You’re right anti-green and there are many other reviews that have recently concluded and some yet to take place. The problem remains that there was only ever one internationally recognized, official body for AGW assements, the UN’s IPCC. This is the only body that is recognized by governments for the formulation of policy. It is these policies which are now driving the business community.

Those recent reviews that concluded AGW is correct are then quoted to support government action. Unfortunately, those bodies that question the AGW orthodoxy simply go into the “political flat earthers” box. No matter how many other bodies review this or what conclusions they reach, we will still have divided scientific, political and public opinion.

This is a monumentally stupid situation.

Encouraging though it may be to hear some contrary views to AGW orthodoxy, this divisive debate remains contentious, in fact contrary scientific views only make it more divisive. It will only ever cease to be divisive when a new, internationally recognized, official and politically supported body is formed with a mandate to include all scientific positions.

Only a new but open “equivalent” to the IPCC will now satisfy both sides.

In the meantime we have the international business community responding economically to government policies which are in turn based on half a scientific picture. Mr. Carmody’s article is a classic example of this. Like I said, his proposed “solutions” based up on half the information are advocacy, not business, not science and most of all, not valid.

We need to understand that it is not a question of which input, if any is flawed, this is a distraction. The issue remains that if only partial input is considered it is the decisions that are flawed.

My challenge remains, I defy anyone who promotes action on AGW to demonstrate that all decision criteria have been accommodated in that decision, and I mean anyone. This includes direct action, carbon pricing/trading and even the UN’s “precautionary principle”.

I believe that the absence of responses to my challenge will demonstrate all we need to know about “climate change action”.

I cannot understand you people who continue to play the rhetorical game when the fat lady is singing

The question of global warming is not a plaything for the erudite. It is here and now, real and awesome. If we have no more

than ten years to fix the problem it is already too late and continuing to play at the edges is ridiculous.

If the cause is fossil fuels then we must stop using them and we must pay the price here and now and, because no other

solution will work, we must stop the use by putting the price beyond reach.

We have to face up to the fact that the problem is serious. Either it will eliminate the human race or it won't. If, for some

reason or other you have the believe that some humans will survive perhaps you should do a survey on how many dinosaurs

are still around after the last climate change. Either you're serious or you're just fear-mongers and if you're serious you must

admit to the need to pay the piper and pay bigtime.

Where should payment start? It should start by attacking the cause not some process downstream. It makes no sense to pay

a price for our own pollution whilst giving some other country supplies of coal, gas and oil to undo all our fruitless frugality.

The price needs to be put on the basic commodity not on some later processing action. The culprit is the source not the

consequence.

Then comes the question of what to do with the revenue received. That's easy! It ought go directly towards the building of a

replacement energy infrastructure.

What is wrong with you people that you can't see the facts that lie there staring you in the face?

Billiam

bILLIAM, << you cannot understand you people who continue to play the rhetorical game when the fat lady is singing>> That’s OK, you can’t understand. We can live with that.

When you do, please get back to us with something sensible

My comment relates to Julia's proposal for a 150 layperson 'Citizen's Assembly' do assess what to do re AGW. I was recently part of an exercise that I suspect was a pilot program for the Citizen's Assembly. 40 lay people, supposedly of diverse views on AGW (ie those concerned and sceptics) were subjected to a series of presentations over 3 days. At the beginning we were asked to respond to a voluminous set of questions to determine our attitudes to AGW, and our willingness to pay to correct it.

We were then subjected to a series of what can only be called 'alarmist' presentations of 'the science'. The question sessions were tightly controlled so that no 'inconvenient' questions could be asked.

It was clear that most of the lay people in the audience, when presented with 'the science' by the 'eminent scientists', were persuaded. Subsequent surveys showed increased concern re AGW, and increased willingness to pay.

The problem with the whole process is that it can only be called propaganda. There was no opportunity to hear any sceptical views. Sceptics were dismissed as 'denialists'.

An appalling experience. If Citizen's Assemblies are approached in this way, we will get a very unfortunate outcome.