Ah, have matters of science settled by lawyers!
Actually this just comes across as more promotion of denial, doubt and delay with an emphasis on a means of exaggerating perceptions of doubt and creating more delay. Mostly by the same means used within the mainstream media - pretending both 'sides' deserve equal consideration. Sorry, but the reason the vast majority of people who study climate conclude AGW is real and of great concern is because the science supports it. The other side relies primarily on ignorance , misunderstanding and misrepresention of that science. They don't deserve any more equal time or voice than giving it to those who think AID's isn't caused by HIV, smoking has nothing to do with cancer and the world is flat, not round!

A few cherry picked comments about uncertainty in science on top of examples from the very early days of science (when the well known was thoroughly overwhelmed by the unknown) of getting things badly wrong are deeply misrepresenting the current state of knowledge on climate are disingenuous at best. Climate science's complexities are mostly about multiple, interrelated phenomena, mostly understood reasonably well; that predictions of exact temperature rises or precipitation changes in particular regions are elusive doesn't mean it's much more likely there won't be temperature rises or precipitation changes that will have economically harmful consequences are deceptive. Actually the major uncertainties aren't ones that make it more likely the whole issue will go away, rather over some seriously damaging possibilities like interuption of the Gulf Streams thermohaline currents or rapid disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

If there's any cause for Royal Commissions it's into corporate funding of the promoters (like think tanks and PR firms) of denial, doubt and delay on this important issue. And their excessive influence over our politicians and political process.

Uh-oh, Ken's been watching 'The day after tomorrow' again.

Let's hope he doesn't see '2012'!

Dear Denis, I have long thought that AGW exists because of political sponsorship, particularly within the EU and the UK.

This week has seen an astonishing number of anti AGW media articles in the UK, eight articles within three days, perhaps started off by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph in his “Climate Fools Day” address to members of parliament.

Add to this the announcement that the Chicago Carbon Change, the worlds largest, will stop trading carbon. The comments by Rupert Soames, Scottish MP and head of temporary power group Aggreko, who has called for the abolition of the UK’s Renewable Obligation Certificates. The announcement by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel that not only will Germany not now decommission its 19 nuclear reactors as planned, but that Germany is embarking on a new coal powered program using Lignite.

These are profound and rapidly developing changes from previously AGW committed sources. If these developments do not get publicity in Australia, either from politics or our media, we are likely to adopt the very same disastrous and economically crippling policies that Europe is trying to wind back.

It still staggers me that, if the entire settled science, consensus, peer reviewed conclusions are so good, why will they not stand public scrutiny? How could anyone possibly object to a royal commission? Especially, since we have seen so many other nations squealing at the costs of carbon mitigation.

This phenomena as unraveling at such rapid pace, what politician in their right mind would now ask Australians to pay a carbon price without a royal commission?

You’ve got my vote, how can I help?

Clownfish - haven't seen either. Try CSIRO, BoM, NOAA, NASA or US National Academy of Sciences for sources on climate science - and they tend to underplay the extreme possibilities, some of which, even at a one chance in a hundred, should be enough of a concern for concerted action to avoid. You think if the well financed fossil fuel interests could have funded real science that shows the problem is inconsequential or non-existent they wouldn't have? They employ very good scientists within fields they consider relevant to their businesses and a major fossil fuel industry lobby group - the Global Climate Coalition - did request scientific assessments of climate science's validity. From New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3 ....

"But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."

They deleted those views from their publications and worked on their campaign to convince the public - and politicians - the opposite, that climate science was in doubt, something these people knew not to be true.
Not me being suckered by unfounded 'alarmism' Clownfish. It's a serious problem with lots of good science backing it and the successes of groups like the Global Climate Coalition at promoting denial, doubt and delay and sucking in unpaid disbelievers to argue their case will make the problem worse and more expensive to deal and live with.

Or Clownfish could start posting on http://www.skepticalscience.com/ seeing that he is an expert or is he not game to do so?

They have a thread running at the moment called 'Human fingerprint on climate change' I am sure he could contribute to, as could some of the other deniers that have posted recently.

Ken Fabos, the real science that shows the alleged problem of anthropogenic global warming is inconsequential or non-existent, is not financed by the fuel industry. The real science which clearly demonstrates this, is produced by reputable scientists who simply wish to disclose the truth about AGW.

Robert Carter, Ian Plimer, Joanne Nova, Jennifer Morahasy, to mention just a few are not financed by any fossil fuel interests and they have shown beyond doubt that the AGW assertion has no science to back it.

The IPCC itself, does not assert any scientific backing for it because there is none.

For the fourth time Ken, if you know of any such science, give us a reference to it. The IPCC will be delighted to learn of it, as they know of no such science. If they did they would not be reduced to a pathetic guess that it is “very likely”.

That is the best the IPCC can do.

So back up your confident assertion about the science, Ken. Where is it?

As for your disingenuous reference to the documents backing AGW, in the link you supplied, they are old and they are wrong, and certainly no more scientific than the IPCC’s science lacking guess.

You are deliberately attempting to be deceptive, Ken. It is obviously not a mistake, putting forward this material.

However, you may redeem yourself if you disclose some genuine science.

Don’t just disappear to another thread, and post your unsubstantiated nonsense there, again, as you have done on each occasion on which I have previously asked you the question.