Micfhael Rowan's arguments are flawed.

He criticises the Liberals for endorsing government action in wanting and supporting 'direct action' initiatives. Yet he blindly criticises them for not supporting the Government proposed and sponsered 'market mechanisim ' of a carbon tax.

That's really very amusing. I hope he hasn't a straight face.

Adam Smith would say: Let the market determine whether there needs be a price on carbon. End of story. If the market determines there is no need of a price on carbon then let it be and don't legislate the need for one.

The Liberals position given the amount of deception in the media is probably being applauded by Smith... as most responsible, logical and reasonable.

I know he would be totally rejecting all of the rubbish put out by and the inordinate amount of meddling proposed by the current crop of Australian socialist and communist politicians, their spin merchants and supporting cast of freeloading academics.

All the Coalition has to do is wait... the Republican midterm landslide in the US has fatally wounded the AGW movement there, the Canadian Senate have just killed their carbon trading bill, the Chicago Carbon Exchange has shut down, and France is dismantling their mega-enviro-ministry. One by one the dominoes are starting to fall, and all Tony Abbott has to do is wait and see whether Julia is nimble enough to skip out of the way when the local ones go over. Just wait, and keep Turnbull out of the drivers' seat.

What is the cause of all the water in the driest continent on the planet where it is never going to rain again because we have to much Co2. Lets put a charge on Co2 that will fix it. Any more fairy tales.

Well, Ozandy, it seems as though we're approaching some common ground.

I may be over-optimistic, but I hope that 'climategate' has had a sobering effect on both sides, separating the true, wild-eyed deniers from the more sober skeptics, and giving some of the more sober believers a bit of a reality check on just how some of their leading brethren were indeed behaving badly.

As Judith Curry writes: 'When I first started reading the CRU emails, my reaction was a visceral one. While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the “science hadn’t changed,” ... I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field.'

Speaking of Judith Curry, her recent blog post is perhaps pertinent: http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/14/what-we-know-with-confidence/

You're right, of course, there are some extremely silly proposals being floated and even sillier claims of imminent disaster. And, yes only a true denier would deny that climate changes, although there is reasonable ground to question 'Global Warming', in the sense of an inexorable, human-created warming continuing relentlessly over the course of the next centuries. That there have been multi-decadal periods of warming over the last century is reasonably certain.

Your statement that 'basic science usually an inherently honest profession' is certainly true: science is above all self-correcting. But one may ask, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, does that apply to 'post-normal science'? Putting policy considerations ahead of strict truth-telling, as Mike Hulme urges, seems dangerously divorced from honest science.

That 'there is little to gain by lying and getting caught' is more questionable. The Golden Tsunami of research funding and the associated prestige that inundated proponents of Global Warming suggests otherwise. To quote Judith Curry again, 'at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC.'

I think keith is on to something: what, indeed, would Adam Smith do? (WWASD? :) )

I very much doubt he would, as Michael Rowan urges, support the state meddling in the marketplace in order to engender 'correct behaviour' in its citizens.

Nor do I think he would have much truck in the state taxing the bejesus out of the marketplace, in order to fund and promote a lacklustre product ('renewable energy') that just happens to be favoured by the regime of the day.

I am fairly certain that Adam Smith would argue that the new product, renewable energy, should simply be left to compete on its own merit against the existing product, fossil fuel energy. If the new product has merit, the market will ensure that it prevails.

After all, the motor car didn't win out over the horse and cart because the state introduced a Horse-Poo Tax in order to fund the development of the internal combustion engine. And, believe me, horse poo was indeed a huge (literally) and seemingly ineradicable environmental problem in the 19th century. Ever wondered why New York's famous brownstones have such high stoops?

Clownfish: I will agree that there will be a minority of science with a bias towards what the researchers believe to be true...these are humans after all. However the thing about peer reviewed science is that it *must* be transparent and when played properly, the game is self correcting. Science is after all the *only* human invention that has been shown by history to improve human knowledge over time. Name another method of arriving at the truth without transparency, full disclosure and repeatable methods?
This article describes the sceptics movement well: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41292.html
Basically large pay packets, ideology, and complete lack of accountability and peer-review characterise the sceptical "scientists". They are attack dogs, not true sceptics.
I agree with you regarding carbon tax and to some extent subsidising renewables...so long as the polluting industries start paying their true costs so that renewables can play on a level playing field. Given that everyone but the coal industry pays for coal pollution, how can they say there are so cheap? Nuclear is even more expensive but proponents ignore the true cost, which has traditionally been hidden by black military budgets.
So let renewables compete sure...but also let fossil fuels pay their true costs...and take into account the infrustructure that was subsidised by our parents and grandparents to get them to a profitable stage of development.
Remember it was science and engineering that gave us the gift of cheap energy. The anti-science movement is basically killing off solution options for the next generations by maintaining the current rent-seeker's rights to make massive profits.