This whole article is no more than fluff and puff, unfounded opinion and assertion parading as genuine scepticism.
It's not the abuse of the term sceptic by Greens that have given the word it's negative connotatiions, it's labelling the unscientific and false opininion that there is significant scientific doubt about climate science as "scepticism" that has devalued it - and the author of this article are complicit in that.
The science <i>is</i> sound, with every peak science body, every university and national science academy, every institution that studies science concluding the science is sound. Scepticism has been applied professionally, with vigour, by people who understand the maths, the physics, the chemistry, over many years in the process of becoming mainstream science. The questioning of data, methodology and projection is already done, professionally, prior to the IPCC's reports being released. So we have the abundance of expert testimony verses shouting from the back of the courtroom after the verdict's handed down.
Concluding that climate change is only the normal vagaries of a complex climate system requires a lack of accurate knowledge of what science tells us about it or requires a belief that the scientists are wrong. Insisting the losers of the science debate be treated as if their opinions be counted as equal to that of the winners - or superior to the winners is a recipe for bad judgement, wrong headed decisions, policy based on opinion, on the worst available knowledge not the best.If Green policy is based on mainstream science, that's not irrational and good on the Greens, but this is way past being a Green issue. Basing policy on what the losers of the climate science debate say, in direct contradiction of mainstream science is irrational and dangerous to our future.
The authors deserve to be called deniers, deserve derision for wanting the future climate of the planet based on the opinions of losers. For falsely labelling unfounded opinion as scepticism and the conclusions of the professional users of scepticism as orthodox I think they deserve to be called much worse.

Ludwig,
I agree in context with your overall analysis. I have come to similar conclusions.
The problem is as Machiavelli said “politics is the art of the possible”. Politics in this context has a more biological meaning.

The problem with pop analysis is that it ignores the biological human element; it tends to assumes one size comprehension or capacity and that the topic can be taken in isolation.

We are still ultimately bound by our animal (biological) natures.
At some (individually varying) point reality tends to become counter productive in that it is perceived to invalidate the individual’s understanding of their place in the world (their reality). Dawkins (“The Selfish Gene”) might see this as the genes protecting themselves.

I have this theory that there is an inverse relationship between intellectual validity of a position and the number of the individuals involved coming to that position. Tragically this often interpolates as the lowest common denominator. I think this is what is at play in the ‘political’ party of the Greens. Too radical (too much change) and they spook the horses. Hence I distrust ALL dogma becase of its fixed position.

Personally I factor is in my hope that the incremental/long-term approach will gather momentum in time to make a meaningful difference. Sadly I think is the best option available.
Rational discourse is a fundamental step in the right direction. I suggest you consider the ABC’s “Unleashed” site.

Cheers
Examinator. Ant.

we have long been told the market can make its own corrections

it is doudtfull that any of the revered projections factored in the ressesion for egsample
[like china shutting down half of its steel mills as announced a few weeks ago ,[after the modeling]

every ressesion percentage cuts down the possability of MORE carbon being produced[dead factories dont consume carbon]

the affect of industry closing will be a factor

and clearly any previous measures [as programed into the computer in the peak times will NOT be returning the truth's [reality] this ressesion will soon reveal.

the info this new global tax is built upon is flawed

it has its roots in a lie
then made worse by decption and collusive un-constitutional treason's

no matter how many propagandists try to infur consensus there is none

noting even JUST one not agreeing is enough to prove CONcensus a a lie
that there is a concensus [is an extreemist statement of no validity

the majority does not mean they are right

[please note the special affects we get FROM computers
computers like treason can make the unbelievable SEEM real]

science cant even correctly [faultlessly predict rain today
we cannot expect them to correctly predict carbon tomorrow]

think why you need to believe carbon tax is going to make a spec of difference
[cash injections allways just deepen the problem]

this is a GLOBAL cash injection
[think who gets the money]

or at least reveal its for buisness not the planet

Hi Richard,

I stand corrected on the inaccurate use of the word "sceptic" where something altogether stronger and more negative is intended. I'm all in favour of healthy scepticism myself. It's not surprising, given that AGW denialists are self-described as mere sceptics, that some of their critics have fallen into the trap of using the same word.

But I must defend the practice of activists (or even politicians) calling on editors and producers to be "responsible" by withholding their endorsement from counterfactual and counterproductive opinion. This is not censorship; censorship is when an authority shuts down all expressions of an opinion.

Consider classified material of a military nature. *That* is censored. Publicising the presence of certain significant (eg. royal) individuals in a theatre of war is merely irresponsible. But publication of opinions supporting or opposing a country's military policy is not, even if prime ministers and patriots sharply rebuke those who disagree with them.

The useful idiots who have campaigned vociferously to discredit the science of AGW in the public mind have bought fifteen years or more of political inaction in some countries (remember that in 1993 it was the Liberal Party of Australia's policy to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% in 20 years). The risk of dire human suffering as a consequence is real. A bit of hyperbole likening the "junk science" propagandists to warmongers or to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is appropriate in the circumstances.

As OLO itself demonstrates, in a milieu as free as ours it is always possible to publish dissent, no matter how it rails against orthodox opinion or fundamental physical laws. Hamilton's "attack" of a few months back was pretty well justified, though I must admit I regret his decision to disengage (though I've managed to find better things to do with my own time for the last eleven months). I suppose he felt his name conferred undeserved legitimacy on the articles appearing alongside his own, or feared that some of the aura of kooky controversialism rubbed off the other way.

Hamilton notwithstanding, thanks for your constructive engagement.

“it isn’t necessary to dismiss the IPCC position as worthless propaganda to entertain alternative viewpoints”

How magnanimous.

I suppose we will simply have to wait for the North pole to melt entirely before sceptics decide to do anything at all.

Q&A

this is not logical

<Water vapour is the atmospheric gas that collectively has the greatest greenhouse effect on climate, although it does not directly instigate warming or cooling trends, because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere varies only in response to temperature change. >

One can have temperatures greater than 40 C and there is almost zero humidity, conversely the temp can be only 32 C and almost 100% humidity.

The greater the water vapour the greater the humidity, water vapour eventually cools and then precipitates as rain or snow.

Once humidity reaches a certain point evaporation almost ceases.

through out history there are geological records of glaciers advancing and retreating, even in Australia there is evidence that glaciers once existed, there is also evidince that Australia was much wetter than it is now.

The climate change alarmists seem to me to ignore the fact that this planet has gone through cycles of cooling and heating long before humans ever walk to earth.