The purpose of this comment is to point out the capacity for people to see conspiracies where none exist.
The author, like all climate skeptics, certainly displays all of the essential characteristics of paranoia and a blind faith in conspiracies.
If you've got the choice between a conspiracy and a stuff-up go for the stuff up every time.

'The present scare phenomenon of global warming/climate change/carbon dioxide is a perfect example of mass hysteria over an imaginary problem. In this case it is a political hysteria developed by unscrupulous power mad and money mad people.'

Unfortunately the flat earth worshipers are so full of pride that they can't swallow a little pride and see they have been taken in once again by fraud in the name of science. First evolution, then global cooling, now global warming and who can guess what's next?

All it takes to sell anything to some of the populace, the SOTPAOTT’s, (some of the people all of the time) is, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), the prospect of a real and present danger, a sense of urgency and someone with “the solution”. There also needs to be a vulnerable audience that feels disenfranchised or powerless (particularly those powerless within their own lives), these are the SOTPAOTT’s. History has shown us just how eager these buyers are.

A sobering article Ronald, pity the “faithful” will marginalize you as a heretic

Another IPA, CIS, (totally dead heart)Heartland Institute clone speaks, therefore it must be true.

Especially as he calls himself a "classical" liberal.

When the term classical is used it usually refers to some kind of philosophy from ancient sources---usually the Geeks, or perhaps the old time church farters like Augustine or Aquinas.

Whereas the so called classical that this chap refers to only originated about 250 years ago with Adam Smith and others.

Really quite a new, and very noisy punk-adolescent, kid on the block.

Plus I am quite sure that Adam Smith would never ever be found at one of the frequent gab-fests that the pearls before swine society puts on.

Plus as usual this reference gives a completely different assessment as to the state of the world, and how we got to here.

1. http://global.adidam.org/books/not-two-6.html

Yes. The age old cry "The End of the World is Nigh" remains with us. For a short time in history, true science enabled us to scoff at old wive's tales used by the demented seers to frighten and control the ignorant and scared ancients. Now, corrupt, rent-seeking scientists are using the same tactics to frighten and control scared and ignorant moderns. The politicians have helped them with taxpayer funding to do this, and they in turn will follow it up with a huge tax grab.

Pfft. This article speaks for a "skeptics'" movement which sincerely believes that the world's climate scientists are engaged in an elaborate, global hoax for the purpose of destroying the West's economies and score a victory for Marxism.

The AGW "hysteria" has a long, long way to go before it can compete with paranoia on that scale.

I I would truly love to believe that climate change was just a fantasy produced by mad leaders and mass hysteria. But having needed to drive 30 minutes each way each day for 12 months on the Stevenson Expressway in Chicago I got a close-up view of the gunk that industrial societies have been and are throwing up into the atmosphere. Glaciers melting, floods, tornadoes and bush-fires do not impress either. I reckon the threat is real.

What worries me is that the government's present plan to deal with the situation (ASSUMING IT CAN BE 'DEALT WITH') SEEMS TO HAVE LITTLE OR NO RELATION TO THE REAL THREAT, AND A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH CREATING A NEW REVENUE FLOW FOR CANBERRA.

Linking 3 or more 'facts' together to form a commonality is the old 'ABC' argument. A is a black car and B is a black cat, therefore A = B because both are black. B is a black cat and C is a white cat. Therefore B = C because both are both are cats.
Therefore A = C and black is white.
I don't know the causes for climate change but intellectually lazy arguments like this add nothing to our understanding.

Ronald Kitching, Thank you for this timely & thoughtful piece,and your understanding of our communities dark dilemma, where progressing past these rent seeking mobs with their yellow journalism on global warming & population control and their failure to understand the benefits of CO2 as one of lifes sources. And societies ability to solve through progress where performance not prescription will see another day once the lost have rounded the bottom.(forgive, but don't forget their names).Its a grave pity today's primary education in this country fills a child's head full of doom a gloom "the world will come to an end, if we don't stop man, producing CO2" which is destroying everything! Shallow educationists delivering their mob new minions,so they think!

