Yes I agree that some of AIT was bad but its main error was over-simplification; comparing the two side by side it was a lot better documentary than this one.

Yes, I have said the CO2/t lag is a debatable issue so I agree with you on that issue but its not sufficient evidence to knock flat the whole of climate science - it simply requires more vigorous investigation. However I disagree that current trends “fit happily” into historical variability - yes the world has been hotter but not got hot so fast nor with such fast extinction rate and the documentary distorted that data quite dishonestly.

You don’t need to tell me how flawed scientists are, it was my childhood dream to do research but the reality was far short of what I expected [that's another story] but that doesn’t make them wicked or wrong [barring the odd bad apple].

Wolfie : Well spotted James, pardon my typo. Now corrected.

There was cack in that program sure enough, but there’s a heap of cack in an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ too but that cack, of course, suits a higher purpose and gets a free pass.

The issues raised by the C02 vs. temperature lag from ice core data have most certainly not been properly addressed. Nor has the fact that many of the supposed indicators of recent climate change fit quite happily into the range of historical variability

Sad to say there are bullshitters and shills on both sides of the debate but what’s new about that? What this does represent is a loss of innocence, for some people at least, when it comes to holding up popular science and scientists as paragons of virtue. They’re not. They’re just people same as the rest of us, with all the flaws that go with that

I can understand why the moderator might decide to delete some comments as its quite common in matters like these for uninformed individuals to “bog down” the discussion with inane or irrational arguments or presenting resolutely discredited material repetitiously.

Peer review is merely a scientific approach which increases certainly or validity. Nobody is selling absolutes only degrees of certainty to use as a stepping-stone towards a more refined model in the future.

It stands to reason; if my research cannot be repeated then I’m incompetent or a fraud.

That is a farce.

Most of my more controversial comments were deleted, some after they were initially posted.

It seems that site can’t take any serious criticism of the global warming crowd.

I love the way they think that if something is “peer-reviewed”, it must be true. They are as much true believers as the most fundamentalist christians.