This may have been noted before, but the Coal Industry is not in denial of AGW:

http://www.newgencoal.com.au/

>> Climate change is a real problem. Burning coal for electricity creates CO2, which contributes to global warming.

But we rely heavily on coal in Australia. It underpins many jobs, regional communities, our power supply and strong economy. Worldwide, demand for energy is growing rapidly and coal will remain a major source.

That's why our industry is investing in carbon capture and storage, with many active projects, to reduce our emissions.

It’s a practical solution, and alongside renewables energy efficiencies, and your actions and new ideas - it can make a real difference. <<

While I remain sceptical on the viability of "Clean Coal", at least the industry is making some responsible moves towards our environment and use of fossil fuels.

Severin

CC&S is highly unlikely to come online in the time frame that would be required, even if it was feasible - "clean coal" is a misnomer.

As to the (coal) "industry making some responsible moves towards our environment and use of fossil fuels" - that is highly debatable.

It could be argued that the only reason the coal industry is acting in a "responsible" way is because the government has virtually bank-rolled it by providing subsidies (at the expense of the alternatives).

We would be better off (in the medium to long term) if we weaned ourselves off fossils and began to invest in alternative energy supply. It would help if we (everyone) put a price on carbon - rather than subsidise it.

Unfortunately, that won't happen until the big emitters sort their differences out - another reason why Australia should not jump the gun, as Rudd & Co finally realised. And yes, I am bemused by the antics of Abbott & Co.

Graham:

Of course I respect your editorial authority, but I don't know how to read the OLO Forum Rules now after reading your letter. I thought I had taken care not to "respond in kind", i.e., not to be personally abusive of any named individuals (some of whom who were quite free in their personal abuse and mockery of me - but I am used to this). I hope you will publish this letter.

I think it is important for me to engage robustly on the merits of the climate change denialism issue. I regard rejection of the well-established scientific evidence that human-caused global warming is taking place, in ways that are now a clear and present danger to our children and grandchildren, as a socially irresponsible and harmful cognitive disorder.

There is no way I can tiptoe around my views on this. It is too important an issue to worry too much about hurt feelings.

In open website correspondence, I try to follow a philosophy of 'hate the sin, love the sinner'. Actually I am trying to help climate change deniers' children and grandchildren, too. They shouldn't be made to suffer for the blindness of any of their elders who are prepared to put the comforts of the present industrial status quo above concern for the climate security of coming generations of Australians.

If my frank speaking helps to trigger just one climate change denier to re-evaluate their position, it will have been worth the discomfort to those on whose opinions my writing has had no effect, other than to irritate them.

I will withdraw from this thread now, but not in indignation - I will be happy to engage with climate change deniers in future on your OLO website or in any other public forum. Denialism has had too easy a run these past two years, and has done much damage to public policy. I hope the tide is turning now.

Tony’s statement:” well-established scientific evidence that human-caused global warming is taking place” is baseless and misleading.

Even if it were true, which it is not, then if the atmosphere of the Earth were represented by a line one kilometre long, the contribution of CO2 by Australia would be represented by a line the width of a human hair.

It is of no significance, and people like Tony want our economy saddled with a huge burden which will have the effect of financing the parasitic UN, and feeding profits to crooks like Al Gore.

Al, in his latest book suggests that we place too much reliance on facts. He says that he intends to work more through religion in the future.

Tony refers to non existent scientific evidence, and when challenged, talks about something else. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions contribute to global warming. If there were, the IPCC would have trumpeted it, instead of its spurious unsupported guess of “90% certainty”

A peer reviewed study which makes the IPCC’s “90% very likely” a full 100% unlikely is here:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

The Climategate miscreants from East Anglia were able to expedite publication of a purported refutation, and were able to delay the dismissal of their peer reviewed pretend science, for a period during which the alarmists referred to it, not as science supporting the AGW nonsense, but as science showing that the refutation of AGW was invalid.

The antics of the miscreants (at East Anglia, who peer review each other’s papers) is outlined here:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

Analyse what Tony has said, and notice what he has not said.

There is no scientific basis for AGW, and he knows it, so he talks about our grandchildren. He talks about anything except the topic, even what a nice fellow he thinks he is.

A lion's roar ... just a boar.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/LeoLanes-SuperHeroes-Rebutted

Do boars understand science? Very unlikely.

Tony
So in other words, you are not willing to pay anything voluntarily to stop global warming. You rest your hope entirely on forced payments.

Now please admit that science does not supply value judgments, and therefore that climate science does not, of itself, supply any justification for any policy on global warming