Ian Read is 100% correct.The debate has been anything but open or fair.Sceptics are equated to halucaust deniars and true analyisis by the broard spectrum of scientists and public debate, has been shut down.

The real agenda is another pyramid ponzy scheme of C02 that is both our source of energy and life itself.Tax that and you control the planet.

Davida in one sentence:
>> To simply attach all problems to greenhouse gases while deforestation goes on unabated is absurd. <<

Davida in the next sentence:
>> Deforestation and big paddock agribusiness are causing ... release of greenhouse gases from those soils. <<

Is there not some self-contradiction here?

This very poor article is tiresome in its predictability, merely regurgitating all the canards of the denialists - Manorina is right.

It starts off sounding almost reasonable but descends inexorably into the usual denialist memes:
>> alarmist findings... politicising the scientific process... will brook no dissension... silencing sceptics... ad hominem attacks... unsubstaniated hypothesis... belief, and adherance to that belief. <<

You know you are reading just another fabulously predictable denialist diatribe when the author starts referring to gates:
>> Climategate... Glaciergate... Amazongate... Disastergate <<
A favourite media tool - when a word is attached glibly to the suffix 'gate' you know there is a 'frame' going on. Here, there is an implicit suggestion of some universal understanding of deception, cover-up, some sort of jiggery pokery on the same scale as the original Watergate; a conjured word that merely has to be repeated in order for the reader to understand all there is to know about some supposedly exposed conspiracy.

The last paragraph tellingly resorts to using the denialists' favourite 'frame' when they want to sound reasonable - the idea that there is a 'debate':
>> The AGW debate does not follow these principles. <<
A pathetically wrong assertion.

It has to be said: the usual rants here by denialists show them to be fools finding confirmation bias in Read's article. I suggest they read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
There, they'll find that the role of greenhouse gases was already understood in the 1820s (Joseph Fourier) and by 1896 the Swede Arrhenius was able to calculate that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by 5 to 6 deg. But all of that real science is beyond the likes of Ian Read and the other conspiracy theorists here.

The old "vorld order" hangs on by the skin of its breeches, clinging desperately to the top of the greasy totem pole.

Corporations, big polluters and sycophantic governments took over and corrupted the Environmental Protection Authorities when they were first legislated in the West in the early 70s.

Climate change aside, do we have yet another author who is insidiously recommending we continue contaminating rivers, oceans, air, crops, soil, groundwater, animal and human health with fossil fuel carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic chemicals and which also burn to CO2? Is the author insidiously recommending that the corporate cowboys and big polluters continue wiping out the biosphere where much of it has reached a tipping point? If he’s objecting to the CPRS, what alternative solution does he suggest for cleaning up the planet?

Environmental Protection Act:

“Discharge of waste in circumstances in which it is likely to cause pollution: 1) A person who intentionally or with criminal negligence in any position from which the waste could reasonably be expected to gain access to any portion of the environment and be likely to result in pollution, commits an offence.

“An Act to provide for an Environmental Protection Authority, for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment.”

Environmental denialism is a 40 year old industry and an organized campaign in climate denialism that dates back 20 years, when the fossil fuel industry first formed a lobbying apparatus to stifle action on global warming, hence environmental protection.

The think tanks at the forefront of challenging the science of warming -- such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) et al receive a majority of their climate-related funds from a raft of utility, coal, oil and car interests that are all big polluters. What a coincidence and they’ve heaps of blood money.

The recent shenanigans of the denial industry's main target from the get-go, was to discredit the IPCC so they can continue bludging off the environment.

Environmental carnage or environmental protection? Your choice, your destiny.

Excellent article Ian.

One should address the media element.

Btw: A reduction in bushfires is a great start which from what I have observed in Australia and the States has intensified dramatically over the past 15 years. Common sense dictates that bushfire escalation in the States Canada and here has occurred in the same period/timeframe as I noticed climate change here back in the mid 90's. Along with other fuels emitted into the atmosphere that many environmental scientists know of course contribute to climate change.

My view has always been that if insufficient funding is allocated to the US, Canadian and Australian governments for firefighting equipment, including many more waterbombing planes, strategies and firefighting plans devised and implemented; our global warming for this planet will continue and worsen beyond any hope.

I do not believe it is too late as yet IF tougher laws and penalties are introduced to deal with firebugs arsonists and people throwing cigarettes out windows on highways and countryside areas. People causing fires despite the education and warnings.

A greater population and not nature [ie lightning strikes and weather conditions] causes the majority of bushfires in my opinion here and nothing much done to address these emissions.

Keep sending up the toxins into the atmosphere via bushfires and nothing will remain of the layers! Simplified.

Tell the hobby farmer who welds on a 40 degree day with 70-90kmh hot winds fanning the sparks into the paddocks or kids lighting fires for a laugh on hot windy days not knowing that its their future about to go under.

Bushfire and Town fire emissions are way out of hand and many countries are underestimating the damage done already.

we are unique,
your comment suggests you blame global warming on bush-fires, but not solely. Interestingly, Ian Read didn't use the word 'fire' once in his article.

>> Common sense dictates that bushfire escalation in the States Canada and here has occurred in the same period/timeframe as I noticed climate change here back in the mid 90's. Along with other fuels emitted into the atmosphere that many environmental scientists know of course contribute to climate change. <<

So you noticed some sort of correlation (might you have got the cause-effect round the wrong way?), admit happily that emissions cause climate change, but blithely state that it's an 'Excellent article, Ian'?

Have you missed something here? Such as the substance of the article, ludicrous as it may be?

Uniquely confusing.