Surely the author never believed that politicians ever take anything but a political view of everything?

Hmmm... I find myself essentially agreeing with what I take it is the author's central argument ie. that government needs to be financially encouraging R&D in the energy and commodities industries. It's a shame that it is backed up by such a hodge podge of half truths and non sequiturs.

Yes, the science surrounding climate change is complex (though perhaps not quite as divided as the author and her employer imply), and yes, this complexity is perhaps not fully documented in a feature length documentary aimed at a lay audience. Surely this is an unrealistic bar to set though!

The pertinent facts in a social and political sense are that:

1. A significant majority of the scientific community believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming.
2. To quote what others have pointed out, if even half the predictions made by many scientists are correct, this warming will have civilization-changing effects.
3. There are political steps available to us which would help reduce our carbon emissions, and hopefully help avoid the worst outcomes of global warming.

How anyone could argue that we not play the odds on this issue is beyond me - and this does not even take into account the fact that, as a highly educated, developed nation, Australia is in a position to make key breakthroughs in clean energy technology, setting ourselves up financially while at the same time helping other nations to reduce their emisssions.

Yes, R&D is vital to this, but that carrot will not be fully effective without some kind of stick, and a carbon pricing scheme is that stick.

The science is, as the author points out, complex; the politics is, by comparison, simple!

Can't see the pollution for the cars. Can't see the climate debate for the political spin. Can't see the negative consequences for the immediate gains.

Science is very exacting and it is a spin doctor trick to find a minor detail that is debatable to attack a whole argument and discredit the scientist.

So, if you want some down to earth evidence re: climate change, just go for a walk beside Gympie Road and take a deep breath. If you don't pass out, you might get my point. There is a lot of emmissions going into the air and you don't have to be a climate scientist to see that the Earth's ability to absorb these huge amounts must have a threshold.

It very hard to prove some things beyond all doubt and the politicians, especially those who work in the interests of corporations,take advantage of this for their clients ends. Nevertheless, it is clear that that haze over Brisbane and other cities every day, along with deforestation, must be causing damage to the Earth.

Let's hope future generations don't have a saying like: Never seen a forest because they buggered the earth; can't see a future for the past.

The author's job as a policy coordinator for a professional body is reflected in this post. As such Ms Sardor has to satisfy, presumeably, the Australasian Mining & Metallurgy publications committee, democratically selected from all sectors of such a body - the heroes and villains you might say, then given a suitably job promotional title. Hence the call for more engineers and metalurgists to deal only in evidence not Al Gore style rhetoric. At least it does not read like a fence-sitting exercise, but I just hope more of the 'heroes' or should it be 'villains' get on the institutes's publications committee so that Ms Sardor's next post can report all shoulders to the wheel.

A very good and timely article. There is however, a fourth major consideration which is, timeliness. Greenhouse emission abatement science is very much in it's infancy and in all such cases the current cost of any solution is entire orders of magnitude greater than is likely to be the case in a decade or two.

The "CO2 Flux Clan" is attempting to rush us all into a set of very expensive options without full and proper consideration of all the options on the basis of supposedly "civilisation changing" impacts.

They are asking the equivalent of us going into debt for a $4 million 1960's style mainframe that needs a whole room for half a meg of tape drive. Yet, just a few decades later we can get 400 gig of hard drive in a $1000 lap top that can do a much better job, on the actual problem, faster and at a fraction of the cost.

Clearly, the latter option will best serve the interests of future generations.

Congratulations on an excellent summary, Monika.

Chris_B's comments are revealing.

He says that the pertinent facts are:

"1. A significant majority of the scientific community believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming."

Politics is about votes, science is about correctness.

"2. ..... if even half the predictions made by many scientists are correct, this warming will have civilization-changing effects."

None, never mind half, of the human-caused dangerous warming predictions shows any sign of being correct when tested against empirical evidence to date.

What is certain, however, is that natural climate change, both warmings and coolings, will continue, and from time to time will indeed have "civilization-changing effects", as has occurred in the past.

That is precisely why the global warming alarmism is so socially dangerous. It distracts from the real task of climate policy, which is to prepare contingency plans for coping with extreme weather events (such as last year's Qld. cyclone, and the current drought) and for future longer term climate change in either direction. Attempting to mitigate climate change by squandering money on ineffectual attempts to control CO2 emissions is an exercise in utter futility.

"3. There are political steps available to us which would help reduce our carbon emissions, and hopefully help avoid the worst outcomes of global warming."

If the temperature stasis that has lasted since 1998 turns into cooling, as many climate scientists expect, then probably the worst thing that we could do would be to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Finally, Chris adds:

"How anyone could argue that we not play the odds on this issue is beyond me".

That is because you are backing the wrong horse. The most likely climate eventuality in the near future is cooling, not warming.

Cathy