For Colinsett:

Don Aitken (by his own definition) is both a "lukewarmwer" and an "agnostic dissenter". One could be forgiven for thinking that the ‘Don’ is sitting on the fence. Perhaps that is what 'political scientists' do.

Others here have a 'faith' that makes it difficult for them to accept that AGW is significant (if at all) and give the impression they are ‘knowledgeable’ in ‘climate science’ when clearly their expertise lies elsewhere.

Both views imply that more "proof" for AGW is required ... before what, exactly?

Is it not enough to move towards a more enlightened world of energy supply or use?

Most reasonable people would say yes, regardless of their ‘beliefs’.

Yet, the protagonists say; not now, can't make up my mind, or they adopt a strategy of ‘deny and delay’, for ideological or religious reasons.

The real ‘debate’ that the world is having now is about how and when to move to a better energy mind-set.

AGW is but a diversion.

qanda is tired of those skeptics asking the same questions and has moved on, but asks, what are they waiting for?

The questions to be answered of course, how come if CO2 is still going ballistic, temperature is not? Isn't that the basis of the whole argument from the true believers? Temperatures are not going ballistic, so that of course gives the skeptics cause to pause and ask .. what's going on?

The believers though ignore this and say well the science is settled, we genius humans of this age know everything there is to know and that's that!

The "debate" about energy use is a different argument .. since there never was a debate about AGW. It is convenient for believers to use this as their argument, but is still doesn't convince people and less people are convinced now than before.

how about that qanda, it's so passe to talk about AGW, because your position is even worse now than ever before, so stick your head in the sand is now the preferred position of the true believer?

So if we pay a big new tax, and the justification is to save the world, how much tax do we pay to lower the temperature .. and why can we not have the benefits of increasing temperatures .. what's wrong with the world becoming warmer, apart from models predicting yet more hysterical conclusions? (believers just ignore this logic of course)

The reason the PM and her government are in trouble is people DO NOT subscribe to what you say.

@qanda

There are views at both extremes, and my position is in the middle. That doesn't make me a fence-sitter unless you define it that way. I could argue that it is the most reasonable position. But to get past the cocktail party debate, you say the following:

'Is it not enough to move towards a more enlightened world of energy supply or use?
Most reasonable people would say yes, regardless of their ‘beliefs’.'

Amicus has already picked you up on the logic, and so do I, rather differently. First, by using 'enlightened' as your adjective, you stack the cards your way. Why is it 'enlightened' to use wind and solar power (no pun intended)? We do so at considerable cost to us all, because of the forced subsidies that we pay. 'Enlightened' assumes the truth of what you are arguing. I could argue that the market will determine when we should shift, just as the use of trees for firewood ended when there were few trees left for his purpose, and the naval leaders were pleading for oaks to be preserved for ship-building. In came coal. I have some faith in our capacity to overcome shortages through technology.

Second, I agree with Amicus that if we are to go down the alternative energy sources path, we should do for a reason other than AGW, which rests on dodgy data grounds and is not even supported by contemporary (much better) data. Shouldn't we do things for the right reason?

For Amicus: Yes. While there's still wide debate in the scientific community about nuances and technicalities, we have “moved on”.

It's a common distortion among so called 'sceptics' and 'believers' that the "science is settled". Science is never settled, there is still a possibility you will spontaneously combust tonight.

A psychological defence mechanism projecting onto others that which you engage in yourself:

"stick your head in the sand"

There will be benefits to a warmer and wetter world: food yields for an increased world population, for example.

There will be disadvantages as well - answers to the same old questions.

Models? So called 'sceptics' discount 'models' at the same time they exhort the 'models' of Roy Spencer - epitome of hypocrisy.

--

For Don Aitken: Play semantics if you like, I won't.

Solving the world's energy problems requires a mix - horses for courses - pun intended.

There's no semantics-playing in my post, qanda. Read it again. If fossil fuels get too expensive, because of decreasing supply, we will find alternatives. There are many of them, and some will be more useful than others. Neither wind nor solar can be used at the moment without large subsidies, and they come with other problems too, like unpredictability and storage. There is a major new possibility in gas, too, which could give us more time in which to find a base-load energy supply that has minimal costs and few unpleasant consequences. Even then that new supply has to be competitive with existing supplies.

Qanda you are obviously not a practical person, otherwise you would realise that the only alternative to fossil fuel is Nuclear. I hear no suggestion of adopting nuclear from any proponents of a carbon tax.

None of the current crop of alternate energy production technologies are of any use for volume production.

Only dreamers, greenies, & it would seem politicians could be silly enough to believe they could supply our needs, if they actually did any study on the subject.

If your real interest is in reducing CO2, we can reduce our output from power generation by 30% just by building the latest coal fired systems, & even more by using our new found gas. This is of course of no interest to those proposing a carbon tax.

Their only reason is ideological, & probably a desire to punish the working & middle class for being too prosperous.