"and if your head explodes with dark forebodings to,
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon".

Pink Floyd could well have been predicting the state of angst induced by the climate Scarenarios. There seems no limit to the media's thirst for more and more apocalyptic climate bumf and no shortage of gullible plodders to wallow in it.

"The paper folds their faded faces to the floor,
and every day, the paper boy brings more".

Following is Mr Lawsons email providing 'list of prominent scientists', if OLO doesn't delete my post again i'll post links so readers can check Lawsons list credibility themselves. //Edited adulatory hype to fit 350word limit, added #'s for ease of dissection.

"Culled from media and net searches. Its incomplete and I haven't looked properly at the Leizig declaration (see note at end), but here 'tis. The first three in particular are hard for the greenhousers to explain away.
1. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University
2. Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
3. William M. Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
4. Prof Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Virginia.
5. Prof Ian Clark, Department of Earth Science, University of Ottowa.
William Kininmonth, former head of Australia's National Climate Centre
and former Australian delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology.
6. Professor Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Townsville. A former Head of School of Earth Sciences at the University.
Associate Professor Stewart Franks, a hydro climatologist at the
University of Newcastle in NSW.
7. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
8. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Dutch
Meteorological Institute and now a professor of aeronautical engineering at Pennsylvania State University.
9. Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg

THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS HAVE EXPRESSED MILDER DOUBTS THAN THOSE ABOVE, BUT HAVE CRITICISED THE IPCC'S FINDINGS
10. John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre, University of Alabama, Huntsville.
11. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University
12. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

A more comprehensive list of unbeliever/doubter scientists can be found as signatures to the Leipzig declaration. Originally formulated in 1997 in response to the original Kyoto Conference and revised in 2005, the list is endless.
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html
Mark Lawson"

On Mark Lawsons list..

1. Robert Balling - Balling acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade. Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. .. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Balling

2. Carl Wunsch – “I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.” 11 Mar 07 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
Sceptics think he’s one of them cos appeared in Great Global Warming Swindle film, but Wunsch is publicly considering suing director Martin Durkin for misrepresentation. Wunsch shoulda known better, Durkin has a record of misrepresenting and demonising inconvenient scientists.

3. William M. Gray – meteorologist (not climatologist), most famous for sorry record predicting hurricanes, also known for peddling “scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s” myth
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

4. Patrick Michaels - According to a January, 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists called Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: how Exxonmobil uses big tobacco to manufacture uncertainty on climate science, Michaels is connected to no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received money from oil-giant ExxonMobil to sow doubt about the realities of human-induced global warming. ..
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1567

…I wish I had time to go thru the list but anyone with google can do same, curious that Mark Lawson & his editor at the AFR are not acquainted with that technology. Have to get a word in tho on Lawsons pushing the 1995 “Leipzig Declaration”, was debunked years ago http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change
“When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Some did not even have a college degree, such as Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. .. “ (worth following link, its hilarious who sceptics will call a scientist).

And Financial Review readers pay money for Mr Lawsons ignorance!!

Liam is showing ignorance or extreme bias (or both).

Perhaps he would like to list which scientists and organisations have received part of the billions of taxpayers' dollars spent by governments on various "climate change" research or projects over the last 10 years. (Yes, that's billions. Far more than anyone has given to those sceptical of man-made GW claims.)

Once he has done that he can tell us how mant million dollars Greenpeace has received (as a non-profit organisation!) and list the organisations that it has funded into climate change research.

The vested interests in perpetuating the MMGW argument are far greater than any vested interest in disproving it.

So its ignorance and bias to check Mr Lawsons evidence? RightThink rules again.

Well done Snowman (a.k.a snowjob) for demonstrating the 'depth' of climate denial knowledge, you made me laugh & Mr Lawson look scholarly, no mean feat on either count.

Unlike Mark Lawson I think the IPCC got it broadly right. Yes there are uncertainties. Tomorrow new discoveries about the role of sunspots or cosmic rays or even perturbations of the Earth's orbit due to the gravitational tug of Jupiter in changing the Earth's climate could force a rethink.

But for now the BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION is unambiguous. The RISK of business as usual is too high. The scientists who compiled the IPCC report are not charlatans in the pay of some sinister conspiracy. They are reflecting the honest consensus of the scientific community.

Yes, there are dissenting scientists and the fact that some of them received funding from ExxonMobil does not make them dishonest. But looking at THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, they are probably wrong.

But having said all that we need a reality check. Other than being generally supportive of SENISBLE international initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions there is little Australia can do. Let's look at some proposals.

SET A MORAL EXAMPLE:

Who are we kidding? We are too insignificant. I doubt most people would even notice.

Is there anyone so seriously reality challenged as to think our "moral example" could influence policy in China, India, the EU or the US?

STOP SELLING COAL TO CHINA

China has large coal resources of its own. Imports account for a small proportion of total Chinese consumption. Furthermore there are many countries that would step into the gap and make good our market share. The net effect would be a loss of Australian jobs and ZERO effect on CO2 emissions.

A CARBON TAX ON CHINESE IMPORTS

Definitely – provided the US and EU do it. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

REDUCE OUR OWN EMISSIONS

Definitely. We can and should.

But let's not kid ourselves that even the most heroic efforts on our part are going to have a noticeable effect on climate change.

THE HARSH REALITY

There is very little we can do.

IT MAY BE UNPLEASANT TO CONTEMPLATE OUR OWN HELPLESSNESS BUT THAT IS THE REALITY.