agriculture, destruction of vegetation in various ways, irrigation, chemicals, monocultures are all factors.

Roger Pielke Sr documents these factors in real detail, and provides substantial evidence.

Please use your critical thinking capabilities and have another look at the issues.