Class action should be taken against the high priests and false prophets including Bom and CSIRO that have trashed science in order to promote this religion.

To all of you who doubt 'climate change' or 'AGW' or whatever guise our changing climate needs to be called, I would suggest you read 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomia Oreskes and Erik Conway, released in 2010.

In this powerful book, the authors, two historians of science, show how big tobacco’s disreputable and self-serving tactics were adapted for later use in a number of debates about the environment. Their story takes in nuclear winter, missile defence, acid rain and the ozone layer and now climate change. In all these debates a relatively small cadre of right-wing scientists, some of them eminent, worked through organisations created specially for the purpose to take on a scientific establishment that they perceived to be dangerously unsympathetic to the interests of capital and national security.

I would also suggest to promoters and dissenters that they perhaps read and digest peer reviewed scientific information to really gain a good understanding of this issue.

Emotive comments do little to address real issues facing our world and we all have a responsibility to work through the information from all sides and work on the precautionary approach to issues as they arise.

Co2 is measurable and is currently at its highest level in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years.

It would be quite amusing to see AGW alarmists trying to prove their contentions in the High Court, but given that it's far easier for them to simply root around in the money trough provided by governments and 'environmental' groups, I can't see it happening. Shame, though. Perhaps Peter Gleick could be brought in to advise them on situational ethics?

Sorry Geoff, but when ever warmists start talking about tobacco companies when they try to make a global warming case, you know immediately, that they have no scientific case to put. If they had any sort of scientific case, they would put it, & not a pill of emotive bull.

These emotive arguments only work with the true believers, who don't have enough science to see through the garbage.

"true believers" being code for scientists.

"...who don't have enough science to see through the garbage."

As opposed to whom - lawyers and engineers....sailors...florists....trapeze artists?