Like most observers of the climate debate, I am not a scientist (though I do have the benefit of technical training). It is therefore sensible for me to rely largely on the strong consensus within the scientific community to form an opinion.

There, is, of course, always a danger in placing 100 percent of our faith in technology and science, so it is good to see a vibrant debate happening.

That said, the more you look at this flurry of point-versus-counterpoint, the more you see that for most people science is actually a facade. We tend to have an inate hunch that either side is right or wrong and then snatch snippets of information to try to back up their incipient belief.

Well, we are probably all guilty of that to some degree.

I don't need any scientific analysis to tell me that abusing my body with pollution, cigarette smoke and unnatural substances will make me sick. Of course it will.

I don't need any scientific research to tell me that continuously abusing the global atmosphere will cause it (and us) harm.

To a large extent, scientific research puts hard numbers on what we already know. It took 30 year of medical science to prove the link between smoking an cancer, even longer to prove the link between passive smoking and cancer. It took so long only because the powerful cigarette companies challenged the science ever step along the way.

We are now seeing a re-run of that smoking debate. Intuition tells us that the lungs of the world are vulnerable to abuse. The scientific consensus supports that intuition with hard numbers, ad the numbers are needed so that decision-makers can act appropriately.

As much as they may retard our response to the climate change, we should value the input of the legitimate scientific sceptics (like Prof Don Aitkin) - in the interests of open, democratic, dialectic debate.

But he is dead wrong!

There are several factors that make me a sceptic in this debate.

Firstly, common sense tells you that if the weather bureau cannot tell what the weather will be like in a month's time, what hope would they have in telling you what the weather will be like in 50 years?

Secondly, common sense tells you that the real underlying cause of the CO2 problem is the rise in world population, that trying to reduce the CO2 without doing something about population is futile, and that this problem is never mentioned.

Thirdly, that there are huge vested interests involved here, particularly for government, that can reap the enormous bounty of a new (carbon) tax.

Fourthly, that when we are told that this is a moral issue, you can immediately smell a rat.

Fifthly, that Australia's emissions are negligible, and any reduction in CO2 depends on countries like India and China, who don't give a toss what Australia does as they have far more urgent issues to address.

Sixthly, that the simplest action we can take to reduce congestion and pollution is to end our immigration program, but this is never mentioned, again due to massive vested interests.

I would be interested if posters would comment on any of the above issues. In addition, I would like to know by how much the average temperature has to fall before they will admit they were wrong.

plerdsus,

Your comments are fair.

On the matter of ‘denial’ and scepticism, it seems that anyone disagreeing with the GW bullies is called a ‘denier’, but some of us deny only that humans are to blame for GW, and we also believe that CO2 emissions have minimal influence on temperature.

Global warming is real, but it is a natural occurrence which we have to adapt to. Carbon taxes, as you say, are a grab for money by governments, and will have no effect whatsoever. Nor will ‘green’ energy.

Nature will take care of itself, and we have to adapt, forgetting the ridiculous idea that we can do anything about the forces of nature.

As for Geoff Davies’ article, I’ll stick with Don Aitken and Bob
Carter.

The point that AGW sceptics seemingly deliberately miss and it is a point that Don Aitkin makes at the end of his paper "A Cool Look at Global Warming" is this:

"We are an energy-dependent society whose sources of cheap oil are declining. We really do need to develop energy-sensitive ways of leading our lives. No doubt we will do so more urgently when we are paying $4 a litre for petrol. Like most of this audience, I should think, I would like to see the rest of the world enjoying an Australian standard of living. But will there be enough space for the roads, enough cement to build them, enough metal for the cars and enough petrol to run them? Because of my upbringing, by thrifty parents who re- cycled as a matter of course, I dislike unnecessary waste, and believe that as a matter of public policy we need to make much better and more thoughtful use of the resources available to us. We have a long way to go."

Extracted from Page 15 of Don Aitkin's paper.

This is the elephant in the room. While argument revolves endlessly around anthropogenic warming versus natural climate cycle, we are still running out of natural resources and are still polluting our environment.

That sceptics like Marohasy and Bob Carter fail to address the above mentioned fact, is very suspicious indeed. Just whose interests do they support? Our future or simply to maintain 'business as usual'?

The science debate continues to rage, but even a laymen like myself can see the ice melting. We can see glaciers retreating, we can see the effects of drought in Australia and in other places around the world. Something is happening to the planet. Scientists in Antarctica are telling us that the level of C02 and Methane gas in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been for 800,000 years and is rising faster than has been predicted. Human activity is having an effect on the planet. We are upsetting nature's balance. It is easy to say Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is small and we need the rest of the world to do something. I think this is rubbish we are one of the highest per capita producers of greenhouse gas emissions. We are one of the worlds largest exporters of coal. We could stop all coal mining and reduce our emissions to world average now.

Plerdsus

1. Weather is not climate
2. Population is mentioned, check out IPCC AR4
3. There are vested interests in maintaining business as usual
4. So, let us all be immoral?
5. It is a global problem requiring a global response
6. Because politicians and business want economic growth?
7. Still don’t get it do you – those bloody statistics and trend analyses.

And Carter still won’t publish his thesis in a journal, ever wonder why?