Very good essay. I checked out David's website too.
It is hard to believe that he was a member of the UK conservative party.
Why?
Because most of what he features, and thus criticizes, on his website, is loudly championed by those who are usually called "conservative", and their multifarious think (stink) tanks, the purpose of which is to deliberately mis-inform the general populace (which they have been doing for many years now)

For instance they all uniformly loathe Naomi Klein, who is quoted on David's site.

I agree with James Fairbairn. They 'climate change' issue as presented in the media is far from conclusive. I do not know, nor does anyone else, if we are the sole cause of climate change.
One thing we do know is that the human race is polluting the planet. The time has come for some house keeping. The argument that our pollution is not causing any harm therefore it is OK to live in a dirty, smelly polluted world is not valid. It all comes back to personal choice and personal responsibility.
What sort of world do you want to live in? If you get that one wrong you may not have any world to live in. The doom and gloom approach to climate change just might be right. We don't know. But it is not worth the risk.

Take your own advice James and get informed. You presume the world's climate scientists are so stupid they haven't thought to check the factors, and don't debate whether they've got them right. To see how scientists really work, see my post at
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7418&page=0
Your straw man about people breathing out CO2 is monumentally pathetic.

As to scientists trying to feather their nests, what about Exxon-Mobil, which has a trillion-dollar vested interest, and that funds denialist think-tanks whose philosophy is "Doubt is the product". They push the message "They call it pollution, we call it life". The same straw man.

And the media are full of denialist stuff, far out of proportion to their credibility or numbers.

Ho Hum

Am I missing something - which David are you referring to, what does he have to do with the author/article?

Daviy

Can you name just one scientist who claims that "we are the sole cause of climate change"?

It disturbs me that distortions (intentional or otherwise) like this create even more confusion for people who just don't know.

Media shock-jocks and ideologue columnists do science an injustice with deliberate distortion and misrepresentation.

Most media outlets do a fair job in reporting science, although in a race with their competitors can get some things wrong.

Notwithstanding, if you really want to get information from the IPCC, scientific institutions, science journals or the scientists themselves - you can.

Most rabid critics don't ... you have to ask, why not?

A good article. A couple of brief points.
1. Media are all about making money, and nothing else. Editors that ignore this are currenly all unemployed. Ask Murdoch. Therefore they take the view or press the point for either position based on what will cause the longest engagement, and greatest return to shareholders.
2. Scientists regulary disagree with each other and regularly get it spectacularly wrong.
3. Stats can be abused to prove/disprove anything.
Get involved, keep informed, discuss it regularly and maintain an interest. Informed society cannot be controlled, and it scares those in power when there are more of us than the muppets.

Q & A
I think you have misread my post. Did I mention Scientists? Many of the media reports I read ignore everything other than human factors. In OLO there are many posts that argue only from the dogma of the effect of human race. Like the weather itself there are so many variable that nobody can isolate a single cause.
My view is that the best we can do is to minimise our impact. There is no need to be a scientist to understand that.
'Most media outlets do a fair job in reporting science'. If it isn't sensationist it doesn't sell in the popular media. The media needs an 'angle', and if that angle distorts the truth so be it as long as it sells. This applies to science as much as anything else.
Unfortunately this means that anyone who relies on the popular media will be uniformed. The old problem. Public opinion is orchestrated ignorance. Nowhere is this more evident than in the climate change debate.

I'm all for everyone learning as much as possible about climate science, but it's completely unrealistic to expect any significant fraction of the population to independently learn enough to be able to assess the scientific merits of all the factors at play in a very, very complex field.

We have a similar level of scientific confidence in the basic questions - that the planet has been warming over the last century, that increased greenhouse gases are the main cause (certainly of the warming since around 1970), that human activities are primarily responsible - as we have in other areas of complex science such as the effectiveness of vaccination, the process of evolution, and so on. In those areas, the mainstream population, and the media and commentariat in general, recognise that the evidence is complex and detailed, but generally accept that the scientists know what they're doing, and accept their conclusions.

And yet we see constant mainstream questioning of climate science (where the evidence supporting these basic aspects has gone beyond being a mountain; it's now better described as a mountain range).

