[Gondring]

And we have driven the CO₂ concentration so high that it doesn't even fit on this graph of yours--it's off the scale!

And why is 1960-1990 chosen as the "baseline" in your graph when that is the period so heavily influenced by sulfur-based aerosols?

Why can't we have an unbiased examination of the data, rather than each side spinning things?!?

[D-fendr]

Only place I can find that sells it on DVD:

http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/store.asp

[D-fendr]

"We believe that the misrepresentation of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest ... In fact, so serious and fundamental are the misrepresentations..."

But I'm guessin' they're cool with Algore's "Inconvenient Truth".

[Always Right]

And why is 1960-1990 chosen as the "baseline" in your graph when that is the period so heavily influenced by sulfur-based aerosols?

The baseline on1y sets the horizonta1 1ine on the chart (ie, where the zero is for tempreture), it has no other effect. It does not bias the chart.

[aruanan]

Why can't we have an unbiased examination of the data, rather than each side spinning things?!?

Spinning? Suppression of the fact that solar activity drives temperature change that drives change in atmospheric CO2 can hardly be called "spinning." It's outright deception.