I tweeted on twitter last night to someone last night that the arguments given by those who deny global warming are akin to those given by a football fan to justify their continued thoughts that their team still are the best, even after a heavy defeat.
Despite the weight of evidence, the melting of the North Pole, rising temperatures, freak weather patterns, flooding, more extreme hurricanes and cyclones, and a host of other evidence from a vast range of sources from across the globe, there remains this hardcore of mainly right wing groups, more obsessed with dollars that justice, who cling to fragments to justify their opposition to any thoughts that global warming is happening or that it is a bad thing.
The fuss over a few e-mails from one university in the UK (the University of East Anglia in Norwich) are being used to try and taint the evidence from thousands of researchers and scientists around the world. Yet when "The Great Global Warming Scandal" was debunked when a number of those whose contributions were taken out of context complained that the programme did not accurately represent what they said or felt about global warming, the Global Warming deniers don't see that as evidence that it taints "all" their arguments in the same way as some emails from the UEA supposedly does.
Then there are those who seem to think that global warming might be a good thing. Witness Nigel Lawson on Andrew Marr's programme this morning who seemed to be trying to justify his view that most people in this country are not that worried about a small rise in temperatures. Forget that a small rise in the UK means a small rise in Africa, leading to further drought.
For global warming deniers to claim that the emails from the UEA prove that the whole global warming argument is without foundation is like a losing football fan claiming that the 5th goal in a seven nil defeat was actually offside.