The difference, as far as I can see, is that there isn't a whole lot of money and political power behind the anti-vaccination and anti-evolution groups (though the latter has quite some weight in the US, admittedly), whereas climate science has had to deal with some of the largest companies in the world running a PR campaign against them. For instance, ExxonMobil continues to fund disinformation campaigns based on completely unsound science (such as the Heartland Institute which Senator Fielding was so effectively hoodwinked by). These disinformation campaigns take on a life of their own in the mainstream media and blogosphere, especially when the science itself is complex and difficult to get across, and when many scientists are culturally reluctant to speak out in an effective way.

That the planet is purple, of this we can be absolutely certain. That man is a seven-armed washing machine, there is no doubt. We are cleaaaaaarly the cause of the lamington epidemic. The problem of musical pyjamas must be addressed.

It's easy to make stupid unsubstantiated blanket assertions and sound like a twit.

Did Mr Fairbairn watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as inspiration for his completely baseless claims or has he just made it his life mission to try as hard as possible to thwart positive change?

If he had wasted as much as 10 seconds of his precious time to even attempt to answer his own questions with some intelligent research, he would have found all of his seemingly compelling (but actually just negatively skeptical) doubts completely invalidated with a few simple clicks of the mouse. But skeptics and conspiracy theorists alike aren't actually interested in facts, because when confronted by facts they are exposed as fools without any basis for their mindless onslaughts against reasonable and rational thought. They are mired in denial and much more concerned with insisting on how wrong everyone else is than thoughtfully considering what everyone else is saying.

This is one excellent resource among many http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ which offer a great response to tripe such as Fairbairn has spouted here. I counted 17 points in his article that are commonly vomited up by skeptics and which have been comprehensively disproved or debunked by science, can anyone beat that?

As a further point - and in response to his subtle hint that power plants and companies don't create or emit "pollution" (which perhaps reveals where his true loyalties lie) - even if it was one day found that CO2 has not been THE major form of pollution that humans are creating and causing more global warming with, the potential positive effects of cutting emissions and curbing rampant pollution far outweigh the possible short-term negative effects on industry and the potential disasters of inaction. There is nothing wrong with attempting to wean ourselves off finite and polluting forms of energy unless you are someone who makes a profit from those forms of energy.

His website "Open Your Eyes" should be re-branded with the name "Blinker Your Eyes", because from a cursory glance you can see that it just selectively picks out articles that support his specific political agenda. That is not news reporting, that is partisan propaganda.

Agreed, it's good to keep an open mind about things so large and barely understood by today's science, like climate. Let's face it in 20 or even 50 years, today's scientific fact and "consensus" will probably be seen as quirky and quaint but misguided rubbish.

Surely no one thinks we know everything do they, apart from some who amuse us all with their rants.

The media generate product to increase sales and stay competitive. If you rely on the Age or even the ABC to give an objective view or even admit it exists (without sneering), well keep waiting. The media do not report objectively, no surprise.

There's a lot of information out there, sifting the facts from clearly biased position takes ages, on both sides.

There are web sites that teach you how to deal with anyone who disagrees, and offers sneering lessons to go with that view, on both sides. Yesnomaybe says, "commonly vomited up by skeptics" what a great line, shows all the tolerance we have come to expect in this forum, then slips in another classic from the coaching sites, the hint that "big oil, or polluters are funding everything".

Here's something I know it's difficult to understand, "people disagree with the AGW belief position, and have not been paid to do so", simple as that.

Yes, we could pollute less, no problem, but being taxed to the stone age reeks of idealism not progress.

Rejecting everything that does not fit your worldview is not science. If you put up an "end of the world" hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you, not on everyone else to prove it is not so, That's why there's more papers attempting to prove why AGW exists than why it is not (for Q&A).

If it were an open and shut case, there would be no skeptics and no frustrated AGW believers who find it necessary to use insults, sneer or twist people's posts and attempt to intellectually bully.

The AGW science remains unproved, regardless of the tricky words and shouting of many adherents.

..."If it were an open and shut case, there would be no skeptics"
In a perfect world, you'd be right there. Unfortunately, human beings aren't all willing and capable (by reason of lack of time, if nothing else) to learn the entire field of climate science. And industries that stand to gain from delaying climate action are quite prepared to mislead and distort the science to serve their own ends.

