Exxon are sponsers of the Think Tank who are offering $10,000 to scientists and economists to dispute climate change. Between '98 and '05, Exxon gave $16 million to a network of 43 advocacy organisations in attempts to confuse the public on global warming.

I am pleased that the author reassured us that he is an economist - not a climate scientist.

Again we have an author with vested interests clouding the issue on anthropogenic climate change. Is he claiming that 2,000 scientists have again, got it wrong? Is this another ploy to slow down government action on GHG limitations?

I've been looking at official pollutant reports (www.npi.gov.au)in this country for some years. The amounts of uncontrolled carbon based chemical emissions from pollutant industries are massive and, more alarming, on the increase.

Environmental government agencies are not encouraging large companies to invest in pollution prevention control which would result in an immediate reduction of emissions at much less cost than those we can expect in the future.

It is reported that the US had its hottest year on record last year. More than 120 scientists across US federal agencies have been pressured to remove the phrases "global warming" and "climate change" from agency documents. Why?

Should governments continue with their spin and deception on anthropogenic GHG, then we will pay the price. The longer the delay, the greater the impact on the economy.

Putting politics and self-interests before the already glaring evidence of human induced environmental degradation is indeed, foolhardy. But then perhaps the only information sceptics have on pollutant industries is through their share portfolios.

At a public seminar on climate change I attended a couple of years ago, IPCC chair Rajendra Pauchari made the offhand statement that terrorism was caused by poverty, so we must fight poverty. Of course, the crowd applauded rapturously. No evidence or reference, however, was offered to support this statement, and given that terrorists from baader-meinhof to Osama bin Laden have come from wealthy backgrounds, I was somewhat surprised. I looked into it and found that there is no evidence for such a link, terrorism being generally a pursuit of bourgeois ideologues, while the the poor have more pressing concerns. Aside from thinking this comment was outside his role as IPCC chair, anyway, I couldn't help wondering if the same level of attention to 'sound good' assumptions over evidence characterises the Panel's approach to climate assessment.

My notes from the Beesley Lecture
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Henderson
Accidently involved.
He is being ignored. Both Stern Rpt & IPCC
5 criticisms What are they? Basic Errors
Peer-review -> Dubious assumptns
Scientists -> disturbing intolerant
Highly infuential hockey stick
Bias: Everyone is one-sided and sensationalist
1,100 papers -> Peers of the Realm ignored.
Select Cmmte: Sir.. Sir Peacock. Expert: David Pearce
URGENT need to..
More objective, +represntve, +rigorous. More balanced
A process established ...

Dieter Helm ->
Climate Change taken seriously. Govt action more +ve
Post WWII demand for power. Oil Shocks
Air Travel incr. V damaging
UK leading -> Koyoto -> No turnaround
All wind = 0.5 coal power station
Emissions trading -> little effect
Market failure. Externality.
Carbon price is $0. Need price.
US, China, India -> +50% C dmd by 2030
C02 270ppm -> Now:380ppm -> 2100:780ppm
Threshold is 480ppm
UK leads -> US no action. India China ignores.
R&D longterm helps. Cost-benefit.
Long-term (aspirational only) vs Short-term (impractical)
Medium-term best 2020 or 2025. Glidepath.
Mix of EU ETS, UK CCL. Weitzman model, Koyto?
Hybrid of price + quantities.
Floor <-- Trading --> Cap

Poor Richard Castles ! what a bleak and pusillanimous world he inhabits ! so some of the terrorists were from "rich backgrounds" and not actually mired in poverty. Aside from the stupidity/cruelty of terrorism, Castles seems unable to grasp the possibility that people are capable of philanthropy, i.e. they may be impelled to act, whether unwisely or not, in an attempt to ameliorate the suffering of other human beings. And/or to avenge the injustices meted out to other human beings, including, of course, the Palestinian people. And this is not necessarily a case of some hard-line ideology affecting a few sympathetic bourgeoisie. It is a trait which the best human beings are capable of,it may occasionally lead them into violent actions but most typically into productive organisation, e.g. Gandhi and Mandela.

Good one David. Can you please do some follow-up articles on the holocaust and the shape of the earth please.

kang, are you saying that you regard terrorism as "philanthropy"? If so, I'm quite happy with my grasp on philanthropy and, I suspect, reality. Anyway, in order to vaguely stick to the subject, my point was about the trustworthiness of the IPCC process that Henderson talks about in the relevant article. Pauchari made a hugely generalised statement, without a shred of evidence to back it up, on a subject outside his jurisdiction anyway, and which was clearly agenda-driven. The IPCC is not supposed to be an advocatory body, but an independent panel reporting to governments.