I agree that the IPCC is not infallible; only a few days ago on OLO there were credible claims by Kjell Aleklett that IPCC emissions scenarios may be exaggerated. Whatever the merit of other explanations for climate change (eg cosmic rays, natural cycles) the fact is the Earth never before had 6.5 billion people. These people are critically vulnerable to disruption of supplies of cheap energy and water. Even if IPCC is only half right I think it is good insurance to act on their warnings. If they are wrong we can cut our losses. So far the evidence suggests IPCC warming predictions are conservative if anything.

This is a very valuable contribution in a debate that should be balanced.The Australian public is experiencing anxiety on this topic largely because of fears about the drought.It is important that they are not misled by extremist nonsense. I hope that a willingness to allow a proper debate (and to hear all points of view) will prevail.

The 'climate change' industry is utterly corrupt.
Along the way, it has corrupted science and scientists.
It is partly a product of the internet, but the internet will be the tool to hold many of those responsible accountable.
Oh if only a fraction of the billions of dollars so far squandered on the preposterous endeavor of 'fighting climate change' had been spent on the real and present afflictions of humanity.

Just a little niggle here, slightly off-topic, and yet not. It's the gratuitous use of the word "industry", as in the term "greenhouse industry". Whenever I see that term, I fear I am in the presence of someone from the spin industry.

(When I were a lad, the word industry meant "the organised action of making goods". Now it means just whatever you like. Intangibles Incorporated never had it so good.)

Is the author implying that the climate-change worry-warts have a commercial agenda? Can there only ever be one motivator of human activity - PROFIT? If some of us were to be informed by other ideals, would it be asking too much for the Captains of Industry to take time off and see us as anything other than commercial rivals?

Linear thinkers from Linear Land take note. It is the RATE of climate-change that is the problem for living things. The nearest thing in your language is the phenomenon of compound interest - and that's about as unnatural as it gets - as we are all about to find out.

Point taken.
'Climate change' industry is a euphemism.
'Climate change' racket is more accurate.

Racket is so right.

Do a google search on Greanpeace salaries, Sierra Club salaries, or environmental organization salaries, and you'll find there's no need to be a profit-making organization to rip folks off. At least companies in the energy business are accountable to shareholders.

... and do you think companies in the bio-fuel business are in because of altruism?

Environmentalists are the neo-Marxists of our time. They've just painted over the red with green

Climate change is a fact. Climate has been changing since it first occured and will continue to change regardless of the efforts of, well....anyone. The current assembly of bad guys, generically referred to as Greenhouse Gasses, are probably contributing to it and subtly altering its speed or conditions, but if they were there or not, a cyclone would have eventually lobbed into some desert country or other as it did recently. So let's not fight it.
Yep, there is a climate change industry, and a climate change racket perpetrated upon the basis of the Politics of Fear but I, being an old-schooler, prefer some kind of alliteration in my personal snideness and would like to propose the epithet "Climate Change Con."

Well what do you expect; everyone to be in it for purely altruistic reasons?

Of course they aren’t ever going to be.

But it is grossly overstating the case to call the momentum or effort to do something about climate change an industry or racket.

Life’s not black and white. Nor is it simple shades of grey. It is multicoloured and multidimensional, blah, blah. The struggle for the greater good and the promotion of vested interests can and do exist side by side and in overlap.

As for true altruism (the wilful sacrifice of one’s own interests or wellbeing for the sake of something that is non-self [Wikipedia]); you can’t expect anyone to practice it. We all have an interest in what we do. In fact, this definition doesn’t make any sense. I mean, who is going to sacrifice their own wellbeing if they have no interest in doing so, and hence no reason nor anything to gain?

We’ll just have to accept that there are vested-interest motives on all sides.

"That is another common tactic when faced with an inconvenient piece of scepticism, pointing to a hastily-contrived counter-argument, no matter how flimsy, and claiming that it “discredits” the scepticism."

For some great examples of this head over to http://www.realclimate.org home of the flimsy counter argument. Some examples of weak counter arguments include:

Southern Hemisphere isn't warming as much as Northern Hemisphere because of the Southern Ocean.

The 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't mean CO2 doesn't drive temperature.

Global Dimming. It would be a whole lot warmer if wasn't for this cooling.

Polar amplification. Well really only Northern polar amplification as the Southern Ocean stops it happening at the South Pole.

Satellite temperature readings are not showing any warming since 1998. So they must be wrong, it couldn't possibly be something we don't understand.

The surface is warming faster than the troposphere, against model predictions. The troposphere temperature measurements must be wrong, it couldn't possible be the models.

Just to name a few...

climate change industry, climate change racket, climate change con....all very true....climate change groupthink (=IPCC)

What exactly is this 'climate change industry'?

How many does it employ? Who exactly is in it? If Lawson means the scientists (in Australia? theres less than a hundred employed in the CC field) and the greenies (less than fifty getting any of their time paid for), are they two industries or one? Even if one, its a bloody tiny industry.

Actually we all know its just a conveniently sour label for everyone casting doubt on the economic-growth-is-good program(ming).

Incidentally, i raised some of the many problems with Great Global Warming Swindle 'documentary' on a past thread of Mr Lawsons, and he made no response nor shows any hesitation in endorsing it.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5830
Even tho Carl Wunsch (who Lawson cites) has slammed it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
Congratulations Mark, for ceaseless propagandising in the face of all the information. No wonder the AFR is sinking http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21750885-643,00.html
but don't take it personally, you're far from the only fossil fool at the AFR.

I can't wait to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle 'documentary' for a second time. Apparently the ABC has a re-edited version (maybe Carl Wunsch got cut). I urge everybody to watch. Coming to the ABC in JULY.

I can’t wait either Alzo, especially after reading Carl Wunch’s response, bought to our attention by Liam.

I can't agree with the assertion that because a scientist has links with the oil business one shouldn't be at least skeptical about his or her motivations. The contrary position that the pwo-AGW scientists are linked to a climate change industry is also valid. Although given the dirty tricks that big business have employed when threatened (think Big Tobacco) one has to expect that if there is a case for dangerous anthropogenic global warming that they will counter this to guard their own interests.

The fact that the global warming debate has degenerated so fast into the banal ideological ping-pong that's today standard would be disappointing if it wasn't so inevitable. Climatology which relies on physics and chemistry and is the study of a non-linear system is far from complete as a scientific project. Most of us are incapable of judging whether or no the IPCC papers are a warning or not and we therefore default to our usual ideological positions, dig in and prepare to fight the 'wicked' others.

This is foolish. Nature does not care about our political beliefs and will do what she will regardless. Such a stink is likely to encourage people to endorse nonsensical, impractical or even harmful solutions (or equally harmful inaction) all in the name of winning the fight.

What we need now, more than we ever have is for science to attain as much as possible its much lauded, seldom realised, status as an objective disipline.

It won't happen.