So according to sillyfilly{good name}Dr David Evans who worked for The Australian Govt for 6yrs studying C02 is a liar and is frabricating this evidence?There is nothng wrong with being a sceptic.All good scientists should be sceptics.

In the realm of improbability believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you hear.Co2 in a minor GW gas.Temps have fallen with the expodential increase if CO2 by India/China.The ice cores reveal that CO2 comes 800yrs after heating.Christopher Scotese made this observation decades ago from studying fossils.The computer models used by the IPCC cannot possibily cope with the millions of factors that affect climate.They are not even aware of all the variables or how they inter-act.Garbage in and garbage out.So Prof Bob Carter and thousands of all the other sceptical scientists are wrong?Most Scientists are too scared to utter a peep for fear of losing funding.They've never had it so good!The alarmist rubbish coming out of the CSIRO bares witness to this reality.Dr Evans was once a 90% true believer,he is now only 20% sure.

Both the Political System and the scientists cannot afford for this AGW industry to fail.There is too much money and reputations at stake.They will maintain the charade and slowy metamorphose into a general anti-pollution body,while leading a trail of unnecessary economic/human devastation in their wake.

There is one way to find out.Let all the scientists who are 90% sure put up $100,000.00 of their own money on a bet that CO2 causes AGW.That is my challenge.They can put their own money up for grabs instead of ours.Then I will be less sceptical.

It doesn't matter to me if you are a skeptic or not of GW. IMHO it just makes sense that we have to, as the human race, stop plundering the earth to obtain fuel. Eventually it will run out.

Why isn't there more government grants to advance the research into renewable energy like solar, inertia and wave technology? And have a look at possibly Natural Gas as an interim fuel. It disturbs me that the new government axed the $5 million grant for the Fuel Saver in Ballina NSW then gave Toyota $35 million for what reason I don't really know.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23892705-2702,00.html
If we want to get with the program we will need a far better system than the carbon tax system which seems to be just another confusing tax on the people and has left the main players/ polluters out.

For instance, instead of a luxury car tax why not be daring and use a fuel consumption duty on new cars, it would be easier for one and might convince the population that Australia is serious about breaking the fossil fuel dependence we have grown up with.

Has anyone heard of the IPCC? Not one guy's opininon but 100s of scientists in fields actually related to climate change. The latest report is pretty definite - "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

No one knows for sure what the long term effects will be - but how much is going to cost us in the long run if they're right. Pay a bit now or a lot later...

Why is everyone focused on global warming?

Surly the increase cost of our rapidly dwindling energy supplies will solve the problem in two ways;

First, energy cost will decrease demand

Second, higher energy cost will , at last make re-new-ables far more attractive, unless govt like ours allow personal use of energy to be compensated for by regulation.

A laugh that one, put up the energy cost, and then makes a system to negate the effect.

Why don’t we have a discussion about where we are going to get energy from , in the case of liquid energy, it appears it will not be long before demand exceeds supply by a large amount.

“Expecting to meet the carbon challenge without adjusting our cities is like telling your doctor you want a lung cancer cure without giving up smoking! And exempting petrol from the ETS is equivalent to loosening your belt to deal with obesity.”

I very much doubt you would agree to “adjusting our cities” since it would impact on your perceived inalienable right to pollute to accommodate your lifestyle of choice and to hell with the rest of the planet.

"But before anyone tells me I have to change, I want to know why?

Because of Global Warming Col, Global Warming."

"It is a deliberate attempt by government to reduce the consumption choices, through increasing prices to the electorate."

Got it in one. Well done, you passed Global Warming 101

"Governments are not elected to curb the choices of their electorate, they are elected to reflect the will and best interests of the electorate."

The government, to my best recollection, recently got elected with a substantial majority and MANDATE.

"Do they have proof of the dangers of carbon emission and do they have proof of the benefits to be derived from the curtailment of carbon emissions?"

No, the best that the have to go with a very strong hypothesis, agreed on by a large number of scientists and disagreed by others, like you Col. It's a free country.

"If they lack that proof, they are leading the electorate into an impossible and illegitimate position."

So you want your side of the argument to be exempt from the onus of proof? Hardly cricket Col.

"And what happens “globally” without India or China's support?"

You, me, India and China are pretty well stuffed, Col. What do you suggest? We all hold hands while we do nothing and walk over the cliff together?

"It’s Socialism by stealth."

Col, anything that prevents you from doing what you want to do is Socialism, including probably keeping to the left hand side of the road.

This is where people like thylacine and Prof Andy Pitman just don't get it.They argue from the premise of fait accompli;AGW is happening and it is caused by burning fossil fuels resulting in CO2 pollution.Well the new evidence does not support the theory that this is happening.Do we have a a logic or comprehension problem here?

There is no emperical scientific evidence the CO2 is the main culprit.CO2 is a minor green house gas.Water vapour and nitrogen have a much greater influence.Computer models used by the IPCC to arrive at their conclusions are totally inadaquate.World temps have fallen since 2001 by 0.6 deg C while CO2 has grown expodentially.The ice cores reveal that cause and effect run in reverse.CO2 follows temps increases by 800 yrs.NASA's 3000 robots reveal that the ocean temps have fallen.The Antartic ice has remained the same in surface area since 1980.The IPCC is and arm of the UN which is using this fear to extend their power.Many scientists are fraid to speak out for fear of losing their funding.We are not hearing from the sceptical scientists since this does not make for scary media headlines.The great body of scientists who support this theory are so locked in monetarily/reputation wise,that they have no choice but to maintain the charade.Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are looking like the emperors without clothes.

I shall correct a favourite statement of mine:In the realm of improbability,believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you see.

Politics/populist fear mongering media have now stolen the debate and the facts and logic are running a poor second.