While Martin Durkin has been accused of bias and misrepresentaion the fact remains that there appears to be huge divides within the scientific community as to the validity, accuracy and general usefulness of the "data" being touted as supporting climate change and its causes. From my limited research it appears to be mostly "modelled" data and that is concerning. Models are only as good as the assumptions which underpin their calculations and if economically and philosophically modellers see climate change as the next great gravy train, remember Y2K, salinity etc, then the model will analyse data in the light of that belief.

There appears to be some very good measured data from satelites, from non urban weather sites which is saying this decade is cooler than the last. Of real concern was the off hand remark made by the Australian member of IPCC during the "debate" following the airing of the "Swindle". When asked if CO2 levels had been higher in the past, he blithley announced that they had been at least ~2x higher during the Jurassic period which my history book tells me was a pretty productive period in Earth's history. Maybe we don't have anything to worry about!

There is a tribal difference between sceptics and others. I have made a special study of sceptics. Some represent what sound like environmental organisations or think tanks. These organisations are in fact a lot like Hollywood flim sets for old Westerns: all front. Sceptics tend to have a consistent ideological framework: very conservative politically (some prone to conspiracy theories), some connection to the mining industry, a tendency to use derogatory terms to describe prominent opponents, and belong to email networks that are anti-abortion, anti-taxation, anti-gay marriage/ordination/etc. They play fast and loose with the truth while accusing their opponents of the same: ie, one group published a list of 20,000 'scientists' who denied the assertion that climate change is man-made. I googled 20 of them and found one who managed a lab was the closest to a 'scientist' of the 20. There were dentists and doctors and a real estate agent. No scientists and certainly no climatologists. I am not known for accepting scientific conclusions drawn by climate change authorities. I uncovered the gaps in the data sets in the official soil carbon science which led to the mistaken assertion that Australian soils were too old and degraded to sequester significant amounts of carbon. But I respect the scientists who did the work because of their professionalism and dedication to doing real science. These men and women whom I work with everyday are accused of faking the science so they can continue to be employed in climate change science. The ease with which sceptics make this malicious and unfounded claim speaks volumes about them. Sceptics are also very cynical and prone to believe the worst about others. It's not a healthy mindset. But not all sceptics are maligned. Some are merely misaligned with the times and have a compulsion to swim against any popular tide. These native contrarians we must treasure and preserve and celebrate. The others we must respect. And whenever one crosses our path, we should say a prayer of thanks to whoever is responsible for letting us live in a culture of commonwealth where we are free to disagree with each other. Heres to 'sound science' and to 'scientists' sounding off. God grant us the wisdom to tell the difference.

PS. Are any of The Land's columnists sceptics?

PPS. We are the real "Carbon Coalition" - www.carboncoalition.com.au. The other Carbon Coalition is not.

The great swindle is the media's portrayal of anyone questioning the science that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring at present to be sceptics. The term sceptic has been used by most media outlets as a dirty word.

The definition of science is the questioning of idea's put forward to a degree that the idea's once proven become factual.

Once the ideas have been determined as unchallenged, the ideas are then determined as indisputable evidence.

The media's efforts to discredit anyone who challenges that man has caused the Earth to warm is to resort to personal abuse, branding them as sceptics.

It's a case of if you cannot dispute the evidence then try and discredit the people who have presented the evidence.

While there is debate there can be no consensus, so by the fact of debate ensues there is no evidence that man has caused the Earth to warm, or that the sky is going to fall.

I'm not really sure the author of this column actually read the Ofcom findings. This article above is a gross misrepresentation of the outcome, which was barely a rap on the knuckles and certainly did not suggest deceit on the part of the "Swindle" show. I'm a bit confused.

I get confused when I read studies on climate change like this one from New Zealand where it states little or no ice in Antarctica in the past.

North Otago fossils reveal NZ's greenhouse past. Wed, 30 Jul 2008 The Regions: North Otago A new study of New Zealand's climate 42 million years ago shows a greenhouse climate with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica. The study -- based on analysis of fossilised micro-organisms at Hampden Beach, near the Moeraki Boulders in North Otago -- suggests that Antarctica at that time was yet to develop extensive ice sheets.

Back then, New Zealand was about 1100km further south, closer to Antarctica, at the same latitude as the southern tip of South America. But the researchers found that the water temperature was 23degC - 25degC at the sea surface and 11degC-13degC at the bottom.

"This is too warm to be the Antarctic water we know today," said Dr Catherine Burgess from Cardiff University's School of Earth and Ocean Sciences. She worked with Hugh Morgans of GNS Science to dig the fossils out of a cliff face at Hampden Beach.

The seawater chemistry revealed by the calcium carbonate shells of the exceptionally well-preserved fossils of marine micro-organisms called foraminifers, showed there was little or no ice on the planet, she said. The rock sequence from the cliff face covered a time span of 70,000 years. A temperature oscillation seen in the fossils -- with warming and cooling by approximately 1.5degC about every 18,000 years -- was likely to be related to the Earth's orbital patterns around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles.

"Because the fossils are so well preserved, they provide more accurate temperature records," said Dr Burgess. "Our findings demonstrate that the water temperature these creatures lived in was much warmer than previous records have shown".

Dr Burgess said she did not measure carbon dioxide, but several studies suggested that greenhouse gases 40 million years ago were similar to those levels that are forecast for the end of this century and beyond. "Our work provides another piece of evidence that, in a time period with relatively high carbon dioxide levels, temperatures were higher and ice sheets were much smaller and likely to have been completely absent," she said. NZPA