Since none of us here are climate scientists, it really boils down to your 'faith' in the abilities of scientists to understand and adequately model the earth. Scepticism is pretty natural and healthy as most people can grasp that the earth is very complex, and it takes a lot of faith to believe our best minds have it all worked out already.

I'm afraid I will remain a sceptic, and be happy to weigh up the consequences of action to prevent climate change against the consequences if the scientists are right.

If we act slowly (as we are), we don't risk as much unnecessary harm to our way of life if they turn out to be wrong, but still have the ball rolling in case it becomes obvious they are right. I think that's a balanced approach to the risks. More information may become available further down the track for or against AGW.

That's all it is really. A risk management exercise.

The important thing is people have the conservation of the earth in their minds when making decisions these days. Pollution is plainly bad, and our attitudes have changed greatly for the better in this respect over the past 10 years.

Further to my previous posts, here is some more reading material supportive of the thesis that the Sun (through its various processes) is the main regulator of our climate. This Guide to the Literature/potted history will be split over several posts in the days ahead:

There is universal agreement within the scientific community that astronomical factors, including the variable Sun, have driven the Earth’s climate dynamics throughout past millennia and previous centuries. The Sun regulates our climate through four distinct processes all of which are highly variable over time. These are: the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation; the Sun’s output of plasma; the Sun’s electromagnetic field; the Sun’s gravitational field. It is to be noted that the tides we experience are the joint operation of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Moon. Of tidal events, the 18.6 year Lunar Nodal Cycle has the most distinctive climatological outcome. Events such as volcanos and earthquakes have been contributing causes. The Earth’s climate system displays a natural, intrinsic internal variability which also contributes to cycles of warming as cooling as does the massive re-engineering of the planet over the last 300+ years.

Four recently published textbooks provide much detail. The textbooks are: Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer;
Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J. and Lockwood, M. (Eds) 2006. Solar Variability and Planetary Climates. Springer; and
Haigh, J. D., Lockwood, M. and Giampapa, M. S. (2005). The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate. Saas Fee Advanced Course 34, 2004. Springer;
Pap, J. M., Fox, P., Frohlich, C., Hudson, H. S., Kuhn, J., McCormack, J., North, G., Sprigg, W., and Wu, S. T., (eds) 2004 Solar Variability and its Effects on Climate. Geophysical Monograph Series Volume 141 American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.

A potentially boundless guide to the entire field, including major historical reviews and profiles of key historic persons and events, can be found at the website of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California, Los Angeles. See http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/index.html
http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/solar-terrestrial-luminaries/
http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/solar-terrestrial-luminaries/TL_bibliography.html

What a petulant child.Graham Young has never said that he was a deniar.He like others question the science,since is far from proven.What's wrong with being a sceptic? If the doomsayers are right then it is already too late for humanity.If we can avert a disaster,will China/India take notice of 20 million Australians anyway?
Since 1998 the ocean temps recorded by NASA have fallen,so have the atmospheric temps.Anthropological Global warming is still a theory and so is the influence of CO2.
The author would have us believe that everyone should share his opinions or be labelled as selfish hedonestic deniars.Show us the scientific proof and we will believe.

Clive Hamilton deals in dogma, not logical exploration. In the 60's & 70's, the various Australian Communist parties were heavily populated with ex-Catholics, people who no longer believed in god but still wanted certainties with no ambiquities. When the Communists folded, these people migrated into environmentalism. As such, they give foul rational envirinmental concerns with their outdated dogma.

One must admire Clive Hamilton's ability to prevent facts polluting his dogma. He is a cultural relic of the old CPSU.

Clive Hamilton’s claim that OLO has been captured by propagandists is accurate and validated – witness the avalanche of inane ‘skeptic’ responses here and Editor Graham Young’s ample silence.

It’s worth revisiting Young’s outraged and outrageous defence of fellow climate sceptic Don Aitkin (15 May) from alleged ‘bullying’ by ABC Science broadcaster Robyn Williams: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7373&page=0

Young did his own nice line in bullying:
“…He [Williams] isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a science broadcaster with an honours degree in biology. The chances are that he has no formal training in physics, the key to understanding climate science.” Young doesn’t cite his own qualifications.

“…Williams appears to have picked-up the campaigning bug early in life. His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street.” My father was an alcoholic…but I hardly touch the stuff.

“…He has smeared a respected academic using doctored quotes and shoddy research, and he puffs his curriculum vitae with imagined qualifications…” A highly emotive attack on William’s honourary degrees.

For his part Don Aitkin told OLO on 15 May that he had no complaint and was generous in praise of Williams:

“…Just as Robyn exerted no influence over me with respect to the content of my talks, since that is my business, I believe that he is entitled to introduce speakers as he likes: that is his business…”

To which an unchastened and unblushing Young replied:

“Don does not complain about Williams, but that is not really the point. [Oh really?] As I say in the article, the point of the bullying is to intimidate others, not him specifically.” Unspecified others? Who?

“Am I a global warming skeptic, as has been asserted? Asks Young... And answers inter alia, “…If that makes me a skeptic, then so be it. I'd rather be on that side than on the side of some mythical consensus that doesn't exist, and even if it did, would prove nothing.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7373&page=0

OLO is lacking quality control - which has nothing to do with censorship, just integrity. Has Graham Young been around too long?

Wow....people like bushbasher and clive really amaze me. Do a search on onlineopinion for climate change and see that there is a huge number of articles split on each side of the debate. Darn bias!

The real problem is that people like busbasher and Clive is that they want to shut down debate. Like Al Gore, they want the debate to be over. The problem is, this cheap propaganda trick is failing to impress the public, with survey numbers showing a significant proportion of people moving away from thinking man made climate change is a significant issue.

For those who keep complaining about the lack of peer review for man made climate change realists, I have to wonder: Have they even bothered to look for themselves?

For instance, this link http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html contains lots of articles in scientific journals, many of which were peer reviewed.

The debate is not over. Screaming and kicking your feet will not change that simple fact.