Rich2,

Many thanks for you’re spinning contribution to the decline in interest in the house of carbon.

<< consensus of experts is that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future>>

This is excellent, you’re only problem now is that this statement is “unbelievable” as evidenced by public opinion.

The reason it is unbelievable is because we now know it is untrue. I’m surprised you didn’t add the old “90% agree”.

What the public now knows is that of the advocacy scientists, there is consensus and they may represent 90%. If you chose to ignore, trivialize or deny the existence of (and I’m sure you will) thousands of scientists who have publicly documented not only their opposition but the basis for their opposition to your orthodoxy, then we have to conclude that the sum total of your case is almost non existent.

That’s your problem and I wish you luck. Once the spin cycle becomes a spin spiral it is doomed. The only possibility of recovery lies in empirical scientific evidence. Sorry, but the spin cycle is over

"Measures to reduce carbon emissions are all about economics and technology."

This is correct. However, the justification for reducing CO2 emissions has to be evidence-based, not based on the consensus of environmentalist-ideology/pseudo-science appreciation society members.

There is no compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change. Consequently, there is no scientific/technological justification for reducing CO2 emissions.

If there had been technological or economic reasons for replacing coal-fired with renewable energy, it would have happened by now. It is pointless and nonsensical to do this while renewable energy is at least three times as expensive in the case of unreliable/inefficient wind energy and at least ten times in the case of unreliable/inefficient solar energy.

If only Julia Gillard were not so deceptive and stubborn.

Spindoc,

You are pinning all your hopes on dogma triumphing over science. I will stick to the science .....

I find it interesting that someone who names themselves spindoc criticises others for what they see as spinning. Can we take it for granted that this is a sign of hypocrisy and represents a desire to to perform the very act that is being condemmed?

For the record, and given debate on oast posts, I do take the side of those wanting to address rising greenhouse gas emisisons. While i am not 100%, who can be, I take the side of those who do not want to gamble with the world's future. I look at env degrdation all around me, and I cannot belive there is no link to human activity.

However, I am also not about supporting a policy without a popular mandate, nor am i one to kid that carbon taxes alone by Western nations will make much difference, especially at a time when less pluralistic societies are gaining a much greater share of world GDP.

Rich2, thank you, you make my point most eloquently.

Firstly, your response totally ignored the issue of “consensus” and the “90% of scientists”. Well done.

Secondly, your attention was drawn to the issue of spin versus the absence of empirical evidence. Your response was to tell us that my skepticism was “dogma” and that your “spin” is real science.

Thirdly, you suggest that I’m “pinning my hopes” on my dogma over science. Such a telling comment. As a skeptic of course, I cannot have a dogma because I have made no “decision”, that’s what makes me a skeptic, get it?

Your assistance in promoting the lack of substance in the AGW phenomena is appreciated by the Australian electorate, keep up the good work.

Has it occurred to you that once the credibility of your phenomena is lost, you have absolutely nothing left to get is back? If you have empirical evidence to support your case, now is definitely the time, otherwise, as Paul Keating suggested, you will be done slowly.

Chris Lewis, by appearing to sit on the fence you will end up splitting your difference. Stop trying to have a “bob each way” it is wearing very thin.

spindoc, I am not betting each way.

From a national and international point of view, i am arguing that the carbon tax by one or a few nations will make little differenceto global emmissions given current policy trends.

I was just letting readers know my view on global warming. Surely I can do that and still offer an argument.