jm .. you certainly appear to have a solid background, I'm surprised you are not very successful as a communicator on OLO, no offense intended, you just seem to be so abrasive in your dealings that people tend to respond in kind.

The same people you "always" have problems with, seem to be quite pedestrian when treated with some respect .. name calling has most often started with yourself.

To ascribe your treatment to some particular OLO "faction" is to ignore the cause of your communications issues.

I'd be very interested in any responses to spindocs letter, though I'm guessing if it gets any attention at all it will be chopped into little pieces which will be individually attacked, out of context.

If the science is solid, it should be child's play, surely, to deal with?

Jedimaster, I for one would be very disappointed if you leave OLO. You clearly have the academic background and the “process” knowledge from your R&D background to contribute to this debate.

I suspect you have a passionate following on OLO because of your qualifications and the case you make. It adds absolutely no value to this debate if you go to other forums where you are simply debating with the “converted”. In addition there will be many on OLO that might rightly feel disappointed if you fail to respond to the contents of this open letter.

The debate on this thread, as I suggested earlier, has now gone to the next level. By this I mean that the open letter from Professor Malcolm Roberts to policy makers has now distilled the entire debate down to a set of fundamentally crucial issues. This presents for the first time in this debate, the opportunity for both sides to focus on responding to these issues. No more “link wars”, no more “my science versus your science”, no more media, no more advocates, no more commercial opportunists and no more “consensus”.

It is now about the assertions made publicly by policy makers and the concise challenges against these statements. These are the lowest common denominators, a summation of the entire basis for AGW.

All you have to do is use the “Empirical, Real World” evidence to which Professor Roberts refers, to refute each of the challenges made by him.

They are just questions for goodness sake. Why would you respond with a “Ricky Ponting” and take your wickets home?

JF Aus,

As far as my feeble mind can understand, Algae is one of our planets’ many ways of providing food and dealing with CO2 absorption. Other than that I don’t know where you are going with this and sorry, but I don’t do science.

Bye the way it was not “my true answer”, I just researched it as you should do. Or you could let us all know where you are going with this?

Spin Doc,

No, i have enever read the IPCC report, although I have listended and read a lot through secondary resources (oncluding on OLO).

You have to excuse me for this as I have a very full work load and only get to write my OLO articles in my own spare time. I also have other interests (inlcuding a 2 year old daughter).

My relative ignorance about greenhouse gas emissions is a major reason why i do now write much about the carbon or similar taxes; I do not feel I am informed enough to make a commitment one way or the other.

While at this stage I am not against the carbon tax, I would like a thorough debate about a policy that may dramatically alter the Australian economy at a time when many are struggling with higher living costs.

Hence, i offered my article as an expression of my view and limited expertise.

oh jeez .."My relative ignorance about greenhouse gas emissions"

Chris, mate, this is the heart of the matter, if you didn't know about the business of greenhouse gases and the various arguments, then why do you post such comments as you do about people who are skeptical being deniers and extremists?

I suspect that you are like many people, happy to go with the carbon tax because it fits in with your general "we should stop polluting" umbrella activism. A general eco/green/environmento wish to make the earth a better place, which is fine and your right to do in your own way.

You may have even swallowed the general alarmist claim that anyone who is skeptical about CO2 contributing to warming, must be an anti green polluting monster who will do anything to increase their carbon footprint, propaganda to split society and give followers a target to point at.

The problem is that while I happily agree as many people do that we could pollute less, taxing carbon will do nothing and does not address the issue of "pollution" anyway. If I pay a tax, then why should I lift a finger to do anything else, will be the catch cry of the community, surely?

It's a broad tax targeting wealthy people and industries, if you are going to compensate lower income groups, then where is their incentive to do anything at all?

The income from the tax firstly goes to pay the salaries of the government department set up to administer it, and the investigators who will be on the street poking into first, businesses and then your home to manage your energy use. Then to compensate low income groups, then there will be ALP mates businesses, special circumstances and on it will go.(mainly into consolidated revenue)

The effect on climate? Apart from all feeling sanctimonious about paying what is ultimately an indulgence .. nothing.

Chris - Monday, 28 March 2011 10:46:05 AM

I am aware of that, I agree and I agree.

Been away and now see so much more bile in the comments to your article. This is unfortunate.

I see spindoc has directed you to a "Professor Malcolm Roberts" blog-site, and letter. I wish you well

The problem we face here is this:

1. the warmists' intellectual method is to assume something for which they are unable to find any real-world evidence. When challenged, they at best merely refer to government-funded sources which have assumed the same thing.

That's it. That's the entire case for policy on catastrophic man-made global warming.

However even if the climatology were conceded, which it isn't, there would be two major impediments before any policy could be justified.

2. The climatology would only show, at best, a trend to increasing temperatures. But what needs to be made out, is what has been claimed: more droughts, more storms, more bushfires, widespread extinctions of species, famine - the whole catastrophe. But the real-world evidence is the reverse. Life thrives on carbon and on warmth. It is sterile at the poles, and teeming at the tropics. Variations in global temperature of a few degrees are normal and harmless, whatever the cause.

Ecology, like climate science, deals with enormous complexity, variability, and uncertainty. Species comprise their individual members. Ecologists simply *do not know* what determines the distribution and abundance of species and communities, even for one valley. To pretend to prognosticate doom for entire continents on the basis of a few-degree temperature rise is simply a false pretence of knowledge.

3. Even if all the issues of *natural* science were conceded, it would provide no justification whatsoever for the assumption that government, of all institutions, can order human society so as to make an improvement on the original problems, when all the negative consequences are taken into account, which they never are. Mere general aggregatie studies are not good enough. How can *one* death deliberately caused be justified? Science does not supply value judgments, remember?

Now could all supporters of AGW policy please answer Malcolm Roberts' questions? :http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/GarnautMarch2011.pdf