This whole global warming debate is great fun. The best line by far that I have seen relates to the possible purchase of carbon credits from the Chinese. It ran:

"Martin Luther, where are you? They're selling indulgences again!"

There are six things that make me sceptical about global warming.

There are:

1. The imposition of a carbon tax is a great new way for governments to make money. Once a new money pot has been opened, all sorts of opportunists will gather round. Needless to say, I don't believe in governments collecting money.

2. It isn't getting any warmer. The peak temperature year was nearer 1998. I don't know why, but that what I see. Could be due to the low sunspot number.

3. The case for global warming is presented as a MORAL case. I am not interested in morals, I am interested in me and mine. I consider that we are very lucky in Australia to be out of the way and protected by a sea boundary, which may protect us from coming disasters, including millions of refugees, that will try to come here over the next few decades. I expect the navy to sink the boats. As a result, I am VERY suspicious of MORAL cases.

4. I know that what we do in Australia does not matter. What matters is what China and India do, and they will look after themselves.

5. I consider that a lot of the proponents are filled with guilt that we live well while millions are starving. These proponents ignore the population explosion in the third world, which, if not prevented, will nullify any attempts to help them.

6. I cannot see how emissions will continue to increase when oil has peaked and consumption can be expected to decline.

If all this makes me a sceptic, racist, boor or anything else, tough luck.

"Denialists without any scientific qualifications, or irrelevant ones, show no such humility."
Confucius say: man who accuse another of having no humility cannot be trusted to look after the pigs.

Actually it doesnt matter what anyone really says much on any subject.

If its not Word of God its not "in the groove" regarding whats really happening on the planet.

Yahoo...GOD's Wrapping up human history and Jesus the Christ is coming back.

If you dont believe it?

Read Luke chapter 21, Matthew chapter 24 (in support), 2 Timothy chapter 3 and Johns Revelation.
The signs that we are in the endtimes is another good website.

We need to focus on the Returning King...not a world we cannot manage.
Why not invite Jesus in today and get born again?

"Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved"...Romans 10:13.

Clive has long complained about his opinions being silenced, but is attempting to silence those that disagree with him.

Clive needs his own forum where his small group of sychophants can agree with and adore him.

In the robust discussion that is sure to surround the climate change debate, opinions biased by agendas (incl clive's) will continue to sound out.

As most opinions are formed by listening to these debates, there tends to be very little science involved and the arguments sound similar to religious debates where the opinions are faith based and cannot be swayed by rational debate.

As an engineer I am a trained sceptic, and have read enough to know that:
a) climate change is a reality
b) the temperature rise is largely unknown and can be any where from small to large,
c) the effects from temperature change are also not entirely clear and range from good (Finland) to drastic (Africa)
d) The loudest advocates for action on climate change are the ones most opposed to nuclear options.

Anyone who claims they know what is going to happen and have the answers is misleading themselves and others.

This is the first of a series of posts which introduces readers and Clive Hamilton if ever he revisits The Forum, to the substantial body of scientific papers showing that the Sun is largely responsible for the regulation of our climate. Don’t worry Clive, they are safe to read; they are all by expert highly qualified scientists, none of whom are fronts for your enemies. All of whom are dedicated to publishing scientific truths.

Labitzke:
The relatively weak, direct radiative forcing of the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere can lead to a large indirect dynamical response in the lower atmosphere through the modulation of the polar night jet as well as through a change in the Brewer Dobson Circulation.

Based on observations, the results presented demonstrate conclusively the existence of a signal of the 11 year sunspot cycle in the stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures and heights.

Solar activity regulates the Quasi Biennial Oscillation and influences the Arctic Oscillation’s winter-time stratospheric intensity.

Coughlin and Tung:
The atmosphere warms during the solar maximum and cools during solar minimum almost everywhere over the planet. The statistically significant correlation with the solar flux is positive everywhere over the globe implies that, on average, the temperatures increase during solar maxima and decrease with solar minima at all latitudes.

Camp and Tung:
• Earth warms globally by 0.2°K over the 11 year solar cycle.
• The warming is larger over continents than over the oceans.
• The warming over the polar region occurs during late winter and spring. The Arctic warms at treble, the Antarctic at double, the global mean.

Feynman:
There are now many empirical and modelling studies that demonstrate that changes in the solar output are associated with widespread changes in climate. There is considerable evidence that climate variations in response to low frequency solar variations have had major effects on cultures during the last 1,500 years.

The next post will provide the references and additional summaries and references

Clive, you cannot say that all peple who question the theory of man caused climate change are in some way or other paid by some lobby group. I hold physical science qualificatons in my degree and, I believe, have the necessary knowledge to make serious observations about what I read. Most people acknowledge that climate has changed somewhat. The question is whether there is a correlation between man made CO2 injections into the atmosphere and increased global temperatures. When the observed facts don't agree with computer models, then one is entitled to question the conclusions of the people such as youself.

If ONO publishes articles that question opinions such as yours, then I say, good on it.

The Government is proposing an emmisons trading scheme that will hurt many people in Australia. One would need to be confident that it will result in lower global temperatures. Otherwise the whole thing is a just costly con job. My reading of the science is that it is far more likely that "global warming" has been caused by natural factors and has not been man induced. Therefore I applaud ONO for giving space to articles that oppose the current popular theory of man made climate change.