Firstly, Ronald failed to give a single piece of evidence for
any hysteria. Which occupies more of our daily papers, football
or climate change? If there was indeed any substantial
climate change hysteria, I'd expect football to come off second
best. Ronald provides no surveys, no observations, no
evidence of any sort. My gosh, hysteria is a pale shadow of its
former self.

Secondly, Ronald failed to explain how the purported hysteria
of the public over climate change has any bearing
on the truth or falsity of the 2 main claims of
climate scientists: there is an imbalance between energy
arriving and energy leaving the planet and that a major
part of this imbalance is caused by human activities.

If the existence of this imaginary hysteria has no
connection then is it just intrinsically interesting and
worthy of comment?

I'm guessing, not having read "The Crowd", that it is similarly
devoid of quantitative evidence for its assertions. Some people
do science and some people just like to make stuff up ... I do
love a (good) novel.

Some reflections on the "culture" that Ronald obviously champions.

A global transformation is now required in human culture--after the devastation, or collapse, of gross ego-civilization in the twentieth century. Something entirely new is required, something comprehensively right and grounded in Reality as a seamless Unity.

Since the collapse of that gross ego-culture it is no longer possible to return to a tradition that idealizes the gross human ego. Indeed what happened in the 20th century, particularly at its end, was the definitive failure of the civilization based on the idealization and glorification of the gross ego and on the wholesale adoption of the gross egos power and control seeking perspectival view of "reality".

The Renaissance destroyed the earlier form of civilization based on the archaic and childish "God"-myth. After the Renaissance Western civilization became based on the myth of the gross human ego. The ego-civilization came to its essential end in the 20th century.

From now on, the only right basis for human existence is the establishment of a civilization that is no longer based on the idealization of the gross ego, but also no longer based on archaic "God"-mythologies. True and right life is intrinsically ego-transcending. True and right life is the life of intrinsically egoless coincidence with Reality Itself. True and right life intrinsically transcends ALL mythologies--whether of "God" or "Man".

The old civilization is ego-based and ego-bound. The old civilization
idealized the ego, and it thus inevitably ended with a world of fear saturated egos destroying one another. That course, in fact, is still happening, and must be stopped---but it cannot be stopped merely by force.

A transformation of human understanding and of human processes altogether must occur---on every level, including the artistic level.

It is also interesting to note that Ronald and his IPA/CIS type clones endorse both gross ego-culture, and the archaic "God"-ideas too.

Using the thus posited "God"-ideas to put forward the proposition that capitalism, which is an "advanced" form of power seeking gross ego-culture, is part of "God's" plan for humankind, and even the pinnacle of human culture thus far.

Once again, Sancho sneers at alternative views to the ones he holds. He doesn't say exactly what we are sceptical of, nore does he tell us why we are wrong not to fall under the spell of the climate fanatics.

He is a good example of the adage that you cant' reason a man out of something that he hasn't reasoned himself into.

I hope Sancho is putting money away to cover the massive added costs for everything he buys when the carbon taxes land on us. There will be no discounts for the true believers if the climate change hysterics get their way.

Actually, Leigh, I sneer at views that are baseless and founded in greed but purport to be otherwise.

If you want to prove me wrong, answer these simple questions for me without referring to a conspiracy theory or attempting to move the goalposts:

1) Why is the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists warning of the impact of climate change, and only a tiny minority (mostly without relevant qualifications) in disagreement?

2) Why do the members of that minority almost all have links (often paid links) to industries that stand to lose profit from addressing AGW?

3) Give me some instances during the previous century when a scientific near-consensus turned out to be wrong, how often it’s happened, and how many scientists were involved in the debate.

You see, if your views were worthwhile I’d hold them myself. But we have different motivations: the desire to preserve human life and civilization versus the desire to preserve a handful of luxuries.

I enjoy watching you cobble a defense together, because you know you’re defending a pile of rubbish. How do I know you know? Because your real argument is at the end of your post. In fact, almost all of your posts on climate change culminate in a claim about taxes or extra cost. How petty.

