Those people who claim that Australia has little effect on the world's CO2 emissions should also have a look at the amount of coal that we export to other countries to burn and include that in their calculations. It is no wonder Tuckey and his mates don't want to slow that down. It will effect their pockets.

The attendees at Copenhagen will all come back with a warm and fuzzy feeling about having done something and then it will be business as usual. What else ever happens at these gabfests. Economics is what drives the political agendas, not the environment and ultimately it will be at a huge cost to all those remaining.

Geoff Davies, you can put all the irrefutable evidence in front of the masses, but they don't understand trend lines and five year averages, so they are baffled by the BS from the Lavoisier Group who are also driven by the almighty dollar.

David

Sorry Geoff Davies - runner does not believe in the facts so the link you showed and the data there in is fantasy neither does he read the science, just comes out with ‘there are a growing number of scientist demanding some evidence’ without saying who they are, were the are asking or references to reputable peer review documents. The scientist probably have no connection with climate research or may be even economist and we see what they have achieved.

And he would not believe that scientist from NOAA report that ‘The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August’ as he knows better than the experts on http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html

runner is probably being paid by big business to spout the rubbish he does so has no credibility.

Peter,
we already have "unanimity among our politicians"; they have a hard time finding anything to fight over, the common currency they clamour for being votes. If only politicians weren't such "ham" actors, and the media such appalling critics, it might be entertaining; but they accurately reflect, together, middle class duplicity.
Being apparently separate entities, these organs of democracy provide a comforting illusion that deliberation is taking place: snort snort, oink oink.

"Time to settle back and take a long hard look at our definition of democracy."
This is sacrilege! Our democracy is running perfectly! It's "Suilline Rule", as I've had occasion to say elsewhere.

Definition of "democracy": sanctified rule by stereotype or norm. parochial, ungainly, blinkered, stupid, predictable.

Dear Kenny,
Shame shame shame the way the left has politicized fear to stifle debate on hiv, evolution, carbon taxes, energy price hikes, water shortages which have been solved by rain not wealth transfer and coming food shortages.Attack the man never never answer the "WHY"
Then I guess every thing is the result of an accident without the benefit of an inteligent thought. After all it is all a big bang in progress with the main product Hot Air.

Peter McCloy

The first rule of any discussion if it is to be fruitful is to understand the problem. Sadly I don't think climate sceptics do and denialist definitely aren't.

Denialists do so out of ignorance wilful ( pride, fear, self interest etc.) or lack of competence. It is this group who are often motivated by or for industry. The argument about economics and jobs is so banal as to not worth further comment.

Sceptic's aren't all necessarily negatively obstructionist , actually it implies a still looking attitude . Rather than a quasi -denialist frame PROVE it to ME.

In general the sceptics argument has fatal flaws By way of erogenous base assumptions.

Over simplification. The argument style commonly called reduction to the ridiculous.

Their argument is presented in terms discredit the absolute causality of the carbon link and you discredit the whole Global catastrophe of what is called AGW.

On one hand they demand irrefutable proof for a single causal factor. Then counter with a myriad of stand alone explanations.

In reality there isn't absolutely one cause, but the combination of many, that has created an environment where CO2 has become the apparent causal factor.

It is undeniable that Anthropomorphic intervention has caused a myriad ultimately terminal events, ranging from the retreat of land locked glaciers, ice sheets to desertification of arable land, change in sea acidity to innumerable others.

The sceptics argument has a secondary pillar based on the somewhat fallacious assertion that all these all event occur in isolation to all others. Time and time again science is uncovering that this is not the case and it's far more complex and integrated.

While there is some intrinsic resilience in the system of interrelationships it is by no mean static or immutable.

In conclusion there is little point in armchair scientists or experts in unrelated and discrete disciplines second guessing those that are ofey with the complexity of the specific science involved.

Any more than consulting climate sceptics et al for advice on how to do complex brain surgery on your self or build an interplanetary rocket.

Examinator, you may be right about climate change and as I remember it you have some professional qualifications in that domain. As such you have little, if any, justification for the abuse and vilification of those who do not agree with you.

Your references to denialists and skeptics for failing to understand the question, ignorance, lack of competence, negatively obstructionist, over simplification, and ridiculous may be correct. That is because, as you said yourself; we are “armchair scientists”, empowered by search engines and on-line information, that’s it.

So why do you and so many others, get so rude and angry at those who remain unconvinced? If you accept there is no possibility of us understanding the science, because we are not scientists, why should you expect the impossible and then abuse us for our failure? What is it you actually wish us to do? How may we avoid the abuse?

Do you need our support? a pat on the back? March the streets? Write to our MP’s? switch off our lights? Could it be that all you actually need is for us to “agree” with you unconditionally?

I am concerned, and I’m sure many others are too, that in order to have us agree with your beliefs, you use precisely the same line of argument as those who do not support religion, you proselytize. What you really want is “converts”. Now that is a worry.

I would be much happier to see the all carbon tax go into an insurance fund, rather than into government coffers. Then those who actually suffer in Australia can claim.

Claims might include “I lost my job and can’t get a green one”, “my front yard is gone due to rising sea levels”, “my cattle have no feed due to drought” or I can’t get cheap Tofu due to lost world food production”

My point is, lots of things “might” happen so insure against those risks. Don’t speculate that all the risks global warming might bring will eventuate because that is religion, not science.