Then again, children are at the forefront, helpless children, they rely on adults to make decisions for them. Why should they not have a voice.
Australia is lagging badly in the progress toward alt; energy at the forefront is USA. Nuclear is not as safe as some would like you to believe. There could be uranium on that train in the NT. Someone must know, and yet it takes a week for it to come out.
Co2 is life saving, in the required dosage. Co2 is at its highest level for 650,000 years. Carbon is worse, it is measurable particles, and the jury is still out whether it is a carnogene or not. There is no need for fossil fuel burning, so wrap your ed around it and make progress.

"Carbon is worse, it is measurable particles, and the jury is still out whether it is a carnogene or not."

From wikipedia:

"Carbon (from Latin: carbo "coal") is the chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6... It is present in all known life forms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen. This abundance, together with the unique diversity of organic compounds and their unusual polymer-forming ability at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, make this element the chemical basis of all known life."

The core of a 'lead' pencil is made of carbon (graphite), and I'm in the habit of chewing the ends of my writing implements (except my keyboard) - amazingly, I haven't died of carbon poisoning. Not only am I in rude good health, so are all those women (and some men) wearing bits of carbon (diamond) on their jewelry - bits of carbon often given to them as a sign of affection. And this, you would have us believe, is a dangerous pollutant (lol). I must say, that's entirely typical of the level of scientific literacy displayed by most of the warmists you'll meet.

Perhaps you were thinking of soot, which contains carbon.

What is a carnogene?

"There is no need for fossil fuel burning, so wrap your ed around it and make progress."

Quite right, mankind got by alright for thousands of years without electricity and internal combustion engines. Which is exactly what we'll have to do without fossil fuels or nuclear power as options. Though I suspect you'll have your cut out for you convincing most people that they don't need electricity or automobiles.

Hi Alice, thanks for an interesting post.
I think the word in your quoted definition of “activist” which hasn't been given enough notice is “social”. Should an activist be judged by his personal demeanour, or his results?
All this is really a red herring anyway. The real question is, should the study of science deny the scientist the fundamental right to freedom of speech?
Is it in any way morally reprehensible for a doctor (or group thereof) to speak out against smoking?

“In answer to Grim's question, I don't think it matters which side Spindoc is on...”
Of course it does. In so carefully constructing a very cogent argument against “socialising” science, Spindoc remarkably failed to notice all his arguments applied as much to himself as to the warmists he was criticising.
IOW, he shot himself in the foot.
And now to Peter Hume.
Only someone suffering from egregious narcissistic personality disorder could possibly use the word 'irrefutable' in the context of the softest of all the social sciences.
Indeed far from disproving my points, economics proves it. I strongly suggest you go back to reading Mises, or better yet his predecessor Bastiet.
One of the core principles of economics is TANSTAAFL; “there ain't no such thing as a free lunch”;
or by implication, “something” must always cost more than “nothing”.
Yet we are asked to believe (and denialists gleefully buy into) the idea that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing.
How is this miraculous sleight of hand achieved? Basically, by comparing apples to oranges. In comparing the relative costs of fossil fuels and renewable energy, we are asked to accept the accounting (historical or out of pocket) cost of fossil fuels, and the economic (total) cost of renewables.
To make a true comparison, we must either compare the out of pocket costs of both (eg $1.49 for a litre of petrol, compared to $0 for a litre of wind) which is clearly ridiculous, or compare the full economic cost of both. -cont.

popnperish, grim, Poirot, 579.

Michael Kile’s article is about frightening children with doom stories and indoctrination by the warmertariat. Sadly you seem to have diverted this thread by doing what you do best, proselytize the warmertariat mantra and not going anywhere near the real issues presented.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the debate has moved on, you are still fighting the link wars and trotting out your favorite adopted opinions. We know what, we know who and we know when. This debate is now about how and the victims. This is what Michael is addressing.

That you are also victims is clear, but you have no excuse as adults. Children are a captive audience and quite frankly any adult complicit or supportive of what I would class as child abuse, should be held to account.

You could start by understanding what it is you don’t understand. You might begin with getting your heads around the difference between your version of science, “forecasts by scientists” and the real world which is “scientific forecasts”. The former is socialized or pseudo-science, the latter is real science subjected to scientific processes and rigor.

Self indoctrination is a cult attribute and one of the most difficult social phenomena to escape. The best we can offer is a “Walk Away” package. This, it seems is the only escape from cults and it primarily requires courage. Unless society is able to provide a “Walk Away Package” for warmers there is little hope for them. Especially since research shows that people vulnerable to cults are typically those confused, fearful, guilt ridden or suffer self doubt, there seems little opportunity for them to find the “courage to walk away”.

Warmers are like the “eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”.
(The Eunuch at the Orgy, Raymond Tallis)

-cont.
Peter Hume (and the other denialists) is incensed at government intervention which will result in higher costs, and quite rightly so. I fully agree.
But what about the decades and decades of past government intervention, distorting market prices so egregiously that it does indeed appear that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing?
If you really want to make an honest cost analysis and fair comparison, kindly have the integrity to include not only those costs you consider unfavourable, but also all the subsidies you currently enjoy.
Consider the trillions spent on the violent acquisition (sorry, 'liberation') of foreign oil fields, the hundreds of billions spent on naval policing of trade routes, the egregious subsidies given to multi national oil companies, the dollar for dollar 'investments' governments have made in mineral exploration resulting in windfall profits for the companies and zero returns for the tax payers, massive payouts to oil sheiks and speculators, thinktanks and politicians...
Then multiply it by as many years as you see fit.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always has to pay.
The costs can either be met, or they can be hidden (indirect taxation, subsidies) or they can be passed on to our children.
And their children.
Please, note; I haven't yet even mentioned that rapidly diminishing resources must increase in price, and not one mention of climate change.
As sceptical as Laplace, I had no need of that hypothesis.

No one is suggesting going without power or fuel, that is your unwilling imagination running away again.
Carbon is the result of burning fossil fuel, nothing to do with a lead pencil, which you get lead poisoning from. It's called carbon but it is lead dust.
It is not progressive to drag the subject back to day one over and over again. Our atmosphere is changing, even if it is cold. Somewhere else it is hot. Chaotic weather is becoming the norm. NASA has all the info, and scientists with the equipment to measure and see. So the skeptic notion is just that.