People who call those who question the man-made theory and, therefore, also question man’s ability to overcome climate change ‘sceptics’ or ‘deniers’ can be called ‘orthodox’, but the real and straight forward descriptions of these slaves to majority opinion are ‘ignorant’ and ‘non-thinkers’.

People who go along with the man-made theory of climate change, and approve of the ridiculous plans to limit CO2 emissions, at great cost, are lazy people who lay back and have their minds made up for them by vociferous lobbyists – some scientists, extremist environmentalists, and the media.

There has been enough harping and carping on CO2 for long enough now to have these sheep believe that people are responsible for climate change. These same bull-at-a-gate people are also deaf to people who say, “Climate change is real. It is natural, and we must learn to adapt to it. Forget controlling it or overcoming it.”

People holding the ‘orthodox’ view of climate change are fanatics(fundamentalists to the authors) grimly defending their ‘faith’ against the infidels. People might eventually catch on to this, but by then it will be too late: our economy will be wrecked by the Rudd Government, and the climate will not be affected by the proposed ju ju.

I have previously stated my position on climate change and I don't intend to get into it relating to this article.

But, everyone should be a sceptic. It encourages vigorous debate on issues.Without scepticism the norm would never be challenged. Scepticism is part of an enquiring mind and helps the learning process. Without it, we would not make leaps forward in technology, philosophy or any other area.

The problem with scepticism comes when it is based on flawed information. This might not become apparent for some time as an argument evolves. But when it does become apparent, a true sceptic will acknowledge this and accept the result. This may take an awful long time as the level of information required might be great indeed.

Perhaps the best example of sceptics who have long-since passed their use-by date are those who still believe the earth is flat. The evidence is extemely clear that it is not, but they still persist

You skeptics are idiots, how can you not see what the rest of us know as a fact. You guys need to just go stand in a corner and not say anything. How dare you guys think that we are wrong. Our model based on out assumption are definitely correct. We are correct, how dare you be any different

The world is definitely FLAT

oh dear climate change is a buzz word
is it GLOBAL COOLING [or global warming ]

using the term change is an each way bet

when it rains too fast [or gets dry too fast its climate change ?
but if its drought its warming?
if its floods of hail or snow its cooling?

but think of the HAArp [we know it better as the 'over the horison ' radar ]That is able to 'change' the climate
or is spraying chemicals [rain 'making']
is this climate change?

or clear felling for-rest [world wide] climate changing?

we fall for buzz words
that find ways to get more from us [so more goes to them

we accept terorist ,CLIMATE CHANGE ,WAR non drug users ,war on anything
see the buzz words

the long ignored left has now got funding [to push one of the adgenda's [but its to get a new tax burdon upon the allready overtaxed]

has the drug war won the war on drugs?

has stripping our human rights saved us from [govt] [or bankers] oppression [and intrusion] into our personal affairs

think of the xray machine [yet the other egsisting sysytems were working just fine
[so why waste more cash on a machine, that vieuws our bodies in teqnicolour detail

[depite govt failing to define terroism ,or global warming or cooling
is eco 'change' terror?

or teror
the means to tax us further

or climate change only to bring in the new carbon credit controled and gifted to the WORST poluters ,and the credit goes to the wolds bankers.
we just get the tax
[get it ?]

Personally, I call myself a climate "cynic", rather than "skeptic". Purely because, in the context of climate change debate, "skeptic" has become an epithet.

Otherwise, I believe that healthy skepticism is the only rational foundation for thought.

By "cynic" I mean that I acknowledge that climate change is happening; the earth's climate has always changed, dramatically, and always will. Where I am a cynic is in regard to alleged human causes of climate change, and the alarmism surrounding it.

Life will adapt and survive, as it always has. The earth will be very different in the future, as it was very different in the past. But just because it will be different to what we humans have grown comfortable with over the last 10, 000 years, doesn't mean that "the planet is in peril".

According to interviews given to journalists in Paris by the Chair of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri, in February 2003, the use of different measures of a country’s GDP ‘does not make a difference when looking at growth rates. It is like measuring rise in temperature in centigrade or Fahrenheit, it makes no difference to the growth rate itself.’ In the course of criticising David Henderson and me for arguing that exchange rate-based conversions of GDP are invalid:

‘Pachauri recalled that some centuries ago, the London-based Flat-Earth Society used to have several thousand members, who believe the earth is a slice. The Flat-Earth Society has only a handful of members today, and they continue to meet every year, to assert that the earth is indeed a slice’, he said. ‘It is the same with climate change – you may deny it, but it is a fact.’

Ten months later, at the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Milan, Dr Pachauri issued a press statement on behalf of the IPCC alleging that ‘In recent months some disinformation has been spread questioning the IPCC scenarios’ and referring to David Henderson and me as ‘so called “two independent commentators”’. The statement contended that ‘the economy does not change by using a different metrics (PPP or MEX), in the same way that the temperature does not change if you switch from degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit’ ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/pr-08december2003.pdf ).

In its recent report Australia’s Low Carbon Future, the Australian Treasury takes the opposite view:

‘The choice of measurement method [between ‘PPP’ and ‘MER’] significantly affects the validity of economic growth projections and energy use and, hence, projections of future climate change’, and therefore ‘All gross world product (GWP) and regional comparisons of gross domestic product (GDP) levels and growth rates in this report are reported in 2005 US dollar purchasing power parity terms...’ (p. 19).

I look forward to a new press release from the IPCC accusing the Australian Treasury of spreading disinformation, and to an interview from its recently re-elected Chairman likening the Treasury authors to members of the Flat-Earth Society.