..."The AGW science remains unproved"
Wrong question. Nothing is ever "proved" in the natural sciences. The issue is the balance of evidence; and the evidence supporting the core aspects of AGW is utterly overwhelming, whereas the evidence against it, evidence that actually makes a scientifically sound case, is very close to zero. There's no contest, at present.

As I said earlier, it's interesting that we treat climate denialists differently from anti-vaccination kooks or anti-evolution freaks, when the level of scientific confidence in the issues at hand is pretty much equivalent.

"And industries that stand to gain from PROMOTING climate action are quite prepared to mislead and distort the science to serve their own ends." there you go, fixed.

""The AGW science remains unproved" Wrong question." It wasn't a question, but I understand your desire to attack anyone who disagrees, it's OK.

"evidence supporting the core aspects of AGW is utterly overwhelming" no it's not, you just believe that and I do not, the onus of proof is on your side, not mine - so you should have overwhelming evidence, yet the world is not warming as predicted and so many excuses are being given.

There are many senior scientist skeptics who are underwhelmed by the supposed evidence, and the AGW believers shouting about it does not make it so.

As I said earlier, it's fascinating to watch the attacks and the creeping undermining and slander due to "big oil" or other nasty people deliberately supposedly conspiring, by people who think that will actually convince skeptics of their case.

None of the tactics of insult, twisting of words and blather will change the way the climate changes, and change it does, get over it.

In Exodus to Arthur, an author called Mike Baillee documents the climate changes over the past 6000 years by the science of dendrochronology. This book should be required reading for Kevin Rudd and Penny Wat Went Wong, and all the other climate fanatics, together with State of Fear by the late Michael Crichton. Steve Fielding and Turnbull should get a copy to and read it as well. Here is a review of Exodus to Arthur posted on the net.

Six climate changes in the last 6000 years in tree rings., June 2, 1999
By A Customer
This book reads like a detective story where the plot slowly unfolds. In the beginning it describes the use of tree rings to date old wood in buildings, paintings, ships and other archeological specimens. By a huge collaborative effort by many tree ring scientists it has been possible to establish almost continuous tree ring patterns over 6000 years in bristlecone pine, oak, and other species. Most variations in ring width is due to local conditions. However, six peculiar worldwide, decade long episodes of reduced growth has become evident, for example around 1628 BC and 540 AD. The archeologist Baillie compares this with Chinese, Egyptian and other history, with the Bible and with myths from all over the world, and with what is known of climate changes, volcano eruptions, analyses of Greenland ice cores and the probability of impacts of comets and asteroids. The 1628 BC event may or may not be explained by the Santorini explosion, and perhaps it caused the 10 plagues of Egypt and the exodus. The 540 AD event coincided with plagues in Constantinople, "dry fog", very pale sun and famine and with the myths of King Arthur. What caused this to happen? Baillie examines the various lines of evidence and ends up with collisions with comets and asteroids as the most likely explanation. Will it happen again and what should we do? Stock up on food like in Egypt under Moses before exodus or hit the comets with nuclear weapons?

Nothing like a good story to keep the attention focused

"Yes, we could pollute less, no problem" Is that right? Provide some proof of an industry let alone a company that has voluntarily scaled back production to cut emissions or invested in alternative energies purely on their own volition. If you honestly believe that industry is going to become cleaner and greener without incentives or legislation forcing them to from governments you are seriously mistaken, and sound just as deluded as Fairbairn's in his doubts that industry even does create "pollution".

"There are many senior scientist skeptics who are underwhelmed by the supposed evidence". Many are there? Name 50 of them. Or 20 of them. Or even just one legitimate scientific community or organisation that supports your claims. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (consisting of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries), along with the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil, have all recognised that most of the global warming over the last 50 years has been caused by human activities.

rpg, just like Fairbairn, you are only willing to deny or refute by making unsupported and unspecific claims, attempting to re-raise issues that have already been disproved. This is deliberate disinformation, and is not deserving of respectful debate. Claiming that the "onus of proof is on your side" merely demonstrates that you are uninformed and have no plausible defence except to deny based on nothing but your own opinion. Also, like Fairbairn, the basis of your argument rests on the fact that you are unsure, and this is because you have failed to do any research or answer questions for yourself or because you choose to ignore the facts and evidence presented. If there was an honest attempt on your (or Fairbairn's) behalf to provide some verifiable factual evidence to counter the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans then perhaps it would be worth listening, but otherwise it is just a load of hot air, which is thankfully not anywhere near as harmful as the pollution you are denying exists.

