Tony, Loxton
Wow, assuming what is in issue, appeal to absent authority, and personal argument. How amazingly persuasive.

So what's the answer to the question: How much would you personally be prepared to pay voluntarily to stop global warming?

Tony - What the IPCC actually said was that they were 90 per cent certain that human activity was causing warming. If you looked closer at the 2007 statement the panel declares that about half of the warming after 1940 is human-induced. (They gave no reasons for that estimation, it just seemed right to them.) Now if you really want to put your trust in an organisation with no forecasting track record of any kind and make those sort of strange estimations that's your problem, but to complain that the people who point out the failings of your article are "cackling geese" or whatever it was shows a distinct lack of spirit.
The article is an outdated rehash but your CV indicates you are a talented guy, so why not show us what you are made of and come back with something more original?

Peter,

I will pay for my children's clímate security as much as my society democratically decides all its citizens and taxpayers should pay, after those who try to muddy the waters of public debate on this issue have been discredited.

You should know that in a democracy, public goods are paid for equitably by the national community, eg defence equipment, police protection. Climate protection for our children and grandchildren - yours as well as mine - is such a public good. You and I will pay whatever society decides that we should pay. It has nothing to do with 'voluntary' payments by you or me, this is just a red herring - it is about working democratically for better public policy choices. For example, spending around $40 billion on faster broadband and [not] spending $1.5 billion on solar energy is a bad public policy choice.

Well Tony, how about cutting the Australian population? Is it a good time to do that? I'll tell you what, public goods are paid for by the Australian tax payer.

Global warming a 90 percent cert? It's 90 percent conjecture. The pro-climate changers argument is tangled mess of punch drunk theories going back to the mid 90s. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt if they can produce a coherent argument.

Indeed, these days I'm impressed if pro-climate people can produce an argument that leads logically from a proposition. Time and time again they either shoot themselves in the foot or another party, claiming to be on their side, does it for them.

Even so, I respect their right to amuse me.

That comment is the second insult, Tony, the first being the insult to our intelligence of your vacuous article, with its series of false assumptions.

There is no scientist in the world, Tony, who is able to produce proof that human emissions contribute to global warming, never mind this non existent majority you assert.

There is scientific proof that the warming is accounted for from natural sources, leaving no room for the assertion that any of the warming is caused by human activity.

The only crisis we have, is that people have been so misled by alarmists like you, that 58% of the electorate still believe that an ETS is necessary. It is perfectly clear that an ETS is a non solution to a non problem, as any realist can see.

That a poseur like you has the temerity to refer to realists as deniers, is disgraceful. By the way, you forgot the words "pompous clown" in front of Ross Garnaut's name.

You represent the deniers of the truth about global warming, the truth being, that it is a scam, with no scientific proof, simply a mantra, repeated by the likes of Phil Jones, the Climategate miscreant. His weasel words are along the lines of "Nothing detracts from my assertion of anthropogenic global warming".

But nothing supports anthropogenic global warming, so there is nothing from which to detract.

Take your false assumptions to a site which relates to abject nonsense, Tony, and where they do not mind being talked down to, from the non existent height to which you believe your hot air has lifted you.

James Hansen, to whom you suggest that we listen, is consultant to Al Gore, who has distinguished himself by telling more lies about AGW than any other person, alive or dead, and that is saying something.

Gore had to cancel his address at Copenhagen, because if he appears in public, now, there is always a group to chant the truth about him, "liar", and "fraud".

We have had enough of your type of prevarication on OLO, Tony. It is a boring, repetitious series.

[Deleted for abuse and irrelevance]