A response to valid concern.

bjedwards brought up two concerns, and I'll handle them 1. That the nay-sayers are not as well educated as their counterparts. 2. The debate being called uneven by the nay sayers. First the Oxford Union debated this in detail with sources. Second the alarmists only got three good airings with The Great Global Warming Swindle, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura and Global Warming: Emerging Science and Understanding. Ginny challenges no methods or processes, or accepted "truths". A.G.

When Lies Become Truths

In reply to scott from Bisbane. You certainly know how to throw around the insuls. I believe that you should check you facts before making statements that people who are skeptical about CO2 being the main driver of the climate are mostly un educated. You should possibly look up the USA Senate minority report where over 700 emminent scientists, many involved with atmospheric physic and climate studies, gave evidence against the hypothesis that CO2 concentration controls climate.

Cherry Picking

Perhaps Ms Stein should have cast her net a bit wider with respect to real climate scientists. I believe that she should have also talked to leading climate scientists who are sceptical about CO2 and the link to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Two examples would be Richard Lindzen fro MIT and Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Ms Stein and dateline may think they are being balanced but it is sill the same old cheerleading.

Climate Change-Climate Warfare

When will some mainstream reporter investigate the man-made climate effects from Defence manipulation operations and present that as part of a fair debate on climate change. Sure the every day person has some responsibility with their carbon footprint, however this pales into significance when Defence institutions (and other private ones) are messing with our fragile ionosphere through projects such as HAARP in Alaska for the reason to control the weather for the ultimate climate warfare.

Bad language

The way the terms "climate change", "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming" seem to be used interchangeably makes the message in this piece very confusing. "Climate change denier" is also a meaningless term because the climate is plainly changeable with periodic droughts, floods, record storms,desertification, ice ages, etc. A scientific statement needs to be unambiguous and also not contain numbers pulled out of nowhere otherwise you could be mistaken for an IPCC (IPAGW) parrot

The inconvienient truth about the inconvienient truth

Shame ;The Inconvienient Truth' never showed how the increase in CO2 levels FOLLOWED Global temperature, instead of pre-ceeding it. A fact which whows that increased CO2 levels are a follow on effect of the ocean re-leasing CO2 after (200 years after) the planet temperature begins to rise! www.thevenusproject.com ... this is what the planets leaders should be trying to acheive, and the rest of us should be telling them to do so! Please watch "Zeitgeist adendum" on google video.

There is no Consensus

The idea that 90 percent of scientists dealing with climate research agree with AGW is unproven. In fact the data indicates that such a position is FALSE: http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-scientific-consensus-on-human-climate-chan#ixzz0o1PzpVdA The other comments against AGW on this thread are right on the money. Research at sites like "Watt's Up With That" will show that apart from CRU, NASA and NOAA have also been cooking their data.

Inexperience

Dr. Kerry Emanuel is an atmospheric scientist with a specialty in hurricanes. He has over 30 years experience in his specialty. See his bibliography: http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/cvweb/cvweb.html. Perhaps Ginny Stein should look at the difference between the art of short-term weather forecasting and the science of long-term climate change. As well, the body of decades of research versus the opinion of weather forecasters. After all, shouldn't Ms. Stein want to inform her readers?