Phil, you must have some science on which to base your belief.

Let us have the reference to the scientific measurement of the effect of human emissions on global climate.

The dishonesty of the IPCC is well established, so I hope you are not basing your belief on their unsupported assertion that it is “very likely”.

Since there is no measurable effect of human emissions on climate, this is the best that this purveyor of the AGW myth is able to offer. They gave this unscientific guess a 90% certainty, and said that the scientific proof was imminent.

There were seven independent scientists who supported this guess. Two later withdrew their support.

Fifty years ago, Britain’s top physicist said that he was 90% certain that his team were right on the brink of producing nuclear fusion. He was wrong.

After 5 years of failure to produce the promised science, it is fair to say that the IPCC is wrong.

I'm very firmly in favour of an open and widely reported official enquiry.
If that enquiry simply validates the denials emanating from sections of a, [methinks thou dos't protest too much,] private media sector/enterprise, then that would be no bad thing?
And I would also support an official body, providing the essential oversight, that ought to include protecting our current freedom of speech, from fraudulent/spurious or vexatious claims or liabilities.
Any official oversight ought to include obliging "opinion" providers, to validate their "facts," before revealing or publishing them.
Indeed, the new body must come with enough punitive teeth, so as to prevent those things now revealed, with regard to the British media!
Rhrosty.

Only the gullible deny that man made gw is a faith based position with only pseudo science and politics backing it. Thankfully the public have woken up despite billions wasted by the scam industry.

"You are using a flawed argument."

No, I am not. Did you read the links in the article to recent studies which DISPROVE essential aspects of the AGW theory. The links are in the 6th last paragraph of the article.

Anyone of those papers disprove AGW. On the other hand there are no conclusive papers which prove AGW; all the AGW evidence consists of computer modelling which has been revealed to be based on flawed assumptions and parameters for crucial elements of AGW.

You say: "I'm convinced by the AGW argument." What in particular convinces you?

Every high rise, village or urban suburb, could create all the alternative endlessly sustainable fuel they need and free hot water, simply by simply converting their current wasted waste, [and I apologise for the obvious pun,] into on demand electrical energy.
This closed cycle smell free method, utilises a couple of tanks roughly around the size of shipping containers, which convert the waste via two separate biological processes, into methane.
The methane is then stored in simple bladders and released with demand, into super silent solid state ceramic fuel cells, to provide entirely independent endlessly sustainable, onsite energy.
Given the efficiency factor of 60%, which when compared to coal-fired power, 20%, means the alternative is 2 3rds cheaper.
It's all very exportable Aussie innovation, which to date has received no reported official support or funding. Why? The power of the fossil fuel industry, coal-fired power, with its huge returns from a still largely captive market, and their powerful cashed up political lobbyists, perhaps?
Think, the widespread acceptance of and funding paradigms for the above, would likely resuscitate the steel industry and local manufacture, with all the wealth and job creation spin-offs, that would create.
Incidentally, the locally invented Sarich orbital engine, is still the cheapest to make, worlds most efficient lowest emission engine, with the least moving parts.
You'd think that this engine, which incorporates V8 power and performance bands, along with the miserly petrol sipping economy of a victa mower, would be the perfect partner for the new and much vaunted long range Holden volt.
Think, we could probably produce a CNG powered variant, which given its incredible efficiency, could save the large Australian car manufacturing industry and exports?
Rhrosty.

Hi Roses,
Are you serious about " ....an oversight panel of judiciary [which] may prevent propaganda /opinion being presented as 'analysis of facts' " ?

I have the right, just as you do, to be casual with the truth, in pursuit of my ideology, insofar as everything I - or you, or anybody - writes or says or thinks does not have to be 100 % spot-on: think of the alternative - that if a neo-liberal regime gained control of such a committee and could dictate to you what was and what was not the 'truth' and prosecute you for any deviation, anything less than 100% of what THEY say is the Only Truth.

The essence of free speech is to allow the free expression of opinions that we don't agree with. We are, after all, not all dills, we can weigh up arguments more or less, although of course we tend to give more value to those with which we already agree with. On reflection, every Monday night, after watching Q & A, I'm prepared to modify that opinion about us not all being dills. But even so, if I were king, I would still allow the teenagers and Greens (overlapping sets if ever there were such things) to express their poorly-thought-out, but heartfelt and shallow opinions: I can always just switch off or watch Shameless instead.

No, freedom of speech does not extend to incitement or actual violence (or the threat of it). But nobody's opinion is so sacrosanct that nobody else can have a go at it.

As for New Limited and AGW, The Australian publishes the weather forecast each day and, as an extra, it publishes for each capital city the highest-ever maximum and lowest-ever minimum for that day, from which we can gain just a glimmer of evidence, one way or the other, of AGW. Why do they do that ?

Joe