"As someone working in a marine science field, I can see the evidence of ‘Climate Change’ and yes human impacts are a major factor."

Are you a 'climate scientist'? If not, what gives you a greater right to an opinion, or that your opinion has greater validity than Cohenite, Arjay, Bonmot, Curmudgeon or I?

Let me repeat A previous question.... Can we see your imperical (personal) evidence to support your statment above?

Raycom, took the words right out of my mouth, very clear, concise comment....
Roses1......mmmmm, quite scary!

Let me argue in favor of bias. When seeking to broaden my understanding of current issues, I am guaranteed the Age, UK Guardian, generally Fairfax press will give me a host of 'left' opinion on social agendas and 'climate change' , on the other hand, the Australian and others will give me an alternative, although harder to discern a bias, I am sure it must be there, everyone tells me so. A clearly articulated bias is helpfull when acknowledged. 'hidden adgendas' are dishonest.

Bob Carr's free ranging tweets and opinion pieces since leaving office, whilst creating some uncomfortable times ahead for himself, gives us the window to see where his future decisions will be comming from.

bonmot ,there are many scientists who are not getting a hearing on the CO2 debate.The Globalists want it because they get the taxes for their NWO and another derivative called the ETS to screw us over even more.Those in the AGW industry are hardly going to voluntarily cut their govt funding by being totally honest.Theirs is the noble feel good cause of being really cautious,saving the planet and filling their pockets as well.

The facts are that temps have not inreased since 1998 even with expoential increases in CO2.The theory is not being supported by the facts.There may be many other factors like the Sun and changes in the electromagnetic fields of the earth that effect climate.It is the height of all arrogance and ignorance for any one group in such a complex system to say that CO2 is the salient factor in temp increases.

Arjay,

That "one group" happens to consist of climate scientists. Would you consider it an equivalent arrogance and ignorance for, say, physicists to offer conclusions on physics? Why do amateurs/skeptics/ denialists persist in spraying around a collection of assertions and allegations - and proceed to offer their own (untrained) opinions on such complex issues?...as if it wasn't the economic status quo they are protecting(or their obsession with conspiracy they are projecting).

Poirot, what you are relying on is nothing more than the consensus argument to support AGW. It is both wrong and non-existent:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/consensus-myth-97-of-nothing.html

But let's have some fun; you pick a couple of 'climate scientists' who you think are the best going around who support AGW and I'll pull down some names of 'climate scientists' who I think are the best going around who criticise AGW.

cohenite,

You obviously have a problem with scientific consensus.

I'm a little busy today for a drawn out game of "I'll show mine if you show me yours"...sorry 'bout that.

Carry on, it's fascinating : )

Invoking the spectre of censorship is always effective and in this case appeals to eager sensibilities in just the way Finkelstein suggests:
"are often persuaded to believe what is already dominant or what fits their irrational needs"
In this case irrational needs are met, i.e. denialism. I suspect conservatives/libertarians/climate skeptics generally favour censorship for pietistic reasons, but that doesn't stop them from abhoring it when it serves their purposes, in this case sabotaging public support for action.
There are times when censorship is justifiable, or at least rationalised, and that's when dire threats loom. I'm sure no one needs a history lesson on propaganda during war time, and governments tend to resent radicals running around undermining the war effort, talking treason or otherwise compromising the nation's resolve. At least Finkelstein isn't calling for a McCarthy-like roundup of minimifidianists.
AGW looms unambiguously as a dire global threat, as attested by those who ought to know; the vast majority of tens of thousands of climate experts. Minimifidianists are punching well above their weight against scientific concensus, not because what they say has any credibility at all, but because of a morbid fear of change that's a hallmark of human nature. People can't bear to think that the party's over and they might have to down-size, so they cling to the straws the minimidianists cast on the stream.
The current impasse on action on climate change amounts to a condemnation of democracy. Democracy has shown itself incapable of acting decisively against a dire threat that looms for succeeding generations--of course we've done the same economically, saddling the future with debt and resource impoverishment for our excesses.
I favour free speech but I deplore ignorant denialism. And just as we deny fascists and witch-hunters the oxygen of publicity, so we should put a muzzle on those barking-mad few who have such a disproportionate influence among the sheep of popular opinion.