Err... How about "Tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth"?

Protagoras
How come people couldn't sue the polluters for their torts and crimes in Australia?

I'm more concerned that those who develop policy have a greater degree of trust in the scientific advice they both commission and recieve. The science is there and it has a solid, credible scientific basis (despite the volume of climate science denialists on endless repeat) but we have mainstream political parties that are more concerned with expansion of coal and gas exports than in any policies that might genuinely lead to significant reductions of their use.

It's a failure of mainstream politics of both left and right who ought both be absolutely determined to face this problem head on but haven't and won't. In spite of failure to deal with emission not being optional they are more interested in keeping the mining royalties rolling in (Labor and LibNats), pandering to the popularity of climate change denial (LibNats) or in avoiding a flow of votes to the Greens by making the failure of their policy the LibNats fault (Labor).

Ken Fabos states that "The science is there and it has a solid, credible scientific basis..." This is pure assertion, as neither the IPCC, nor any other party, has been able to table any irrefutable evidence for AGW. If perchance he has some hard evidence, let him table it and share it with us.

“Protagoras How come people couldn't sue the polluters for their torts and crimes in Australia?”

Peter Hume – the speculative reasons could be:

a) Alcoa’s head office is based in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania where the writ was lodged

b) Erin Brockovich, assisting Shine Lawyers in Australia with the Alcoa case, is an American and works with law firms, Girardi and Keese and Weitz and Luxenberg in the US

c) Shine lawyers work pro-bono and perhaps realise that the American judicial is far more sensitive to (and knowledgeable on) the global human misery and environmental carnage caused by Alcoa but which has been covered up by Australia’s sycophantic 'regulators' attached to state governments, equally culpable of the wilful and deliberate environmental carnage caused and for also using humans as cannon fodder!:

http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=7065727-125624-174539&SessionID=nrPGHF6350xDtA7

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11872

Raycom - No evidence? What complete rubbish - from the emission and absorbtion characteristics of gases, through the way they and the energy circulates to the combined running calculation of all known significant influences that are climate models, there's so much evidence that only those who buy into the quasi-religious belief that what we do to the atmosphere can't change our climate can believe there is no evidence. You want links to data try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ or try any of the leading institutions that study climate like NCAR, NOAA, NASA, NCDC, NSIDC,Hadley CRU, CSIRO, BoM or any - every - major university.

As long as people who want emissions driven climate change to stop existing go to sources that tell them there is no evidence it does and, like suckers, you believe them, people such as yourself will insist there is no evidence. And perhaps insist the warming (if you are capable of admitting there's been any despite every indicator showing a clear trend) must be due to absolutely anything but human emissions with no 'evidence' required.

I suggest your belief that there is no evidence is based primarily on not looking for any or perhaps on some illusion that only some kind of absolute proof that the completely untrained (maths, physics and chemistry illiterate) can be absolutely convinced by is adequate. Or by exclusive focus on the very few bits that can be construed (with bias) to be wrong at the exclusion of the vast body of work that shows it to be true. Try a bit of self education direct from the sources rather than filtered by the high priests of climate science denial. Maybe include some on the topic of risk which climate science denialists avoid more assiduously than actual climate science from actual climate scientists.