All:
  I am surprised that no one has mentioned (did I miss something???) the recent documentary broadcast on BBC last week, called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" .  If you didn't have access to BBC TV you can watch the documentary on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
   
  I watched it and thought it was pretty impressive.
   
  BTW, let me clear up some misinformation that the media and the GW crowd have been spreading. A month or so ago many newspapers were spreading a "story" that first appeared in the Guardian.  The headline read "Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study."  According to the Guardian, scientists and economists "have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report."
   
  LIke so much about GW the story was misleading (basically a lie). The so-called "lobbyist" was the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is a think tank, not a lobbyist group. The AEI, like many think tanks, gets contributions from many sources. Oil companies contribute less than 1% to AEI's total budget.  The oil companies' contributions are general in nature and do not fund specific activities.  The thing that triggered this latest outburst of false outrage was that the AEI had planned a roundtable discussion of global warming, to be attended by people with differing views on the subject. As is very common among all think tanks they would compensate those who wrote scholarly articles to be presentted at the roundtable.  
The reality is that no on, oil companies or otherwise, was paying scientists to create papers  or do research to challenge the GW boogeyman.  See http://www.aei.org/doclib/20070209_demuthreply.pdf and http://www.nowpublic.com/scenes_from_the_climate_inquisition
   
  If the GW crowd is so convinced of the righteousness of its cause why does it constantly have to rely on lies and halftruths?
   
   
  Chuck Dolci
   
   
  
"Davy, Gordon" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  Brian,

I have looked over your email exchange with Steve Gregory and from your comments you give the impression that you believe in truth by the numbers. Whichever position has the predominant number of adherents is the truth. We have discussed this before. That is not the way science is done, and you know it. 
***
Gordon Davy