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.