Faiburn's wrong that climate science doesn't look at natural chahges to climate. His article is barely better than drivel - not one point that hasn't been shown as wrong over and over. Give me the leading scientific bodies of the world over rubbish like this. Where does OLO keep getting the endless supply of climate denialists? Fairburn is just one more voice trying to convince us that all the scientists must be wrong, it's too hard and too expensive to do anything about and facing the future with eyes open and ready to meet the challenges presented head on is a recipe for the end of civilisation. Failing to deal with this enormous challenge is far more certain to bring disaster than treating this as the serious and urgent issue it is.
It's people like Fairburn that ignore known natural cycles like ENSO when they mask the AGW trend as so many denialist do every time they try and claim warming has stopped.
The actual science hasn't been shifted a bit by more than a decade of opinions like Fairburns. It's not CSIRO or BoM or NCAR or Hadley CRU that sets out to mislead.

ynm .. "Provide some proof", what? Why should I, and if I did, then what would you do? You seem to want a link war, well off you go.

"Name 50 of them. Or 20 of them. Or even just one legitimate scientific community or organisation that supports your claims." again, what would that prove, you know very well there are many scientists who are not "believers", but it clearly makes you angry to see it in print (again!).

Now a flurry of accusations, "you are only willing to .. This is deliberate disinformation .. Claiming that the "onus of proof is on your side" .. you are uninformed .. you are unsure .. you have failed .. you choose to ignore the facts .. you are denying exists."

Hey ynm, get over it, that's my OPINION, OK, this is an opinion site, not a repository of agreement for your belief system. Have you been trolling the "how to deal with a sceptic" sites again, got all worked into a lather about the heretics?

The climate changes, get used to it, regardless of what Australia does, the rest of the world are not as stupidly led by the nose to destroy their own economies and go back to the caves.

How come China and India are not signing up to the whole AGW thing, if it's so convincing and the evidence is in? What's the problem with convincing over half the world? Don't worry about the occasional poster on an opinion site, off you go to the third world to convince them.

China is doing a lot more than we are, rpg.

China has recently said its carbon emissions will start falling by 2050 (ours will still be rising at our current rate).

Whether China will agree to some kind of cap on its emissions is a critical question for Copenhagen. Beijing argues, as do most developing countries, that developed nations should take responsibility for cutting emissions first, since global warming originated with their industrialisation.

China's planning body - the National Development and Reform Commission - signal not only increasing flexibility in Beijing's approach but also continued unreadiness to accept an emissions ceiling, not unlike Australia.

China still needs to grow its economy to help its people escape poverty, and to supply the comfort of living that people like rpg enjoy - we don't have to live in caves as he implies (more disinformation).

China will not continue growing emissions without limit or insist that all nations must have the same per-capita emissions. They will compromise - unlike Australia.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences has said that with major technological support from developed nations, China could see its emissions peak between 2030 and 2040. Other Chinese experts say carbon output will keep rising until 2050 unless radical controls are adopted, including huge efforts into renewables. Guess what, they are starting (solar, wind, nuclear) - unlike us.

China is adopting policies aimed at curtailing emissions growth. Under the country's current five-year plan, which runs until 2010, the government set a target of reducing energy intensity by 20 per cent. The next five-year plan would include more far-reaching and specific targets to reduce carbon intensity.

This week, the State Council, China's cabinet, approved draft rules for impact audits which it said would lay the foundation for evaluating the emissions impact of new investments.

Some of us like being informed.

Some people (not unlike rpg) have got their head stuck in the sand, they wouldn't have a clue what's going on.

Daviy, I did misread your post (mea culpa).

You are correct, there is far too much disinformation and distortion being spread by people who just don't know or who have got their own agenda.

The people that count are trying to address the issues of climate change (they are not arguing the science) and will play out in Copenhagen. It won't be easy.

The naysayers are a distraction that generates a lot of white noise - it's difficult for agnostics to filter this background noise out.

Q&A "China is doing a lot more than we are, rpg", what utter rubbish, they have said they will build a minimum of 1 coal fired power plant a week for the next 10 years, so what are we doing, building 2 a week?

