No Keiran

It is not unreasonable as you stated; "how is it unreasonable to understand that all we are experiencing is within normal natural cycles?"

Nor is it unreasonable to develop sustainable living practices, reduce pollution, conserve natural resources and simply be less wasteful.

But the Lawsons and Carters and people like you will have us continuing debate weighed down by circular arguments, when instead we could be moving towards a more equitable future for all nations.

There is no justification to continue with the present consumer based economy. Sooner or later we will run out of oil, gas, uranium and other non-renewable materials. Nor can we continue to justify the demolition of forests or pollution of rivers and oceans. Irrespective of where you stand on climate change, whether it be anthropomorphic or a part of the natural cycle, we have to take responsibility for our management of this world.

Q&A and all the other climate alarmists. You don't seem to have looked very far to find some real science which will make you think a little more openly about AGW. Suggest you try www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org for a start. Large amounts of information and updated several times a week. You too may realise that we are all being conned.

When we hear the Pope making positive statements about population control we will know that he is fair dinkum about climate change.

Don't hold your breath.

David

This article doesn't make sense.

First Mr Lawson argues that the climate isn't warming at all, based on average temperature over the last few years.

Next he makes a passing reference to the Arctic melting, which he doesn't try to refute.

Then he says the point isn't that the climate is warming (which he spent half the article arguing against), but that we can't prove it's human activity and that therefore we shouldn't change our behaviour.

There's certainly a place for scepticism in this field, but we need better constructed arguments than the one here.

Anybody know a bookie who would be perpared to take a bet that in the coming years 'carbon trading' will eventually be found to be a scam that only acheivement will be to separate money from a lot of people and make some people very rich.

Cazza and others - again most of the comments miss the point. Climate is changing - it changes constantly - and as part of that change the earth has warmed. The article can in no way be taken as a denial of that basic point. Nor does it rely on scientific argument. Therefore calls to examine the science are irrelevent. The point is that the Greenhouse activists have won the debate despite some basic problems with their arguments, including the major difficulty of deciding how much, if any, of the now past warming is due to human activigties.
However, in a year or so the electorate will soon be presented with a very large bill for this victory. At that time it also may (note: 'may') be more obvious - certainly more so than it is now - that the earth is cooling, not warming. The solar cycle is turning down so its possible temperatures may follow - eventually. Admittedly it will be cooling off a peak so the cooling itself won't be a problem, but consumers will be taking a closer look at the arguments. A much closer look. And they will not be happy. I would save your arguments for then.