Put simply, there was GW before there was A; therefore the sceptic brigade have a valid locus in any debate on the subject. Seems to me, after contributing to, getting fed up with, and now observing the climate change debate in all its guises here for four and a half years that the discussion has always and will continue to go round in circles. We don’t have all the answers and so it’s bound to. However, I find it encouraging that these are ever-increasing rather than ever-decreasing circles, due to the steady flow of ideas and evidence that comes in from all persuasions. Or they could be if people weren't constantly being chopped off at the ankles. There haven’t been many who have publicly reversed their position, but whether that’s due to the quality of evidence or the quality of presentation is open to question. More likely, perhaps, it’s the tone of the debate that entrenches people in their beliefs and closes their minds to possible alternatives. Unfortunately, while the topics for discussion grow by the week, the opportunities to debate these rationally diminish. Back in my early days in this forum there were people who went to a great deal of trouble to investigate, evaluate and present evidence, and others (with specific qualification or experience,) who invested a similar amount of effort to explain the merits and demerits of the technicalities involved to the less well equipped in that regard, like me. Of course there were a few less gifted contributors who could only shout and scream about their own beliefs and accuse others of stupidity when their ‘unquestionable’ logic was queried, but the general gist of the thing was to be helpful. It is sad that the terrorists have overtaken the teachers on both sides. Doubt is not a crime, and persuasion is not a martial art.