Ludwig, you seem to be saying that AGW is real. Are you confusing it with global warming which ceased about 14 years ago.

AGW is a dishonest assertion, because although it is plausible, it is trivial, and of no significance.

There is no measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

If you know of any science which shows otherwise, please let us have it.

The established science is that climate follows natural cycles, and no variation to evidence any role of human emissions has been shown to exist.

AGW, as promoted by the PC “consensus” which never was, is a fraud.

If you believe otherwise, please put forward a basis for so doing.

I know of none, other than believing the unsubstantiated nonsense of the fraud backers.

Herbert, where’s the conclusive evidence that AGW is not real?

In the absence of any such evidence, and some pretty strong indications that it is real, is it not pertinent to err on the side of caution?

Everyone should be advocating a cautious approach, which is basically the same approach as those who totally believe that AGW is real and serious would want us to take.

Only those complete denialists should be advocating otherwise.

And there cannot be any such thing as a real credible denialist, because we simply don’t have the data to be able to say conclusively that AGW isn’t real!!

In the absence of compelling data either way, we should all be sceptics and should all be supporting a careful approach, rather than the quite absurd rapidly-expansionist business-as-usual she’ll-be-right-mate approach!

But we shouldn’t really even be particularly concerned with AGW because there are two other things that are more important, and if we properly addressed those, we would be doing much more in the interests of reducing climate-changing emissions, or purported climate-changing emissions, than we would be if we continued to try and address AGW in isolation.

These two things, as I mentioned above, are peak oil or the increasing price of oil and its alternatives and the massive effect that this will have on our whole economy and society, and….

…. the ever rapidly growing demand for energy. Instead of just vainly trying to deal with one side of the energy demand-supply equation and letting the other one run rampant, we should be concentrating on balancing the two!

Seems so obvious really. But it just isn’t happening. Not only do the 'denialists' (who like to erroneously call themselves sceptics) miss this completely, but so do the vast majority of ‘warmists’!

Ludwig, have you heard of the null hypothesis? It's an important part of science. It says, in effect, that the person who claims that X is affected by Y has the responsibility of proving it; and unless they can do so in a reasonably convincing way, there is no compulsion to accept their claim.

You've been pointed to one failure to prove the AGW hypothesis: let me show you another by pointing out that the single most important underlying claim for AGW -- the idea that adding CO2 to an atmospheric mixture including 'greenhouse gases' produces greater heat retention than either the CO2 or the gases alone -- has NEVER been empirically proven. Wouldn't take much, would it? Two chambers, a couple of heating pads, two thermocouples, a few replications for reliability.... and yet despite having $100 billion to spend on 'research' the AGW community has never been willing or able to verify their most basic assumption. Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Why not think again? If you're prepared to abandon the smarmy Flannery then common-sense can't be too far to find.

Climate lunacy will not end. Its like the entire planet is out looking for an imaginary creature with people like Gore and Flannery leading the charge.Apparently these fools have nothing better to do than create imaginary doomsday scenarios, NONE of which has come true to date.

When can we disband this lunatic, money sucking scare machine otherwise known as the Climate Commission?

What a waste of our valuable money.

Ludwig, you say this:

"In the absence of any such evidence, and some pretty strong indications that it is real, is it not pertinent to err on the side of caution?"

This is the precautionary principle [PP] and, along with the consensus and the argument from authority, or as Lord Monckton says, the argument ad verecundiam, it has been the mainstay of justifications for the huge amounts of money being invested in failed renewable schemes and the tainting of the science to do with climate.

The PP is derived from Pascal's Wager where a sceptic considered the pros and cons for believing in something which was unprovable, that is the existence of God. That should tell you the falsity of using the PP because it applies where the evidence does not satisfy a sufficient standard which would otherwise apply in science or law.

Do you understand that: there is no evidence for AGW which satisfies sufficient standards of proof?!

I have given you a conclusive DISPROOF of AGW above, yet you would prefer to believe your gut feeling. Well, I'm sorry Ludwig but your alimentary canal should not be the barometer of whether vast amounts of money should be spent or not.

For those who are interested here is an interesting article on the insidious nature of the PP:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf

Also, as a matter of interest the PP already exists in Australian legislation:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1330

Leo, Jon and Atman, I think you’re all on the wrong track entirely.

It is surely not up to anyone to prove or show beyond a reasonable doubt that AGW is real before we undertake actions in that direction.

Surely you can see that it is eminently sensible to move forward cautiously, and that if we are to err, then it should be on the side of caution.

I don’t get it. Why is anyone so loathe to address this point? It seems that the logic of the precautionary principle can’t be countered, so everyone just ignores this inconvenient glitch in their arguments.

Well sorry, but it is an all-important thing. So please carefully consider the precautionary principle and rethink your positions accordingly.

The other thing I don’t get is why are you so desperately wanting to continue with business as usual, with the most enormous rate of fossil fuel consumption; a finite resource, a resource that has got to become more expensive, and allow it to happen an ever-increasing rate?

Can’t you see the folly in this…. and the need to change our ways and strive to balance the demand and supply capability, and do it in a manner that can be continued far into the future?

It seems very clear that those who insist that AGW is false are doing so not because of a genuine belief that this is so, but because they are afraid of the changes to our society or the restrictions that they think our government will impose upon us in order to address it.

Well, as I have said above, we should be doing much of the same sort of things as we would for AGW regardless of whether it is real or complete bunkum, because of peak oil / changing fossil fuel economics and the imperative to develop a sustainable society.

So broaden your outlooks, get away from the narrow insistence that AGW isn’t real and have a look at the bigger picture. Hopefully you will then see that we do indeed need to act, and pretty dam decisively at that.