A bit of a weak response to what is a pretty straight forward challenge to Grendel, admit you argued that AGW was just a massive scam, or deny you argued that point.

Yes Soren, I had already noticed that you had acknowledged it as a scam, but it was Grendel denying he had ever done so, and that is why I wanted him to answer.

He does not mean to lie, he mostly doesn't even really believe he is, but somewhere inside he must know he has, otherwise he would not be trying so hard to wriggle out of giving a straight answer.
I would just like to see him acknowledge the fact that he too, like the rest of us, makes mistakes.


Now as for you "ballsilly" going with the scam argument, would you care to explain who were the architects of the scam, what were the objectives of the scam, and what methods were used to gain the cooperation of tens of thousands of scientists to collude with this scam?

So got a "ballsy" answer to those questions?

The banwagon was practically overflowing until the various scandals and climate-gates started to break. Now the mindless sychophancy has abeted somewhat, thank go...,  er, thank goodness. (phew!)

... keep in mind that BO has a very broad definition of "flame" ...

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said in a statement, “The panel has carried out a thorough investigation of the evidence, and anybody who simply rejects these findings will show that they are motivated by prejudice and ideology rather than by scepticism and a desire to uncover the truth. I think those so-called sceptics and commentators in the media who have attempted to undermine the credibility of climate change science on the basis of the hacked e-mails now need to apologise for misleading the public about their significance.”