If you were truly an AGW believer and you were turned around by Michael Crichton, shame on you.

You have consistently posted links to debunk any number of assertions that are either foolish ("What's Up With That") or misleading (your link to photos of glaciers "advancing", as if to suggest glaciers moving is the same thing as growing).

You post an article to cast doubt on RealClimate that was written by a scientist on their letterhead!

You're throwing everything you can against the wall, hoping to sow doubt. That's all you're doing. Not engaging in good faith discussions, or examining anything said back to you.

I've never said you were rude. I just think you're a liar. And I don't have to be "skeptical" - I've been following the IPCC reports, and hundreds of articles by BBC, Joseph Romm, RealClimate and every thing I can read on the subject (published by reputable people) for years.

I work in a field that sees the effects of early spring/late winter directly, just like several people have posted here. You never answer them, never look at "their side" of the story.

I know about the pine beetles devastating forests because temperature change allows them to. About the "Sky Islands" near Phoenix being invaded by insects looking for higher, and cooler, ground - denuding the trees and causing multiple fires. I'm watching Australia begin to deal with the possibility of moving major populations away from the oceans. They're being hit hard, already, and their prime minister is saying so in black and white.

I've read Elizabeth Kolbert's work with dawning alarm. You should try her - I guarantee you'll never go to back to Chrichton.

And BTW, I know Michael Crichton's Los Angeles property firsthand, and it's the most environmentally inappropriate mish-mash of planting you'll ever see - a water-resource nightmare, at his request. This man is NOT a reliable witness.

"very interesting northern

except for the fact that the emails seem to be vindicating McIntyre."

fellowvoyager, this is why I don't believe your "objectivity". Whatever else the emails show, there's no question they're showing McIntyre to be a belligerent, hostile non-professional. A man with an agenda rather than qualifications.

And yet you leap to his side instantly - no "listening to both sides". Nothing balanced about it.

Is it just a quota to fill right now?

And for every Institution actively denying Climate Change research you will find an oil company providing support. (Just not on page 1).

If you have a problem with people take action before this problem affects whole populations - possibly in your lifetime - you're going to have to talk to the world:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

I know you'll never click on this, but it's too big to print here. Jaw-dropping too.

Let's start with why I believe you're not who you say you are - a healthy skeptic, with no particular dog in this fight.

Here are your comments from a Climate Change thread recently with Publicola and myself:

"Now. I don't believe any of it, nor do i believe the fear-mongering coming from the other side. Belief shouldnt have anything to do with it. there is anomalous data. people do have differing views about the subject, and they shouldn't be labeled as cranks for bringing up salient points. i listen to both sides and take both into account. that's it."

"It's that kind of healthy skepticism that i like."

"I'm not here to debunk anything. I'm not here to cast my lot with one side or the other."

"yes. i am curious as to what's behind all the studies showing consensus. and i give the thought to the arguments they present. i also take note of the outliers and their arguments. and i try very hard not to ascribe belief to any of it. but i do indeed try to look at all sides as objectively as i can."

"i'm not dismissing anything and im not selling anything either."

See, based on all your posts on this and Andrew's last Climate Change article, I just don't see the "healthy skepticism", the "listening to both sides", the "not casting my lot with one side or the other", the "not here to debunk".

I don't see "objectivity" whatsoever. I see nothing BUT "dismissing" and "selling".

I think you're here ONLY to debunk. You post about virtually nothing else BUT Climate Change, and you consistently take ONLY one side. You've never said, "the jury's out", or, "you have a point". In fact, you've posted every talking point being supplied about the stolen emails - nothing about the content of the science itself.

You're a pro, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Nothing can be proven 100%. Nothing. Not gravity or evolution or relativity or thermodynamics. And yet we make decisions every day based on our best information about all things scientific. Science continues. The world changes. We adapt. That's our specialty as humans, at least so far.

Deniers don't deny science (they use its arguments for every talking point); they deny this particular bit of science - we can't know, ergo we can't act. Glaciers are disappearing, threatening the watersheds of millions; sea levels are rising, threatening every continent. None of this gives them pause. It's all a scam.

A fire racing towards your house has a probability that it will hit you, which is never 100%. And yet you'd never think twice about accepting the fireman's prediction.

Why is the earth less valuable to you? Your grandchildren's future is not worth your best thought, your most considered and careful comprehension?

The IPCC says, after 20 years of steadily growing concern, that there's a 90% probability that global warming is largely caused by us.

Oil companies, who consistently sponsor deniers, say it is not.

Here's a list again of those who agree with the IPCC, and are actively looking for ways to deal with this - to learn; to adapt:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Who deserves your allegiance?