This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I suspect the whole thing was meant to be accepted uncritically by the GW 'sceptics'. As such, it must have been a terrible disappointment as the hoax was busted so quickly. They don't seem to realise that scepticism is an attitude of mind which precludes swallowing things like this whole (even if we are all informed largely by our prejudices). It scarcely even got a mention on climateaudit, which I would think was the main target.
I don't think the main target would be Climate Audit Adrian, they're too smart. My own theory is that the most likely target they would have in mind would be David Bellamy. The Green lobby in Britain take about thousand times as much notice of Bellamy as they do of the average AGW sceptic. He's a fellow Greenie, they can't dismiss him as being in the pay of Big Oil, and he still has a lot of influence in nature conservation circles. Bellamy was one of the most prominent AGW sceptics in the UK a few years ago, but he made the tactical mistake of getting involved in an e-mail conversation with George Monbiot in May 2005 which gave Monbiot the opportunity to write an embarassing ad-hominem attack laden article about him:
After that article, Bellamy withdrew from participating in the AGW debate in the media until a few weeks ago (Oct 22nd 2007) when he had this article published in the Times:
Bellamy's return would cause consternation amongst the Greenies since they thought Monbiot had finished him off. The hoax site domain name was taken up on Nov 2nd, about two weeks after Bellamy's return.
I read this as a very very cautious Devid Bellamy simply showing he is still around but taking very great care not to expose himself to any of the problems last time round with glaciers.
He gave so very little ammunition to his waiting assailants that their response is somewhat mute as well.
The first reader response (they're so well organised, aren't they?) suggests that "deniers" simply visit a well known source and whip up an article quoting the various "messages" there. He takes time to list the arguments and their frequency and compoare the order of their appearance on the web site with their appearance in such articles.
Of course, while there is some validity in this comment, as a defence AGW it is pretty small beer.
But just as the essence of the Big Lie is "say it loud and say it often", the same should be true of the truth.
Keep putting the message across.
It also helps, in these days of "celebrity" where the more soaps someone has appeared in the more credible they are, to have the truth proclaimed by people who the public recognise.
It is interesting to read a comment further down that suggests that AGW believers and deniers each have a hard core of adherents who will not be influenced by the other side's arguments.
But, like politics, that leaves us with the "don't knows" in the marginals.
It would be interesting to know if there is any history of polls showing the swings in support as there are for political partys.