For all of your vitriol, pseudo-science, ham-fisted rhetoric, and obstinacy in the face of simple facts, your real motive comes down to a measly whinge about paying a few more dollars each week. With all that’s at stake, Leigh can only cry and moan that he’ll pay a bit more for utilities each year. The poor, poor dear.

It’s because you’re giving a middle finger to the next generation that AGW “skepticism” is a lost cause. It’s an ongoing farce of fighting, then caving in to, scientific evidence as the industry lobby loses credibility. Unfortunately for you, the public values solid science over the facile excuses of tight-fisted misers who’ll gladly shaft the rest of us just as long as they can die clutching a few grubby banknotes.

Well said Sir.. carbon sequestration to get into bed with the controlling set.. is just a load of bull... as you well know.

But apart from that.. This climate change that is.. occurring is an opportunity for intelligent people to start building a green SOLAR world. We are filthy rich in Oz but it's all going out out out of the country by the haves just as any third world country is leeched.
Four or five massive solar heated power sources and stick your coal oil gas and your blue blood bull..., academia brings the worst, and accidentaly the best now n then at least Arnie was a wakeup.

We need to take a whole country solution and tax coal to the hilt to pay for it. They are digging up 'your country' make them pay the rent.

I enjoyed the article while it rambled on about crowds...then the conspiracy theory anti-intellectual argument began. LOL!
Your attempts at social engineering are pretty pathetic.

For any real skeptics I'd suggest Newscientist magazine for an overview of the science over the last 10 years or so. Scientific American is also a good source. Whilst there is *much* uncertainty, there is also genuine understanding of many issues.

For those that with total faith in the political arguments of the Great GW hoax...have a nice day and don't forget the tinfoil hat!
Jesus will come down in his God-mobile UFO and collect the righteous before anything Bad happens.

Mr. Kitching I don't believe Hitler has a place among those people , he appealed to and captured the basic instinct 'survival' of the German people ; the Treaty of Versailles provided the pavement for Hitlers journey and Albert Speer provided the powerfull imagery . If Hitler had to compete with Churchill within Germany he would have faltered I believe .
Rudd's 'Grand Gestures' mentality mucked up the debate on AGW , it will probably happen but will fail for lack of preparation ie; it is not an exact science , the misery it will engender won't be placated by Spin .
If Rudd had methodically designed a plan based on what 'is' possible , affordable and simple for OZ to achieve ie reduce Engine size in all vehicles , reduce the weight of vehicles , reduce fuel consumption , halve the gas emissions , won't suit the Rev Heads but it will reduce our carbon print .
Another issue Trees , Why are we not planting Trees , Trees are made out of CO2 , Pay farmers , unemployed persons , Ordinary People who want to do something to help save our country , this was the go back in the 50-60's planting pine trees . There is huge areas where trees will grow on Farms where marginal land is no longer viable even if it will only support Mallee or Saltbush it's still scooping up Carbon .We need to make sure MIS Forests are still managed they are Carbon Sinks too . We are lucky most Countries can't do this , by the time they work out what to do we could have Billions of tons of CO2 locked up in Trees while they have done nothing !

Crowd behaviour......."population growth is good". Not only does pop growth stuff the climate ( 20 tonnes of Co2 per person per year in Australia), causes huge debt ( close to 1 trillion dollars, combined private and projected government)..as each of us are consuming more than we are producing....it wipes out our best farming land on the edge of cities, destroys precious ancient bushland and condemns the poor to live in highrise flats.

Yet most of you reading this post will do mental gymnastics to convince yourself, that the above is untrue.

We are growing by 1 million extra people in Australia every 3-4 years!
Check the ABS stats...our birth rate is double our death rate and immigration is out of control.

Time to throw this "crowd" stupidity out the window. Abolish the baby bonus and slash immigration to zero net. That is, 80,000 leave "permanently" each year....bring in 80,000.

Cheers to the free, rational thinkers,

Ralph