Richard Mulligan's article raises several issues: he says that uncertainy in relation to climate change does not mean predictions are worthless. Actually, it does when the uncertainty levels are so high that spending trillions of dollars amounts to nothing more than punting. There are plenty of real problems to resolve with taxpayers' dollars.

Is there any basis for climate change "belief" apart from computer models? No. Yet not one model has ever been validated against real-world data. The models didn't predict the cooling of the past several years.

Global warming hysteria is a monument to the widespread abandonment of journalist principles. Some hacks are just desperate to belong.

Check Professor John Brignell's list of things allegedly caused by global warming, from acne to yellow fever, at www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm - all of it sourced to media reports.

Think of the mutually contradictory weather phenomena which have been attributed to "climate change" - drought, flood, heatwaves, ice storms, etc. - what weather phenomenon would be evidence AGAINST CO2-caused climate change?

There is no such phenomenon, of course. The AGW cult is impervious to real world evidence; it is a perfect logical circle, grounded in fraud, like the sale of religious indulgences by charlatans in the mediaeval church: give money and avoid eternal damnation. But you'll have to die to know for sure.

Finally, any government-imposed "solution" to global warming will be paid for by the taxes of the gullible and sceptical alike. Only the carpetbaggers will win.

While Richard Mulligan has tried to steer a reasonable and balanced course through the debate, his point about risk assessment and policy response is meaningless unless such risk is real and quantifiable and the response can be demonstrated to be effective. None of that process has occurred - nor will it.

CO2 produced by Australians amounts to 0.00006 per cent of the climate by volume. Eliminate that tiny emission and there will be no effect on climate. Reduce it by five per cent, same result. But there will be severe economic consequences, whatever the percentage. Sounds like a great policy, no?

Correction: Richard Mulgan. Apology.

He says:

In principle, all scientific theories are open to falsification by new evidence and therefore no science can ever be entirely certain. In practice, however, many areas of science are sufficiently well grounded in reliable evidence to be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. But climate science is not among them.

This is unfortunately quite wrong. Some aspects of climate science are absolutely beyond doubt. For example, the effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on long-wave radiation. It can be measured in a laboratory.

Ditto the law of conservation of energy.

Ditto the amount of energy involved in water evaporating and condensing, and the amount of evaporated water the atmosphere can hold at various temperatures. Which, incidentally, explains why extreme weather events are seen as being consistent with global warming.

It's true that there is far more about climate where knowledge is quite uncertain. But it is important to know what is certain and what is not.

Yes, a succinct article.

Too many people want to curb research into climate change because they think the scientists are riding a gravy train - they couldn't be more wrong or further from the truth - scientists don't do it for the money - just ask my accountant heh Col.

A lot of effort is being made to debunk AGW (and so it should) because IF it is wrong, we can save a lot of money and a lot of anguish. But just wishing it were not true doesn't make it so. Indeed, a lot of work is being done on climate sensitivity and attribution studies - I for one wish AGW were not so real.

Unfortunately, the more research that is being done, the more robust previous findings have become. But this does not mean the research should stop. It does mean the research should be done properly.

Also unfortunately, some people want absolute 100% certainty before they will act or acknowledge we (humanity) have a problem. Following their arcane logic, nothing will ever get done and progress will never be made. Science does not work in absolutes (although we can get damn well close).

Obama will be investing in more effort to understand the science because the ramifications of not knowing, doing nothing, denying action, or sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the very real risks of climate change (national/international instability; food, water and energy resource stress; environmental and ecological degradation, etc) are far too high.

Remember, scientists will get more kudos (and funding dollars) if they can knock AGW out of the water - a fact the 'deny-n-delay' brigade don't seem to comprehend, let alone understand.

Thanks to Col for demonstrating my point, and also Richard Mulgan's. In my Mulgan's terms, I'm also a sceptic - while in any terms Col is a denialist rather than a sceptic.

I am, however, thankful to Col for this:

<< "Socialism by Stealth" >>

Can he please include a "Dearest Margaret" in his next erudite contribution to climate change discussions?

Col's comments are better than Metamucil. Very good for the digestive system.

"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." said RPG

I would like to add to the list OR Hollywood Shockumentaries featuring a washed up Democrat masquerading as a self less leader (who tellingly refuses to pledge a modification of his lifestyle).

Here is the team: United Nations (Saviour of Zimbabwe), Hollywood, Democrats (who legally forced mortgage companies to make home loans to poor people), Journalists (90% of whom have not taken a science course since year 5) and the Extreme Green Movement (a.k.a. Socialists).

Being preached to by this lot would be an excellent reason to be sceptical.