Actually, Leigh, I sneer at views that are baseless and founded in greed but purport to be otherwise.

If you want to prove me wrong, answer these simple questions for me without referring to a conspiracy theory or attempting to move the goalposts:

1) Why is the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists warning of the impact of climate change, and only a tiny minority (mostly without relevant qualifications) in disagreement?

2) Why do the members of that minority almost all have links (often paid links) to industries that stand to lose profit from addressing AGW?

3) Give me some instances during the previous century when a scientific near-consensus turned out to be wrong, how often it’s happened, and how many scientists were involved in the debate.

You see, if your views were worthwhile I’d hold them myself. But we have different motivations: the desire to preserve human life and civilization versus the desire to preserve a handful of luxuries.

I enjoy watching you cobble a defense together, because you know you’re defending a pile of rubbish. How do I know you know? Because your real argument is at the end of your post. In fact, almost all of your posts on climate change culminate in a claim about taxes or extra cost. How petty.

For all of your vitriol, pseudo-science, ham-fisted rhetoric, and obstinacy in the face of simple facts, your real motive comes down to a measly whinge about paying a few more dollars each week. With all that’s at stake, Leigh can only cry and moan that he’ll pay a bit more for utilities each year. The poor, poor dear.

It’s because you’re giving a middle finger to the next generation that AGW “skepticism” is a lost cause. It’s an ongoing farce of fighting, then caving in to, scientific evidence as the industry lobby loses credibility. Unfortunately for you, the public values solid science over the facile excuses of tight-fisted misers who’ll gladly shaft the rest of us just as long as they can die clutching a few grubby banknotes.

Well said Sir.. carbon sequestration to get into bed with the controlling set.. is just a load of bull... as you well know.

But apart from that.. This climate change that is.. occurring is an opportunity for intelligent people to start building a green SOLAR world. We are filthy rich in Oz but it's all going out out out of the country by the haves just as any third world country is leeched.
Four or five massive solar heated power sources and stick your coal oil gas and your blue blood bull..., academia brings the worst, and accidentaly the best now n then at least Arnie was a wakeup.

We need to take a whole country solution and tax coal to the hilt to pay for it. They are digging up 'your country' make them pay the rent.

I enjoyed the article while it rambled on about crowds...then the conspiracy theory anti-intellectual argument began. LOL!
Your attempts at social engineering are pretty pathetic.

For any real skeptics I'd suggest Newscientist magazine for an overview of the science over the last 10 years or so. Scientific American is also a good source. Whilst there is *much* uncertainty, there is also genuine understanding of many issues.

For those that with total faith in the political arguments of the Great GW hoax...have a nice day and don't forget the tinfoil hat!
Jesus will come down in his God-mobile UFO and collect the righteous before anything Bad happens.

Mr. Kitching I don't believe Hitler has a place among those people , he appealed to and captured the basic instinct 'survival' of the German people ; the Treaty of Versailles provided the pavement for Hitlers journey and Albert Speer provided the powerfull imagery . If Hitler had to compete with Churchill within Germany he would have faltered I believe .
Rudd's 'Grand Gestures' mentality mucked up the debate on AGW , it will probably happen but will fail for lack of preparation ie; it is not an exact science , the misery it will engender won't be placated by Spin .
If Rudd had methodically designed a plan based on what 'is' possible , affordable and simple for OZ to achieve ie reduce Engine size in all vehicles , reduce the weight of vehicles , reduce fuel consumption , halve the gas emissions , won't suit the Rev Heads but it will reduce our carbon print .
Another issue Trees , Why are we not planting Trees , Trees are made out of CO2 , Pay farmers , unemployed persons , Ordinary People who want to do something to help save our country , this was the go back in the 50-60's planting pine trees . There is huge areas where trees will grow on Farms where marginal land is no longer viable even if it will only support Mallee or Saltbush it's still scooping up Carbon .We need to make sure MIS Forests are still managed they are Carbon Sinks too . We are lucky most Countries can't do this , by the time they work out what to do we could have Billions of tons of CO2 locked up in Trees while they have done nothing !

Crowd behaviour......."population growth is good". Not only does pop growth stuff the climate ( 20 tonnes of Co2 per person per year in Australia), causes huge debt ( close to 1 trillion dollars, combined private and projected government)..as each of us are consuming more than we are producing....it wipes out our best farming land on the edge of cities, destroys precious ancient bushland and condemns the poor to live in highrise flats.

Yet most of you reading this post will do mental gymnastics to convince yourself, that the above is untrue.

We are growing by 1 million extra people in Australia every 3-4 years!
Check the ABS stats...our birth rate is double our death rate and immigration is out of control.

Time to throw this "crowd" stupidity out the window. Abolish the baby bonus and slash immigration to zero net. That is, 80,000 leave "permanently" each year....bring in 80,000.

Cheers to the free, rational thinkers,

Ralph