Get your head out of the sand and admit we are completely inconsequential to the rest of the world, as much as your ego would prefer it to be other than that.

If you go down the "per capita" line, (which is disinformation at its best), there are 20 million of us and 1.1 BILLION of them, if we vacated Australia completely tomorrow it would be a couple of weeks before they replaced our entire contribution.

"China is adopting policies", well they say they are, but they said they were going to be more tolerant of human rights before the last Olympics, no evidence of that either is there. They will always say what suits them and what they think will placate westerners, fools that we are.

"Some of us like being informed.", how noble you are, but sadly it's untrue Q&A, you just like to sneer at others and criticize and it is reflected in your continued intolerant nature.

I can accept other people can have different points of view, you clearly cannot. You need to grow a bit, probably why you have never truly succeeded in your field and remain a minor frustrated player, but I'm sure you've heard that before from your superiors.

Hi Folks
Just wanted to set the record straight about a few points that have been raised in relation to my article.
1/ It was not an article about the science of climate, it was saying that we need to be informed about all the information on this subject as the world is being restructured around us on the basis of AGW. If you re-read the article you will see I was not stating one side was right, and the other wrong.
2/ The main thrust was a call for us to not get so wrapped up in CO2 we ignore the destruction we humans are definitely doing such as deforestation, oceanic plastic, over-fishing, water table pollution, industrial run off etc, etc all of which the mass media (& politicians & corporations) largely ignore.
3/ I am not in the pay of the oil companies, or anyone else for that matter, I do this of my own free volition (though I strongly suspect my bank manager wishes I was)
4/ Joseph Goebbels would be proud of some of the vitriol spouted to silence dissent on The Forum (not just on this subject) of those who have the temerity to at least question the status quo in what, at last glance, was a free society. Shame on you.
5/ Are all those who believe and fight for AGW in the pay of the big banks? For surely it is they who are going to be the multi-trillion dollar biggest winners from all this....always follow the money.
It is not (yet) a crime to be informed or to question. It is your world too after all. James

James, You aren't fooling anyone - the article tries to throw doubt on the validity of climate science, implies they haven't even checked what the sun does or how much of recent CO2 is from volcanoes and how much from burning fossil fuels, ask why gov'ts 'go along with this if it wasn’t necessarily correct'. It's denialist drivel.
James, of course people understand that there are many serious issues around sustainability; Climate of the whole planet into the future counts as serious enough to get a lot of attention. I think the article is drivel and I haven't silenced any 'dissent'. Shame on you to suggest that labelling the article denialist drivel equates to silencing dissent. Also - oversight of the overall balance of taxation is constant and fundamental. Taxing carbon and feeding the money to support energy efficiency at consumer level and low emissions energy technology at the producer level isn't a scam to boost taxes at the expense of the gullible.
It's not a crime to hold opinions like yours but basing climate policy on them would be dangerously irresponsible.
Mainstream Australia increasingly accepts the science and increasingly wants this faced head on.

Q&A admirably demonstrates that the "science" of climate is not a disinterested pursuit of truth, but is characterized by hysteria, hubris, bullying and ideology, rendering itself glaringly corruptible and vulnerable to bias, intolerant of skeptics, and blind to inconvenient facts.

"I remember at an early period of my own life showing to a man of high reputation as a teacher some matters which I happened to have observed. And I was very much struck and grieved to find that, while all the facts lay equally clear before him, only those which squared with his previous theories seemed to affect his organs of vision." - Lord Lister

.

Historian aka James; I think you are a bit thin skinned; after implying that climate science doesn't track or consider solar activity or look at how much CO2 comes from where - ie imply they are so incompetent that such basic fundamentals are overlooked - you get upset that people aren't polite and dismiss what you say as rubbish. That's not vitriol; what you say actually is rubbish.

Come on James, you are the one asking that people be better informed but it's clear to me that you aren't very informed yourself. Quite the contrary, you must be remarkably ill-informed or else you would know (and have passed on to readers) that manmade emissions have been much greater than volcanic emissions over the past century, that solar activity is monitored and measured with great precision , on Earth and with satellites, and has not undergone any changes that could make it a primary cause of a rapid warming trend. Water vapour and clouds have been the focus of a lot of study and it's quite insulting to the many competent scientist who do such work to imply they overlook them.
I think you are far more insulting to working scientists than anyone here has been to you.

