For an imaginary problem, imaginary data will do just fine. In fact, since the main aim of the AGW movement is to give politicians and their environmentalist allies control over the rest of us, imaginary data is far more satisfactory, because it can be used to give any results that are required. Do you really think the Greens will smile and pat us on the head if we get our 'carbon emissions' down to, say, half their current level? Or will they merely urge us to greater efforts -- longer blackouts, colder houses, more expensive petrol and increasing misery? If you think the former, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

good point jon, will the activists stop their behaviour if they get what they want? Will the Greens disband?

No, they will go on to bothering us about going further, and even adding something else to the mix.

it's like watching the terrorists with AK-47s happily firing into the sky as a celebration, if they are given what they want, will they go back to normal occupations, clerks, shop assistants etc? No, they like being " a tough guy", a "doer" and it's the same with all the "look at me" activists.

Activists never keep it to themselves, they always have to bother everyone else with their new found or well worn religious fervor.

Much like the rabid AGW believers, the ones who call doubters "deniers", so they can be easily identified as people who need to be dealt with, when the revolution comes, will these people back off when there is a HUGE price on carbon and they shut down power stations?

Activism in AGW and as an eco/green type is a lifestyle choice for you, not for me - the moment you want to change what I do, in a land supposedly of free choice, then you have crossed the line and I will oppose it.

I do see though a lot of people who want to tell other people what to do, here's a hint to you all, when it gets too much, there will be a backlash, it's bound to happen sooner or later.

We will not just be pushed under like we are sheep, like you are sheep to your eco/green/AGW lifestyle choice. You are creating a class system, the people who want to get on with their lives do not necessarily want to continually lectured and bothered by the religious nutters of the eco type.

JonJ,

I think you've already bought the bridge, if you think that climate change is 'imaginary'.

John Le Mesurier, you should not be led astray by politicians who claim CO2 to be a pollutant, nor by TV news pictures which mischievously portray as CO2 the water vapour clouds shown rising from power stations. CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas which is necessary for life.
James Carman, climate change is indeed real. It is a natural process that has been going on since the beginning of time. It is AGW that is a figment of the imagination. No scientist or Academy of Science for that matter has been able to table scientific evidence that proves that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused global warming.
Consequently, the Climate Committee is wrong in accepting climate science as being settled, and thus it will not have the necessary scientific justification for recommending the imposition of any carbon tax.
It is in the national interest that climate science be made the subject of a Royal Commission.

Raycom,

You need to read outside the denialist literature and their favorite strawmen. I can state confidently that you haven't, because you wouldn't have said something like that if you had. Recognise that people like Durkin and Monckton are professional liars (Monckton wasn't Thatcher's scientific advisor; Thatcher in fact recognised and accepted Global Warming as a real danger). I refuse to call people like that 'skeptics' -- skeptics make up their mind on evidence. Denialists ignore the evidence, stick their fingers in their ears and whine about how The Man is keeping them down.

The fact is that we know what has changed the environment in the past; sometimes it's CO2, sometimes it's the sun, usually it's a combination. Volcanoes also matter. However, we know what the value of the variables are. We're left with CO2, and it so happens that the atmospheric concentrations we're seeing are those that would be expected from industry. (And yes, of course CO2 is natural. And if we had no CO2 we'd freeze. But just like a heater in winter, if it's turned up too high, we roast. Natural things can kill, too; ebola is 100% produced by nature. The answer, as in all things, is a proper balance.)

Just do me a favour and google some of this stuff. skepticalscience.com is a great place to start. I can give you a few more places to look. Hell, you can even give NASA a try. Just try to broaden your reading, because what you're saying there is 100% wrong and is making you look foolish. You owe better to yourself.

James, your side is losing the debate. The expected Republican landslide will kill the AGW movement in the US, its most frenzied proponents are facing legal investigations, and former allies like the BBC, the Royal Society and Scientific American are cautiously backing towards the exits. The 10:10 video campaign, showing climate activists literally blowing up sceptic children, indicates the level of debate to which most of you have dropped. Compare the popularity rankings for skepticalscience.com (ranked about 128,000th from the top) with those for wattsupwiththat.com (about 16,000th) if you want to see what most people find credible.

And if you want further evidence, here is today's dose:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/29/spencer-bottom-falling-out-of-global-ocean-surface-temperatures/