There are a couple of basic flaws in this arguement,
(1)The IPCC report was watered down to appease GW sceptics mostly Americans and thereby achieve concensus, a fact the author failed to mention.
(2)A lot of these scientist are previous GW sceptics who after reveiwing available data have changed their minds,he is right about scientist's changing their minds, they have already done that.

The IPCC predictions could be very conservative as scientists are by nature a conservative bunch and indeed many on the panel think that the timing and effects of GW are under estimated.

In view of peak oil and peak coal and the inherent dangers of nuclear, what is the problem with renewable energy, it is capable of doing the job in spite of what the naysayers spout, (Las Vegas is run entirely on renewable energy as is 18% of Califoria and Germany with a crap climate has the highest proportion of solar energy in the world, and I would venture to say that Las Vegas probably uses or wastes more energy than any city the same size in the world), all it needs is the will to do it and money, somebody will still make money from it, it might not be the same mob as now, because they have their heads in the sand, if they wake up in time they could cash in, but somebody will make money from renewable energy of that there is no doubt.
The present energy regime is incredibly wastefull, as a visiting scientist said recently "what is smart about waste"

Paul.L

Thank you for your advice that I am "seriously off topic." I advise that I "seriously" disagree with you.

All carbon based chemicals burn to CO2 and water with sufficient oxygen, or to CO without it.

Atmospheric CO elevates concentrations of methane and ozone prior to oxidising to CO2.

Aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbons include ethylene, methane, acetylene, benzene (a category 1 carcinogen), toluene, naphthalene, hexane etc - all burn to CO2.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are known carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens which after their destructive forces against humans and all other life forms including the ecosystems, convert to CO2 when burnt.

Industrial toxic by-products can include mercury and arsenic. Depending on which pollutant industry and how efficient their combustion is, emissions of dioxins and furans, PCB's, chromium, lead, nickel, NOx, SO2, aluminium and so on all contribute to the out-of-control brew humans are now forced to survive in.

This is a result of governments' failure to enforce pollution prevention control on hazardous industries. This technology is already available and only the responsible companies install it. The rest are self-regulated environmental vandals bent on maximum profits.

Therefore, I am not off-topic. Man-made levels of CO2 must be reduced for the sake of human health and the eco-systems. You are incorrect Paul.L when you say CO2 is not killing people or causing disease. To continue playing tit for tat with Mother Nature's own emissions is naive and foolhardy.

To avoid incorporating the issue of pollution into GW or Climate Change threads is deception at its best when the sceptics are duping readers to believe that A/CO2 is harmless to the environment and the planet's essential requirement for environmental equilibrium is a myth!

PAB, I tried to read your post, but I'm sorry I just couldn't be bothered finishing it.

Not to worry Admiral von Schneider, i'm sure Dickie is aware that AGW deniers never read to the end.

I enjoy Mr Lawsons ill-informed and mendacious opinion pieces, they explain nicely why the Australian Financial Review continues to bleed readers. Being the in-house paper for fossil fools might please advertisers but it wastes the time of every adult reader.

Don’t get dickie started on anthropogenic CO2. He seems to view it differently to “natural” CO2, something perverse that shouldn’t be breathed. I’m not sure how he differentiates between natural an A/CO2 given that the A/CO2 comes from natural sources. Unless he views fossil fuels as something unnatural and dare I say unholy, as the environment is akin to a religion for dickie and his ilk. Like other worshippers dickie probably contributes his fair (or greater) share of CO2 to the atmosphere but turns a blind eye to his own (foul) emissions.

“All carbon based chemicals burn to CO2 and water with sufficient oxygen, or to CO without it.”
So do all carbon based life-forms, including “natural” plants (or animals). Please don’t get cremated dickie.

Let us repeat dickie, CO2 is non-toxic to humans below 5000ppm. Your own fetid exhalations contain 45000ppm of CO2. Should we regulate against you dickie (thou unnatural beast)?

“You are incorrect Paul.L when you say CO2 is not killing people or causing disease.”
Don’t let any examples get in the way of this whopper.

“the planet's essential requirement for environmental equilibrium”
The planet does not require nor does it "seek" equilibrium, it is not alive. The biota living on its crusty surface do so while conditions suit. When they change the planet does not care. It is rock.

Climate change contributes to poverty-related deaths, simply by contributing to poverty. So yes, CO2 is a killer, without being a poison.

Just how long are we going to keep our collective foot on the climate-change accelerator in the name of freedom? Anyone like myself who has actually studied the subject and become alarmed is called all sorts of names, starting with "alarmist" and carrying on through "greenie", "socialist" and "feral".

I don't mind the name-calling, but I want action. It *has* to come from government, because the economic activities driving greenhouse (and other) pollution occur under the constraints of markets which are regulated by governments and skewed in many other ways by government requirements, government planning, investment, pork-barreling and promises. Many costs of economic activity are easily externalised and it is the responsibility of regulators to ensure that prices reflect real costs.