Back in 1974 news reports were the mirror opposite of today. Ocean temperatures were dropping, polar ice was growing, and the coldest temperatures in 200 years were being recorded at the Arctic Circle. The media told us we should be worried, very worried.

If climate change science is so convincing, why did Timothy Wirth schedule James Hansen's historic 1988 testimony during the hottest time of the year? And why did he sneak into the hearing room the night before & open the windows so the air conditioning would be ineffective?

A hyperlinked and annotated version of the 2007 climate bible gives us new ways of viewing this document. Produced by two dedicated volunteers, it's a gift to the public as well as the research community.

Andrew Revkin has identified a mistake in a UN climate negotiations document. This same "small error" has also appeared in the headlines of two UN press releases.

It's difficult to read Andrew Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion book and not conclude that something is terribly amiss - in the world of science, in scientific publishing, and within the bowels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some people argue that energy rationing of the sort imposed during wartime is necessary to save the planet. But World War II rationing made life miserable for ordinary people. It also nourished the black market & organized crime.

The UK's Royal Society awarded an Esso Energy medal annually for 25 years. A short time later, when opinions on climate change diverged, the society began painting Esso's parent company, ExxonMobil, as demon spawn.

Data is collected, recorded, adjusted & interpreted not by disinterested robots but by people. Because highly-educated individuals can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, the degree to which a person's judgment can be trusted becomes a central concern.

The climate change debate is important. Human lives and trillions of dollars hang in the balance. We therefore need open, vigorous dialogue. We need to hear all perspectives. But this can't happen when both sides are trying to shut down the debate by declaring other people's views criminal.

One environmental scare story always seems to follow another. Even though the predicted disasters never materialize, we still believe the latest one.

First, UN researchers conduct a climate change survey. Second, they release a report that fails to provide even an overview of the results, never mind detailed evidence of the assertions being made. Next the report gets cited as though it were gospel by Canada's Library of Parliament.

Koko Warner is a UN employee whose research has been funded and brazenly promoted by the UN in order to advance the UN's climate change agenda. Now she is an IPCC lead author.

Dan Kellar is a geography student at the University of Waterloo. He is writing a doctoral thesis under the supervision of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change author and already teaches climate change courses to impressionable undergraduates. Last week Kellar prevented a journalist from speaking to a campus audience about her new book. He says that because (he thinks) she's lying free speech doesn't apply to her.

Al Gore said global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and that hurricanes were going to get worse. This gave insurance companies an excuse to jack premiums by tens of billions. How embarrassing that US hurricane damage has since fallen to less than half the historical average.

An essay attempts to answer the burning question: what were the environmentalists thinking? How can dramatizing the execution of children be smart? What sort of bubble does one need to inhabit to imagine that the 10:10 "No Pressure" video was remotely appropriate?

To a large degree the climate change story is a media story. Journalists are supposed to be guard dogs, not lap dogs. Instead, they've become arbiters of scientific truth - refusing to report on non-conformist perspectives. Last of a five-part series.