The evidence that climate change is not occurring, according to the sceptics, rests on three stolen emails.
I wonder what damning evidence the 10,000 other emails stolen shows.
I think this is pretty thin evidence of a climate conspiracy, there is a good account of the whole episode on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident but the sceptics argue that this is part of the conspiracy, wiki is totally transparent and there is a discussion of those who disagree with the entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident but this in turn will be dismissed as part of the conspiracy. And so on.
Conspiracies do exist but so does the principle of Occam's razor
I have not had much in the way of intelligent response to my article on sceptics. I think its fair to say that it is impossible to construct complete models for climate and that negative feedback mechanisms may be more important than positive. Even so given the risks of climate change and the horrifying problem of acidifying oceans, this is not an argument for inaction. I would also agree that carbon trading is a con and Al Gore is no guide to realistic action.
Climate sceptics are unwilling, though, to state bluntly that CO2 levels don't influence the climate and are not prepared to examine their own approach.
Its very much a matter of searching through an ocean of evidence that suggests climate change is occuring for a little fish that can be misnamed as fraudulent.
I suspect oil addiction is the source of this madness, oil is polluting and running out, although I guess these people will be on to say that it is pure and grows at the bottom of caves.
If you think there is anything in the sceptics case, look at my article and look at their responses and then decide.
I guess they will be on in a minute calling me a fascist.