"What is really needed is something to convince everyone - one way or the other - that there is really a change and something definitely needs to be done. Consensus doesn't cut it enough."

All that is needed to convince people that there is global warming is global warming. Unfortunately the earth and sun don't seem to want to cooperate. That's a much larger 'consensus' right there than the supposed '97% of climate scientists' (out of the third who could be bothered to respond).

Chris Gollis places all his eggs in one tiny frail basket when, by going back 30 years, he manages to find one case in which the agreed views of 99.999% of relevant scientific experts were found to be wrong. Could he tell us how many cases there were in that time frame in which the agreed views of 99.999% of relevant scientific experts were found to be right? Could he also tell us what his decision would be if 99.999% of all relevant medical experts told him that his only chance of surviving his illness was to agree to a certain surgical procedure that he didn't fancy? Would he gulp hard and agree to the surgery, or search the history books for a case in which 99.999% of relevant medical experts came to a wrong decision in order to justify ignoring his doctors' advice?

Considering it is our politicians of the ALP/Green/Indy coalition who regularly use weather events, drought, flood and hot/cold weather to justify AGW is caused by excessive generation of CO2 and the need for a great big new tax, it's amusing to see the regular hysterics get into kniptions immediately that SM makes an ironic, tongue in cheek comment.

Such is "debate" in Australia, but there is no debate, there is invitation on one side to discuss evidence, or such, and the other side is always busy that day, or doing their nails or such.

Mind you they can always find time to band (collude? conspire?) together to write letters demanding skeptics not be allowed into venues.

I see the ABC has daily articles of mindless accusation, insult and general spleen venting at skeptics, but no debate or discussion. (science, seems so unnecessary, and inconvenient)

Do alarmists now fear, as they fall into a minority as the popularity of AGW falls and the looming tax brings some reality to the citizens, that it is going to affect them, they will be ostracized?

PM Rudd said it would be a few cents a week, then a dollar or two, now we should be relieved when the tax will not be on petrol for many bring $2B of relief. $2B, hey hang on, that would have been $1,000 per person per year! (not everyone drives either, I say that because hysterics tend to go off without thinking, until they discover someone to tell them how to think, or so it seems)

You'll still pay tax when all the road companies increase their charges though, don't worry, you'll still be able to "contribute".

Will we have marches after the tax comes in, of people taking pride and responsibility of it? Will they demand more taxes?

The reality of trying to stop climate, I suspect, will morph into just adapting to it pretty quickly, but how do you take a tax away from a Labor government?

So, there are for points to contend with:
Scientists have been wrong in the past so they might be wrong now. Yep, no worries there, but you would need to be pretty selective where you apply that kind of thinking to everyday life.
Look at all those climate disasters etc: Climate scientists consistently warn about interpreting weather-induced disasters as evidence one way or the other for climate change, so the point has no merit.
Doing nothing is reckless: This confuses climate change with what to do about it. Completely different subject, irrelevant here. It is possible to be perfectly comfortable with IPCC climate science and still oppose a carbon tax, for example.
Is there a critical experiment...? This is the only question that is truly relevant to the science. But I think it is framed wrongly because it concentrates on the models and the future. The primary issue for a sceptic ought to be, has climate change been occurring in a way consistent with man-made greenhouse emissions being the cause? And the correct answer is yes. You can't do experiments with climate, only make measurements. The measurements have convinced the climate scientists and in particular the IPCC that emissions are affecting climate. They haven't convinced Chris Golis. Who to believe? I have no idea whether the specific measurements that Golis cites would, on their own, 'disprove' whatever hypothesis he says they disprove. I rely on the climate scientists to do that for me. Obviously Golis does not. That's the difference. Perhaps he should submit a paper on the topic for peer review.

GlenC
No Chris was only using the stomach ulcers case as an illustration of just how far off the track experts can go. In fact they have done whole studies on whether the forecasts of experts are of any use in their own field.. the results of a very large study can be found in the current book Future Babble by Canadian journalist Dan Gardner.
Sorry, no better than layman.

Now this obviously does not apply where the expert/specialist has a well-established forecasting system with a proven track record, such as the specialists you cite. In that case they can point to studies showing that if this happens, then there is a percentage chance of this result. There is nothing like that in climate science.

This goes to the very heart of the present confusion over the use of experts. The key question is not that they agree, but what forecasting track record can they point to. You pay attention to the system not the experts.

AM,

The point I was actually making, was that global warming is not bad for everyone.

As for "Shadow Minister does just that. It was cold on Tuesday, ergo global warming has come to an end!" is such twisted leap of logic on your part that it is no wonder we have no faith in the government.