dickie: "Exxon are sponsers (sic) 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."

And according to its communications manager, Greenpeace receives $12 million every year from people in the Australia Pacific.

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

I don't understand your point, given that the climate projections of the IPCC and the Stern Report draw on economic assumptions. On what basis do you make your claim that "The longer the delay, the greater the impact on the economy."

dickie: "Again we have an author with vested interests clouding the issue on anthropogenic climate change."

David Henderson, along with the other contributors to the Dual Critique of the Stern Report, explicitly states that "We represent no interests, and we have neither sought nor received any financial or institutional support for our work. We write as independent commentators." Yet, AGAIN, we get the vested interests line.

I like the "clouding the issue" part, though, as clouds are, in fact, still clouding the issues of climate science.

CJ Morgan and Kang persist with this moronic ploy of suggestingg that anyone who does not buy the ross extrapolations to doomsday scenarios is somehow denying the existence of any anthropogenic climate change. This is pure bollocks and evidence of the presence of ideology rather than science.

And to then carry it on to the surveys of scientists in a way that implies that every one of them supported the worst case scenario (the way Al gore did) is downright dishonest.

It sugggests that there is a serious misnomer here. It should be called "Gullible Warming".

Hi Richard,

Greenpeace receives its donations from the public. Hardly a vested interest in the manner of a large and very, very rich polluter. The public tends to like its rivers to contain water, not toxins.

Your assertion that “the climate projections of the IPCC and the Stern Report draw on economic assumptions” has got to be arse-end about. The IPCC report has at it foundation a great deal of scientific research. So does the Stern report, though that is not a scientific report. (and haven’t we had this conversation already?)