Fallacy 1 . Loaded Terms - Steve introduced the article using loaded terms "someone hacked into", "the stolen emails" actually it could well be an inside job so in that case it's a leak or whistleblower so the emails are really been proven to be hacked or stolen fallacy 2 . an emotional tone

Fallacy 2 . Name Calling : Rebecca said "can we call them deniers, not skeptics"

Fallacy 3 . Straw Man : They are making hysterical claims "they say this is the final nail", "it's really nothing", "only if you interpret it in a sinster way" He picks a weak example and says "that's basically what they are all like" immediately contradicted by Rebecca saying "instances of calling scientists to be boycotted from publication", "it's normal to normalise the curves", big bucket of whitewash Totally unobjective defensive stance

Fallacy 4. False Dichotomy - by continually using the term "denialists" they created the impression that theere are only 2 types of opinion 1. The truth and 2. "The Denialists" ... Steve starts to backtrack on this later "minority opinions are important"

Fallacy 5. "oh it's a conspiracy" unsupported by any evidence - Says Climategate is part of an organised campaign similar to the Tobacco Industry denialism campaign sewing fear and confusion to stop policy. (the tobacco industry was a real conspiracy and was prosecuted for it. ("oh it's a conspiracy" is usually a sign of a weak argument. Very rarely there are real conspiracies, but it shouldn't be allowed in an argument unless concrete evidence is given)
- BTW David King in the Radio 3 interview also spoke of a tobacco-industry like conspiracy, but gave no evidence

- It's obvious Steve cares so he was not appropriate voice to read this item as he could not be objective .

- credibility about Climate can't see the wood for the trees panel are too chummy they don't challenge each other you would benefit from broadening the panel somehow so that you are looking at the world from a wider perspective I have been concerned for some time

- Name Calling - Can't there be some protocol about how we label groups so not to prejudice arguments i.e. call them what they call themselves as long as it's not too long or hijacking an official title
- The use of the word denier is an example of creating a false dichotomy i.e. that there are 2 groups Those that believe every word that IPCC says and are sure catastrophe is coming and the "Climate Change deniers". Actually I deny that catastrophe is certain and like many people believe that Climate Changes like it has always changed. Climate Change deniers are not denying that climate changes , cos history tell us climate is not a static thing.

- There is a certain amount of American type overconfidence in the way the SGU people speak ... One said "Wow this solar cell uses less silicon , and silicon is expensive..."...actually silicon is sand and is one of the earths most abundant materials

- my letter to SGU

- 1. Wishing that something had never happened doesn't fix the future. By trying Blair you can't put the clock back.
-2. The people who are pulling the triggers in Iraq are not British or Americans they are Iraqi criminals and their friends so they are the evil ones.
-3. The ideal peace in Iraq has not been achieved, but the deathrate since the war is 5 times less than under Saddam. - Another example of irrationalality today is the strange belief that many many people have today about Tony Blair. They shout and go on demonstrations to get him convicted for war crimes. As if he were it would make everthing alright.

- It's bizarre : it's like prosecuting Churchill and leaving Hitler. Look neither Churchill or Blair are perfect people, but did Churchill have a plan to exterminate the Jewish "race" and take over Europe as being a divinely superior race ? No it was Hitler who was the evil one. It was Saddam who tried to exterminate the Marsh Arabs, attacked the Kurds and allowed his sons to behave like monsters. He killed something like 2 million people with his brutal police killing 1000+ people/week year after year. Who pretended to have WMD And played a game with expelling weapons inspectors etc ? Than was Saddam not Blair.

- Iraq has not been in a good situation since the war, people have been dying at a lower rate than under Saddam, but under him there was more security who would die. Then if you were a Bath' party member you were safe, but today it's more random. We know the vast majority of Iraqi deaths have happened after the war not during. So since the war have Iraqi's been killed by British soldiers guns or American bombs ? No they've been killed by "insurgents". Is Tony Blair responsible for killings by insurgents ? No, he's only responsible for the British Army. The allies maybe responsible for an unstable government in Iraq, but it is Iraqi criminals and their friends who are pulling the triggers killing other Iraqis.

- Tony Blair's worst crime is to inadequately explain the US started the Iraq war...... he may have secret info he can't divulge.

- Some people might think in terms of British lives instead of human lives. If British troops had stayed in the UK some troops would have been injured or killed in training say 20% of current levels.
1. If deaths in Iraq have reduced from 50K/year under Saddam to 10K/year and 100 British soldiers. Isn't that a price worth paying ?
2. It sends a message to foreign governments saying "if you allow terrorists who attack the UK to base in your country then we might invade your country"

- Fitting the idea of less than perfect outcome into our Brain - In any country things vary. It’s not the worst case in every area. Before the typical Iraqi could keep his head down and lead a normal life. Maybe today in some areas half his brothers have no job, he has to stay in his neighborhood and stay at home after dark. Whereas in a perfect outcome to the war he would have kept the living standard from before and increased safety and political freedom. The ones who were in danger from Saddam before have seen an improvement, but he was not one of them so he's seen decreased security. But even if there had been no Second Iraq war there would have been an end to Saddam family rule sometime. So the upheaval of now would have happened to his family in the future. The war didn't cause today's upheaval it just brought forward an innevitable fighting which happens when there has been a minority ruling over a majority in a brutal manner. If you look a Iraq over a 100 year period surely the war was worth it ?