"This is why the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s membership grew by a dramatic 1,000 per cent last year, from 5,000 to 50, 000, making us the largest youth-run organisation in Australia."

And how much has it risen this year, after Climategate and Copenhagen? I know it's desperately important to you to find some Big Issue you can use to demonstrate to yourself that you're really important in the world and not just another cog in the machine. But try and find something with less potential to produce catastrophe and misery than the AGW bandwagon. Be an anarchist or an atheist or something.

Like some others, I think that the author has copped too much personal abuse. Having said that, I would urge her to keep looking at the so-called 'fundamental science' and the data that appear every week. The notion that human activity is causing whatever warming is occurring, or has occurred since some given date, is plausible but hard to pin down in the data. A steady increase in carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere, but no increase in global temperature, is not what the IPCC predicted. It is this, plus the truly awful, almost manic, behaviour of those generating the Climategate emails, plus the growing list of errors and dodgy referencing of the 4AR, plus the behaviour of the sun (it looks as though we are entering a long cool period) — all this has made governments everywhere, not just here, feel that there are other more important things for them to deal with.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing in research to improve the efficiency of renewable portable energy sources (because we pay a lot for oil), or act in conserving ways with materials of all kinds. That is simply good sense and good citizenship. But linking that to AGW is both unnecessary and, so far at least, unproven.

Ramya, please do keep yourself well informed on this. Not with the selected bits that are paraded as "proof" of something, but the entire body of knowledge on this, which includes long established and basic physics of gas molecules, several Surface Air Temperature data sets (all show decadal variability overlaying a clear multidecadal warming trend, see GISS, CRU, MSU), ocean heat content (University of Colorado showing a clear warming trend with very little decadal variability over the past decade of alleged cooling), sea level rise (CSIRO from tide gauge and satellite telemetry showing a clear continuing rising trend), accelerating icesheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica (Gracesat, Icesat data), a fast warming Arctic with clear trend of loss of summer ice (NSIDC), continuing glacial retreat, rising borehole temperatures...all during a period that would, if the sun was primary in this, be showing clear cooling.

For all the volume, there's little or no significant content in the ongoing attacks and calls to doubt climate science. Whilst I believe most of those opposing action on emissions are simply misinformed and mistaken, there remains a deliberate, funded campaign attacking the institutions, practitioners and conclusions of climate science. Even if the argument that adaptation is preferable to mitigation has a legitimate place, attacks on science are not the legitimate tools of political debate; these are attacks on the fundamental institutions that have underpinned the prosperity we are enjoying and seeks to overturn reasoned debate based on best available knowledge.

If these were buildings being attacked rather than scientific understandings and ideas those doing so would be Terrorists. To my mind that's exactly what that campaign is; Terrorism against the very institutions that have provided us with timely warning of the long term consequences of our past and future energy policies. Not merely mistaken but deliberately destructive of those institutions and understandings.

I infer that the last post is a rejoinder to mine, so my words here are for both the original author and Ken Fabos.

I suggest that you go to the following website: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/dr-roy-spencer-open-to-possibility.html

There you will see a graph of trends over the period 1998 to 2010 in CO2 levels (rising), PDO (falling), satellite global temperatures (falling) and solar activity (falling sharply). Now you mightn't like the location of the data, but the data are sound nonetheless.

A little further down, below the graph, you'll find an excellent summary by Roy Spencer, who is an absolutely kosher climate scientist. It is really worth reading (it deals with all of Ken Fabos's points), and note that Spencer emphasises 'we can't all be right' (there are many, many views) and 'we don't really know'.

As for sea ice, Spencer points out that freezing and thawing are characteristic of the Arctic and that Antarctic ice has been growing over the past 30 years, not melting. Yes, you can point to alarming news stories about accelerating warming in the Antarctic, but the data don't show that.

Ken Fabos "If these were buildings being attacked rather than scientific understandings and ideas those doing so would be Terrorists."

Are you suggesting anyone who is skeptical of AGW should be treated as a terrorist?

People disagree, science is about skepticism and questioning, not about defending an idea to the death and even lying and subverting the system to do so.

If you want someone locked up, it should be the CRU chaps .. fortunately for them and unfortunately for science, they were just outside the law since their FOI deception was too old to be prosecuted. They admitted they deceived and lied, they are criminals, they should be run out of the scientific community. The fact they are not just shows you can be rewarded for deception, and that is the worst possible result for science - fraud being rewarded, that's why Phil Jones still looks so awful, he knows he will never be trusted again.

I see the US Government is withdrawing funding of CRU now, they are not deceived by the whitewashing of this hideous group.

If you are looking for terrorism in science, then possibly people like yourself who threaten anyone different, who are hysterical doom sayers and insisting the world change because you believe a particular thing, might go look in a mirror.

By the way, the constant allusion to "funding" from dark forces to question AGW, is just self delusion.

It's typical form of paranoia to suspect that anyone different, must be paid to be so, since clearly anyone reasonable (to you) would not think that way.

The ATCC is a club of young people who all want to "belong", they have found a common platform, the problem is that it is crumbling since interest and science do not continue to support the goals.

I do not agree that the world needs to change or I have to pay more taxes to justify your belief system. The climate changes, and will continue to do so, paying taxes will not change that.

Hello Ken .. are you there, come on in.

Are skeptics of AGW, terrorists?

Should they be treated as criminals?

I'm not going to let this one go Ken, you've put it out there and it needs to be pursued.

I believe you've crossed over from reason to religious belief.

Tell me I'm wrong ..

Sorry but it's attitudes like Ken's that scare me very much, that people get so caught up that they suspend reason and want to punish people for not believing, make it a crime not to believe what they do.

You see Ramya, this is exactly why some of us worry about letting the leash of the hysterics and doom sayers of our community. I can imagine in your club you have a range of attitudes so you have probably some wild types like our Ken who would happily burn heretics at the stake for "not believing", this is medieval thinking, not modern science.

I see no AGW believers are about to temper Ken's enthusiasm either, remiss by their absence .. or do you all agree with Ken, that's interesting.