Shadow Minister makes the rather facile comment of citing point 1 (electricity prices rise) while tactically ignoring point 2 (households are compensated). Perhaps it has escaped SM that the compensation proposed by government is akin to that given when the GST was introduced: end users were compensated for its effects.

He goes on to display his lack of understanding of the article which is that the point of raising electricity prices is to attract new investment in the electricity generating business who emit less CO2, pay less or no carbon tax and can therefore not only compete with fossil fuelled generators but eventually replace them – in other words put them out of business unless they reduce their emissions.

Martin N makes a perfectly valid point in noting that going “Nuclear” offers a tried and reliable alternative to renewable energy and it should have got a mention. My own view is that until we can safely store nuclear waste they are probably not a politically acceptable option. If they were, why did successive Howard Governments not give approval to a single nuclear power station?

As for geothermal being decades away and having problematic technology, well my information is that a demonstration plant will be operating next year and that a 25Mw power station is less than 5 years away from being a reality. But, proof of the pudding is in the eating.

No, Nicco, this silly insistance that skeptics are just denialists is becoming old, tiresome nonsense.

The sloppyness of the counter arguments can be seen in the very point you mention. The bit about the data in fact I agree with, or don't care much about one way or another. What they are referring to is the data from the land stations which some sceptics claim, not without reason, is flawed.

I happen to agree, like all other sceptics, that there is, or was, a warming trend. The satellite data also shows this, just a less dramatic trend than that of the instrument network. The problem is deciding what is causing it. Further, that has always been the main case. Yet, there are those who insist, in the teeth of all reason, that the argument is really about whether there has been a warming trend of not, or whether the earth's climate can be considered warm.

If you want to make yourself useful, find some hard evidence that some part of the present climactic warmth is due to emissions. The best the climate commission report could come up with was highly equivocal indications, and more silly abuse as a substitute for reasoned arguement.

If carbon is a problem,then why are our Govts allowing atrocious practises coal seam gas which is detroying our environment and farmlands.The Govt says one thing and does another.It is total hypocracy.Tell them to frack off.

If carbon is a problem,tax it as it comes out of the ground.No, both the Corps and Govt want to screw the worker.

No Curmudgeon. You, as a “skeptic”, concede that global warming is occurring but assert that it is not due to human emission of greenhouse gases.

Science has put forward a substantial proven explanation. You have said no, no that is not right.

Fine, but it is not good enough for you to simply reject this explanation. You have to tell us why it is wrong, You have to tell us what the cause of global warming is. You have to put up a persuasive argument why your view is right.

Let me tell readers now that the Curmodgeons of this world will do none of these things. Why? Because they have no other explanation which can not be and has not already been shown to be wrong – and if there is one thing these pseudo skeptics do not like is being shown to be wrong.

Nicco is of course quite right. If Curmdgeon had anything better to offer than an irrational vacuous rant, it would be welcome by science but unfortunately that is not the case.

Arjay asks a good question. Why do governments allow grossly uncontrolled extraction of coal-seam gas to the detriment of farmland, the Great Artesian Basin and the environment?

NSW and QLD State Governments are definitely guilty and the reason they allow it can be summed up in one word – GREED. Both governments have made themselves highly dependent on mining revenue. Both need more revenue and see this as a means of meeting that need.

However, Senator Heffanan has demanded safeguards and reform of the coal-seam gas industry and the Commonwealth government has indicated that it will act to impose much tighter regulation – particularly to protect farmland and the environment. And about time too!

Agnostic of Mittagong
finally you are getting the idea that the arguement is over whether the present climate warmth is part of a natural cycle or induced by industrial emissions in some way. We are getting some where.

Now to the next level of total misunderstanding of the debate on the part of activists. You assert that scientists have advanced an explanation, which sceptics have rejected. Wrong. they have advanced an explanation which they have yet to verify in any meaninful fashion, and its up to them to prove it.

The bulk of the "proofs" offered for greenhouse theories - peer review, a "consensus" of experts, matching of model output to historical results - are completely meaningless as proofs. The history of science is full of wrong theories that were backed by a consensus, and back testing.

Instead the theory needs a demonstrable track record. Forecasts that have actually be confirmed, rather than proved wrong, unequivocal forecasts of heating patterns in the upper atmosphere that can be domonstrated through actual measurements (there have been various claims and counter-claims on that last point), measurements of increases in humidity in the upper atmosphere as required by the models, and so on. A solid record of seasonal forecasating would be good too, rather than a history of compelte misses.

It would be nice if activists could gain some idea of what the debate is actually about. Going over the same ground many times because activists have not stepped to read anything about the debate, and being abused in the process, is becoming tiresome.

Curmudgeon, theories are accepted on the basis of evidence and overturned by alternative theories and the basis of evidence for those.

What is your alternative theory? Natural cycles?

What is the mechanism by which this theory works? That is, if it is indeed a natural cycle, what is the mechanism that is causing the temperatures to rise?

The reason that most scientists do not accept that the entirety of the current warming is natural is that they believe that, other than rising levels of CO2, that mechanism has not yet been found.

If you have good evidence that it has, then please enlighten us.