Ken, surely Government policy should be about the whole environment, not just "climate" - that is rather the point.
As for accusing someone that you know nothing about of being "remarkably ill-informed" rather proves my Goebbels point. I could retort "Yes I am actually, and for these reasons...." however what does that prove? Likewise it would not prove anything by me questioning your credentials.
It is absurd for any of us, me included, to ever hold a fundamentalist opinion on any subject. It is impossible to know all the facts no matter how compelling the arguments are to date and therefore it is a betrayal of our own humanity to not at least keep our minds open to the possibility that what we believe may be incorrect. It is therefore imperative to never close our minds to alternative view-points, no matter how implausible they may at first seem.
I respect your informed position, it is a great shame that you cannot respect others.

Historian
you make some good points particularly "the whole of the environment".
There are two points that you should consider.

There is a difference between an open mind and one that is wantonly empty resisting all facts.

The other is is a little more esoteric.
Many people need the flagship mentality to see the point. i.e. save the Koalas ....functionally who cares about a marsupial that has little direct impact on people (except in extra ordinary circumstances)? In order to support the koala one needs a functioning environment...that I support.

Selling the sizzle(hyperbole) not the steak endemic in the media and campaigns in general i.e. "Obama has a wife two cute children and a dog" oh yeah! Is he all the answers in one persona... not bloody likely but he is demonstratively better than GWB or the alternative.

All this "let's do nothing until the evidence is unequivocal". Refer to my wantonly vacuous comment. There ain't much human life jobs or profit in a desert wasteland. Yeah for Mad Max.

As for AWG ?! who cares if we continue trash this planet on multiple levels the result is the same. There is more than enough good science to prove that! Does it matter that CO2 may not be the single cause?
Which scientist is saying fix CO2 on its own will solve all our ailments? they appear to be saying that it is a multi level problem.
If in fighting it slows or stops the other ailments then I'm in

rpg

China's construction of coal-fired power stations has raised concerns but many people are not aware that China is the world's leading builder of more efficient, less polluting ones. While the US and OZ are still debating whether to build them, China is.

What many people are also uninformed about is that, while Western countries continue to rely heavily on ‘old’ coal-fired power stations, China has begun requiring power companies to retire older, more polluting ones for each new one they build.

China's coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and GHG’s from the country will continue to rise. However, China is using the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase, including solar, wind and nuclear – they are (despite your pretestations) doing more than we are to tackle the global problems of climate change.

China has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years; is now the world's largest market for wind power equipment and largest producer of solar technology and inovation. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined.

China does have a huge population (not 1.1 billion btw, you must be thinking of India) and 800 million still live in poverty. What is helping them out of poverty is their manufacturing base that has grown exponentially since many Western companies have gone ‘off-shore’ – to build cheaper consumer products like your kitchen appliances, plasma TV, widgets you use and the clothes you wear (shareholders love their dividends).

Talking about ‘per-capita’ emissions is not a distortion. It is true that we are amongst the highest (if not highest) in the world ... China is not. However, it is pointless for Australia to embrace tough targets unless America and China (as the largest emitters) change their ways, and as I have tried to explain – China is.

Human rights issues have got nothing to do with what I have said and the rest of your post is challenging me (of which you wouldn’t have a clue), not the issues I raise.

James, you may feel my criticisms are harsh but this is a very serious issue, one that you've freely expressed your opinion about in a leading internet journal; no-one's stopped you or censored you! Nazi style suppression? Please!
In any case this is a Forum and I get to freely express my opinion back. I think your article is denialist drivel because: it suggests and implies that climate scientists are so dumb they haven't even thought about the role of the sun, suggests and implies volcanoes are where the extra CO2 is coming from, suggests and implies that climate science is in doubt but governments go along with it and is short on the kind of information that getting informed can provide.
You really need to get better informed - it's not the sun, the amount of CO2 from volcanoes is actually small in comparison to our emissions and it's not a conspiracy to raise taxes. Taxes are a tool and we had better use every tool we have, because warming hasn't stopped and scientists haven't made anything up or overlooked things.
This issue will not go away and failure to deal with it will have devastating consequences. I think that people who argue that we should believe it's not serious and support the continued growth in emissions are a serious danger to our future, so get used to a bit of vitriol.