I largely agree with the article, particularly in relation to the shift of the media's focus from journalism to entertainment, and the need for reasoned scepticism in this, and all debates.

However, we need to be wary of clouding scepticism with outright denialism, which is very much a large part of the climate-change debate.

I think there is enough evidence to warrant preventative action. In a business environment, if a risk assessment were to be carried out in the face of the amount of evidence we have for climate change, action would definitely be taken.

Too many people are denying the possibility of climate change purely because of the inconvenience it poses, or other personal reasons, not because of any form of healthy scepticism.

These denialists can be compared to the hard-line Atheists who are even more dogmatic in their beliefs than most religious believers. After all, the non-existence of a god can't be proven any more than the existence of a god can.

Healthy scepticism involves, with critical analysis, a willingness to change your mind in the face of the evidence.

I think there is enough evidence of risk to warrant preventative action...

(A lot more evidence than we had to invade Iraq and kill thousands of innocents)

..and in the process, slow down the depletion of non-renewable fuels.

An interesting article, Malcolm, but, flawed, I feel, through a lack of attention to basic premises and definitions. You say:

"I suggest that most Australians are, by definition climate sceptics. They do not side with the climate warmers nor do they side with the doubters. They are simply undecided...."

A sceptic may well be undecided, but is not defined by just his/her indecision. Wiktionary, for example, defines "sceptic" as:

1. Someone undecided as to what is true and enquires after facts.
2. Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs and claims presented by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

Given those definitions, many of those who support the proposition of human-induced climate change could be called "sceptics" because, in the first instance, they doubted the received wisdom of the infinite capacity of the Earth to absorb thermal abuse and then went on to gather information that eventually became strong evidence. One only has to plug into RealClimate.org a few times to see how sceptical scientists are of each other as a matter of process.

I suspect that you, Malcolm, and many others, are confusing scepticism with cynicism; again, appealing to Wiktionary:

cynic (plural cynics)

1. A person who believes that all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully negative.

One only has to look at how many anti-AGWs immediately assume that climate scientists are in it for the money. If only!

Which is not to say that climate scientists haven't attracted a large following of true-believers who are cynics in that they suppose that the carbon lobby is deliberately trying to ruin the planet.

A touch of retro-modernism, where we keep a focus on established facts could help elevate the discourse above its present level of pro-and anti- AGW cynicism

Excellent article

People “are simply undecided. And one cannot blame them.”

It can only come from a state of extreme hubris where anyone can presume the significance of human activity and carbon release is the cause of any supposed global warming

Kenny suggests the science is in...

I would observe, the “science” of economics has been around for a few centuries and we are still arguing its influences,

The science of global warming is but a few decades old and Kenny reckons it is not “OK” to be sceptical - but a clue

“yet another plea from the right”

From which I predict our "Kenny" is “of the left”

Which explains his somewhat flawed, reasoning

The left desperately believing in the myth of collectivism, are anti-right, anti-capitalist and therefore “individual scepticism” is simply something else to be “anti” about.

We must conform to their uniform view that Global warming and that collectivism is good, regardless that common sense tells us the exact opposite.

Truth will only ever be revealed by questioning and "anti-sceptics" start by denying all individuals the right to question

Same old left-wing thinking

Environmental and climate-activist movements were infiltrated by Trotskyites and other dingbat entryists a couple of decades ago

And they are still at it... promotion the politics of their previously failed collectivist philosophy, trying to force everyone to conform to their illegitimate demands through the false application of pseudo science.

Be sceptical... it is good for your wealth, health and real liberty.

Do you notice how none of the warmists in here have actually addressed the issues?

TrashcanMan says that he thinks “the evidence” justifies governmental action, as if measurements of temperature self-evidently justify steps that will destroy some people’s livelihoods, make some people poor, and still others rich or dead as a result of political decision-making.

But he doesn’t show how, either in technical or ethical terms, *how* he reconciles the human utility of the status quo, as against the human utility of the result he is trying to achieve. Nor does he address any of the issues to do with whether how governments are going to achieve it: forcibly replacing productive processes that are currently responsible for supplying billions of people with food, shelter, clothing, transport, communications and entertainment, and replacing them with something that will do all that, *and* make the globe’s climate be more sustainable *and* be more fair.

He simply ignores the whole issue as if it had not just been pointed out, and satisfies himself with assserting that the positive data supply his entire conclusion.

And Jedimaster relies on the proposition that human activity involves “thermal abuse” of the climate, which is of course what is in issue in the first place. But ‘the climate’ is not a god to be propitiated with human sacrifice. The question is whether detriments to human wellbeing from the status quo would be lesser or greater than the detriments to human wellbeing from policies intended to replace the status quo with a better and fairer system. And what reason or evidence does Jedimaster supply for his contention?: appeal to absent authority citing past temperature measurements!

I have shown how my skepticism could be falsified. You could show what is in issue.

But the sign of the unfalsifiability and therefore the irrationality of the beliefs of Trashcanman and Jedimaster is that when their circularity is pointed out, do they acknowledge the logical error and then show how their beliefs could be falsified?

No. They simply *repeat* the original circular belief.

Stern and other dogmatic denialists posing as sceptics,

There is evidence global warming MIGHT be accelerating due to human-related activity, and the aforementioned warming MIGHT have significant impact on future humans.

I'm not saying WILL, I'm saying MIGHT.

You're saying DEFINITELY WON'T.

You're saying: DO NOTHING, IT DEFINITELY AIN'T HAPPENING.

I assume you don't lock your house when you leave because, although there is evidence you might get robbed, there is no evidence you DEFINITELY WILL.

I, on the other hand, am very sceptical I will be robbed today. It's unlikely. But I locked my door, because the risk is there, and it's worth being cautious.

It's not hubris to have concern about the future based on gathered evidence. It may turn out to be unwarranted, I admit. But it may not, in which case it is better to have locked the door than to come home to find the house pulled apart.

And economics is a social science, based on unpredictable human behaviour. Climatology is based on Physics and Chemistry, hard sciences. Don't make such a shallow comparison.

I'm not saying we should all be preaching the end of the world like those on the extreme left... I'm saying we should be weighing up the risks based on the evidence we have, rather than waiting for 100% proof, which is just impossible (and you'll probably deny anyway).

BTW, I hope you're right.

TrashcanMan
'Stern and other dogmatic denialists posing as sceptics'

Ho hum ad hom

I'm not saying 'definitely won't'. I'm asking, how do you know?

Why don't you answer the questions I have asked?