I am highly sceptical that global warming if it exists, is due entirely to human activity.

My main reason for this, is that the climate on this planet has changed all by itself in the past, without any input from us mere human beings.

This does not mean I support pollution or activities that cause pollution.

If climate change did not happen in the past, we all would still be living in africa and the human migration would not have happened until much later in history.

tcm "Too many people are denying the possibility of climate change", are you saying that there are people who "deny" that the climate changes?

I'm skeptical about the reasons for warming being blamed on CO2, and have doubts a tax can solve it, I am also skeptical that we can change the climate to something we like - as in, go back to that wonderful time when everything was perfect .. when was that?

What do you want to change the climate to?

I doubt you can find anyone who "denies" that the climate changes, there was another OLO poster VK3 something or other who firmly believed that, and when challenged was never seen again, as his whole argument was based on berating people who "denied" that the climate changed.

Now we could pollute less, clear less land and I'm sure mankind has influenced the climate - but to insist on CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION NOW! in the form of taxing big business, reducing reliance on fossil fuels is just beyond reason.

If we were serious about removing fossil fuels from electricity generation, then we would go nuclear and pour money into research into reducing or reusing waste - the fact that the same people who want to reduce coal use are also against nuclear energy, makes me realize they are not about climate change mitigation, but against progress (Caldicotts and Luddites).

Don't p*ss my taxes away on renewable schemes that make the likes of Gore and Flannery rich, spend on renewables with real long term outcomes - nuclear.

The climate changes and many scientists are on the money wagon for funding because they are human and it is available, very few research actual causes of climate change, most research the effects.

Australia will be reduced to a 3rd world economy if greens and AGW activists get their way.

Peter Hume, I do not think it is up to the people who accept and understand the science on climate change to continue to provide "evidence", it is out there is abundance. Yet there is still no substantive peer reviewed work, published in a reputable journal by appropriately qualified people which provides evidence to undermine AGW. Even the great target, the University of East Anglia's climate-research unit has been exonerated after numerous enquiries. I for one am pleased to see that the report on the latest inquiry included the footnote that the police are investigating the hacking. Strange that people would place some much faith in evidence obtained by illegal means.

Moreover, I think the characterisation of the exchanges between deniers and supporters (to call it a debate is to overstate the matter) as being left v right is correct. The posts the have been made on this website at least are better described as people who understand and believe in the scientific method versus those who deny the science because it does not support their personal viewpoint. The vitriol thrown at supporters that they are lefties, reds, stupid etc are just feeble rhetorical gambits to derail the conversation rather than points of debate.

Science is not decided by votes or populist rants, but by evidence. Basically stating that all of science is wrong and I know better because I say so, is not going to convince me.

Peter Hume

After being chided by our good moderator, Graham, for comparing the faux-lord Monckton's climate-change denying article to a Monty Python skit, I have been careful to couch my comments in words that are more befitting of a sceptic (q.v.) than a cynic (q.v.).

I notice that you have used a number of rhetorical devices that the afore-said faux-lord also used (note that I do not infer causality from this correlation or coincidence). To wit, first, metaphor: Monckton (in the talk that he gave in Sydney that I paid to attend) used the concept of "iatrogenis", ie "of or relating to illness caused by medical examination or treatment"- ie is the cure more damaging than the complaint. Of course this is a plausible issue. But rather than explore the data, Monckton, and Hume then proceed to rhetorical device #2: the "straw man (or person) argument, ie implying that all kinds mayhem of will ensue from the scientist-inspired/ leftwing politician edicted/ mindless bureaucrat executed iatrogenic programs.

And #3- the incomplete evidence at hand: Hey! Graham gives us 350 words to strut and fret our tale. I referred to RealClimate.org- which is a scientific shorthand for providing evidence, which you derided as an "appeal to absent authority citing past temperature measurements!". It is not absent on the internet- and what is the alternative to "past temperature measurements"? I cannot conjure up "future temperature measurements". Which refers to rhetorical device #4- implying that the past is ipso facto irrelevant. That may be so for Zen Buddhists, but not climate debates.

So- although you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts- and it would be nice if you acknowledged the source of your opinions- such as they are- as coinciding with the afore-said faux-lord Monckton's.

It really has nothing to do with "skepticism". And certainly nothing to do with science or any kind of truthfulness.

It is about bucket loads of money honey. A systematic propaganda campaign financed by the usual suspects--the right-wing Global Spin machine.

It so happens that today I came across references to a book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway titled:

Merchants of Doubt--How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Loxton and Jedimaster
You have both assumed that tempoerature measurements settle all the ethical and economic issues involved.

Let us assume, very much in your favour, that there is no issue as to climatology, nor with your definition of the alternative state you are trying to achieve by policy.

The issues are
a) technically and ethically, how do you know and how do you determine the human detriments from the status quo with the human detriments from government action?
b) Again very much in your favour putting aside any question of corruption, fraud, privilege etc. how do you know whether government can, and how they can, achieve the results you want? How do you know they can continue to supply the world's population with food, clothing etc. while simultaneously closing down productive capacity and replacing it with relatively loss-making alternatives? What reason is there to think that political decision-making and government bureucracies using the instruments of rules and regulations, backed up by police, magistrates and prisons, are capable of knowing, planning and carrying out what they would need to know, plan and carry out to achieve what you are trying to achieve?