This is typical of the paranoid parochial comments from Bashir Goth.

Please stop posting him. His commentary is so inane as simply to be irritating not provocative.

Q&A “you know as well as any that climate-change science is much more advanced now than in decades past and the wealth of expertise and knowledge is getting better with each passing year.”

I would observe the science of “national economics” has been around for as many centuries as climate science has been for decades.

I would further observe, the old but true adage – if you want three opinions on national economies, just as two economists to a debate.

That climate –change science is “much more advanced now that in decades past” is the same as saying an infant grows to a toddler before it gets to evolve into an adolescent and then adult.

If we consider “Economics” to be relatively “mature”, yet still full of divisive “views and opinions”, then climate science remains infantile and equally subject to diverse views and opinions.

I find the same inherent risks when relying on the prophecies of an “infant science” as I would find inherent risks in trusting an “infant” to run a national economy.

The matter of climate change and carbon emissions are driving a group of elitist scientists, in consort with UN to promote carbon trading as a solution to what has been beefed up into a supposed “international issue”.

The campaign is an excuse for governments to acquire a greater than otherwise justifiable component of national economies by imposing carbon taxes on their electorates, based on fraudulently science and misrepresentation.

History has shown Libertarian capitalism to be the most effective economic system for individual development. Socialism has failed repeatedly whenever attempted. Carbon taxes are merely another attempt at “Socialism by Stealth”.

As for the article, well expect division of opinion. Not everyone is motivated by the opportunity of some soft grant.

Diversity remains as essential to individual human welfare as it does to food supply, basic biology and sustainability of the resources of the planet.

We have a problem and some people choose to shoot the messenger because they don't like the message.

For anyone to say that the scientists are frauds and misrepresent science just goes to show how ignorant and feeble minded they are.

Thankfully, people that count are tackling the issues and making the decisions.

It appears that the scientific consensus pendlam is swinging back.
Not far yet, but enough to cause some rethinking.

Anyway the whole global warming caravan may be stopped in its tracks
by a shortage of liquid fuels. The solutions are the same to a large
extent for both problems, except for coal.
Coal will be a transition fuel for some 30 years before it peaks.

I don't think global warming is a conspiracy just opinion.
It is not by the end of the century that needs to be worried about
but the end of the decade or the middle of the next decade.

Now that the technology is here, wouldnt it be lovely if texts could be colored
- black for truth, red for lies, green for nobody knows which;
and purple for emotive language out to denigrate such as

<resounding chorus- , it may be tantamount to self-immolation to say anything - One may not even dare to raise one’s voice for fear of becoming a victim of an inquisition- brigades of climate change cheerleaders.
I must risk refusing to follow the herd - my concern is . . the fervour - pushing the agenda of climate change. - one cannot but question the honesty >

If you momentarily put aside the the science and look at the historical record, a thinking mind must sadly conclude that on the balance of probabilities GW is a crock. Doom-sayers have been selling the inevitability of the end in multifarious guises ever since the Evangel's execution.

And when people make up their minds without reason; there is no reasoning them out of a position.

And then there is the Science; Clear, unambiguous, independent and persuasive! But GW has never been a scientific debate; it's adherents apply the language of tyrants: your with us or against us, your for life or of the devil.

Only a coward slovenly complies to that kind of argumentation. And whilst GW remains a point of debate, the cowardice of modern intellectuals does not.