Yes, a great article indeed - but I doubt that many climate change/AGW denialists will understand it.

A good example is Leigh, whom I note is once again displaying his convictions as an environmentalist.

How about we adapt "peak oil" to "peak fossil fuels". Then you can predict doom once every few years and just change the date along with the oil peakers when it doesnt happen.

If LaNina and a negative PDO can "mask" AGW to the extent of a downward temperature trend, why couldnt repeated El Nino's and a highly positive PDO cause the equal opposite effect?

There is a character fault in the most obsessive warming advocates in that they appear to *want* the world to be doomed. In another age theyd have been crusading, raping and pillaging the middle east in the name of JC. "Slay the heathens!" - battlecry of the believers, 1095-1272 and 1985-present.

Davity said "Bottom line. If advocates for combating global warming are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we end up in a cleaner world. If they are right and we do nothing we are in real trouble."

That is such an naive view of the world .... what if you loses your job at the coal power plant, your wife leaves you and you never see your kids again

Too many people on these debates seem to lives in fairyland, they sit on their desk, they think they are not affected by the misery of others in the world, they have not figured out, this will change the life of billion of people worldwide. If we are wrong, we could easily destroy the economy of a coal exporting country like Australia

Yes Leigh I think he is saying

“Climate scientists confirm that the large number of independent factors influencing climatic events rules out precise explanation or prediction.”

Translate

An official “dunno” but the climate science and that of “KRudd the Dud” response is to impose a carbon tax.

“With climate change, uncertainty is compounded by the lack of the reliable historical data from before the modern period.”

Translate

In the absence of successful parallel running, we are sticking with the theory, because ‘it is our theory’ and no one else is allowed to express a view.

“Uncertainty pervades the entire field of climate change. Skepticism should therefore be the natural attitude of any intelligent student of the topic.”

Not just the students but thinking observers and anyone whose life is to be influenced, like everyone who is going to pay for a new carbon tax.

There was an old adage from the time of the American revolution “no representation, no taxation”

That should be expanded to

“No validation, no taxation”

“Yes, a great article indeed - but I doubt that many climate change/AGW denialists will understand it.”

If our resident moron can claim to understand it, then anyone who has the temerity to question the trite mantras of the climate change inquisitioners will understand it too.

Lets face it, It’s all just “Socialism by Stealth” anyway.

An excuse for the luddites to curb the rewards of innovation and use it to fund the voting indolent.

"Climate change policy, like most major policy, is not a matter of conviction or cast-iron proof, but of assessing risks in the context of uncertainty." That would even allow a Tectonic Plate movement policy - we've just as much chance of affecting that, and just as little proof that we could.

I'm sure though, that given a model with enough range in the variables, it could be shown how man creates earthquakes by driving cars.(that must be stopped or we'll be handing our children a ruined world!)

Is this trying to sugar coat the AGW, Man Made Climate Change conviction so as to be palatable somehow to anyone who hasn't become an avid believer?

I agree we could pollute less, but I'm not ready to believe something just because some loud people think it is so, science is not done by consensus or bullying.

The planet might be getting warmer, there is always going to be climate change, but to say we're doing it is up for debate and further study and that we can stop it is breathtakingly arrogant.

One wonders if I read a different article I thought he was measured and balanced with is a lot more than one can say for some of the comments thus far.

He was in my view making the clear distinction between ‘climate change Sceptics’ and ‘global warming Deniers’.
I would come under ‘Climate Change Sceptics’ by his definition which is accurate describing sceptic the scientific context as one who accepts that the fact the information isn’t unequivocal . But he also points out that in government some decisions have to be made because it is illogical to do nothing.

He is also right in by taking oppositional stances the argument is vulnerable to ideology a further over simplification.
In another post one commenter on a similar topic stated “he believed that ordinary people know best.” This view is clearly that of a Denier and is steeped in political (ideological) rhetoric. The idea that an ordinary man can understand the science to ‘know best ‘is like asking a plumber if surgery is required for brain tumours in others unaided by specialists. A clear argument against the ordinary man is the desertification and salting etc of arable land by past/present farming techniques used by ordinary people.

Likewise to state that Global warming is untrue and is waiting for the rest of Australia to see the light appears arrogant and the words of a biased Denier.
The statement that “The experts clearly fear that no action will be taken unless public opinion believes in the certainty of human-induced global warming” Is absolutely correct. Many of these commenters have time and time again asserted that Global Climate Change is not so even though the evidence is more weighted towards doing something now.

The Environmentalists have a tendency to over simplify very complex issues by using ‘flagship’ issues to heighten awareness to a number of rapidly looming catastrophes. Global Warming and Koalas are two such issues. Both sides Deniers and many advocates tend to selectively fact pick rather than go ‘on balance.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Let the vitriol begin.