Ah, but they kind of stretch back over time. And you could say some of them are kind of reversed...
It should also be noted(pointed to by Insty) that The Age tried the "Anyone arguing against AGW is uninformed, deluded or paid off, the science is settled, the e-mails mean nothing" thing and got taken apart in comments by their readers; you think this mess hasn't made a difference? One of the comments:
"Climate science may be complicated, but it's not rocket science."
It certainly isn't rocket science. Rocket science allows us to design, build and navigate rockets all over the show with great predictability. We still can't predict tomorrow's weather with any great accuracy.
Follow the money and it all becomes a little clearer. King O'Malley is paying attention.
And I have to go to this one from a Believer:
I have a very simple response to the skeptics. What if you are wrong? If you are right it would cost us some short term pain, decreased the level of pollution in the environment (which is good for the overall health of us and the planet) and extended the usable life of finite resources. Is that a bad thing????
First, that's not a response, that's a question; one I don't think you've really thought through. If you consider having your use of energy whacked by half within a few years, your standard of living going down the toilet and condemning, oh, a couple of billion or so people to the existence they have now forever to be 'some short term pain', you're a moron. And if the AGW True Believers and the watermelons using them get their way, it WILL be forever; you think they'll allow the construction of, for instance, nuke plants to supply more energy? Hell, no; they'd rather have us barely scratching by and developing nations stop developing than allow us to have the energy needed to grow. Lots of pretty and inefficient windmills all over the landscape and not enough energy; there's a wonderful plan.
Seriously is it a bad thing? Deniers need to get of thier high horse and think about the welfare of other people and not thier share portfolio, company profits or those annoying shareholders expecting to make a killing. Oh and by the way I am a shareholder, and I do NOT like companies that put profit before the planet. So my income is linked to performance, but I think long term is better than short term with a disaster at the end.
Uh, coming from someone on their high horse demanding the precautionary principle be followed, no matter who and how many suffer, that's an interesting demand. We ARE thinking of the welfare of others; ask someone using dried animal crap for cooking if they'd rather keep up their sustainable and filthy lifestyle or if they'd be willing to put up with a power plant somewhere around so they can have a cleaner life. And I've got news for you: if your company doesn't worry about making a profit it'll collapse, which does nobody any good.