One of the great things about writing for OLO is viewing the Forum which follows!

I'd love some of the contributors to actually specify exactly what they believe. What, precisely is a climate sceptic? What exactly does a non-sceptic believe? I'd like to know, because apparently I might be both.

I rather thought that my article was about the necessity of rigorous debate on issues that are going to effect our future, and that this was the essence of my article. Certainly I acknowledged that I was one of the largest group of Australians, who don't agree with the CPRS, and that I was sceptical, but my argument was for debate, not that particular cause.

But the first contribution labels me a sceptic, and says nothing about the need for debate. The majority of comment seems to follow the same line. Might I suggest that those who expressed this opinion are not sceptics, but disagree with the thought that debate is necessary? That is, they deny the scientific method, and are essentially non-scientific. If not, why get upset about tossing a few ideas around?

My thanks to those few who seem to have understood the tenor of the article, and honour me by discussing it accordingly.

To which I might add - 4freedom is spot on, whether you agree with the threat of losing our freedom at Copenhagen or not. If you don't know what s/he's talking about, go to http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/

Why aren't we having a real all-out argument about that? Why are Rudd and Turnbull in almost total agreement, when one of the very real issues goes virtually unacknowledged?

Anamele (Peter? You write as though you're the author, but without identification.)

I didn't mean to label you a sceptic at the beginning of my comment, I simply wasn't sure. At the end, my comment about sceptics was not aimed at you necessarily.

The rest of my comment is, I think, some constructive debate about some of the issues.

I understand it's frustrating for non-scientists, or non-specialists, to be told that most scientists agree with the conclusion that we are most likely causing dangerous global warming. But the fact is there has been for decades, and continues to be, a great deal of scientific debate and arduous work on ALL of the questions raised by sceptics. If anyone ventures in with their own assessment based on a passing familiarity with some of the science, or based on an overtly sceptical/denialist web site or book, then they risk being corrected and requested/told to get themselves better informed.

Peter, the debates are happening all the time, but don't look for them in national politics, that's not about rational debate it's about petty point scoring and paying off the big end of town. Look, for example, in New Scientist.

It is extremely frustrating, not to mention despair-inducing, for scientists to be treated by politicians as just another interest group pushing a barrow, and for there to be a sustained and professional campaign aimed at creating exactly that perception. So if some scientists show their frustration with the steady stream of ill-informed instant experts who infest this and other sites, you might understand why. That is not to accuse all correspondents here by any means, but there are certainly some to whom I would apply that description.

Contra some recent comments, I would argue that the "global" (cerebral) issue of warming is precisely a topic for armchair scientists, and even the scientifically illiterate, to contemplate. Underwriting the warming trend, which is a symptom, are myriad systemic causes including many, no doubt, we're not aware of. "Science" has never been so specialised as it is now, and no scientist can claim to be up to speed on the diversity of scientific data. Perhaps armchair scientists have an advantage in our global perspective, especially if we seek to emulate the scientific ideal: objectivity. Among the scientific community, some of the comparatively few sceptics are no doubt modestly withholding judgement due to their lack of expertise in crucial fields. Others, as Chomsky said the other day, are in the pay of vested interests such as oil companies. The few remaining scientific sceptics are just like the popular denialists; they unsubscribe for base or prejudicial reasons. They rebel against the prospect of compromised living standards; they believe God will take care of things ("God's will be done" What a copout!); or they are too proud to join the great unwashed in their undignified hysterics---think of those aristocrats in the movie, "Titanic", the Clifton Webb version. These are extraordinary times---"endtimes", some "Paptist" acquaintances assure me, with relish---and many people think it's "science fiction", or a "conspiracy".
But the armchair scientist will ponder all this, and reflect on her own prejudices, while analysing the manifold evidence. If she is impartial, she can only conclude that the evidence is overwhelming. Whatever doubts she has will be reconciled by the sheer brute fact of human depredation. How can anyone reason that we can just go on decimating the flora and exterminating the fauna in a sealed greenhouse that we simultaneously choke with poisons?
And if our armchair scientist still hesitates, she need only ponder the ethics of it all. Suppose the world is tenacious enough to endure our onslaught, or suppose humanity can survive, even prosper, on a dead planet---as on Asimov's "Trantor", entombed in a metal shell---what of the ethics of this wanton viciousness?

Spindoc,

I note your view with some interest and will attempt adjustment in presentation.

I made three points in my response

1. I clearly stated that it's beholden on the 'author of an article' to research their issue and present objective evidence to show they understand the issues first and then argue their case. In this instance it is clear the author doesn't. At best he has cobbled together a series of dubious facts from people who are neither qualified to give an authoritative in context conclusions or their opinions are so scientifically myopic that their contributions invokes the principal of GIGO. He focused a report out of context.
( I consistently the same criteria to all authors of all articles) given they are written to influence opinion, add to the sum total of knowledge.

2. I differentiated between a fact, opinion and plain prejudice.
fact= validated(able) evidence.
opinion= a conclusion based on fact and other relevant information
prejudice= has none of the above. Often hotly asserted with personal abuse and an unwillingness to listen change their opinion.

NB there is a difference between a strongly put argument and plain obfuscatious bluster.

I sometime err on the strongly put side.Don't mistake this for a genuine willingness to learn.

3. I differentiated between deniers and skeptics. I stated that I believe that deniers fall into the latter skeptics are still LOOKING.

My sole objective to write is to learn and contribute.

BTW I have no qualification in AGW but have done/do data collection and some programming etc for related research projects. I research like crazy in other than the flawed news papers and denialist blogs. I have a daughter who is currently gaining extra qualification and currently lives at home (you can imagine the wars).
PS I hope these links help
http://www.e360.yale.edu/,
http://www.postcarbon.org/,
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.chrismartenson.com economic reasoning

Examinator, your points noted but all relate to the case for AGW. I think we do owe Peter McCloy (or is it Anamele?) a debate. With your indulgence and in the interests of moving to discuss a solution to AGW, I’ll accept the AGW proposition.

That leaves us with the “what to do about it?” My perspectives on this are that we appear to be saying that broad based trading of carbon will allow market forces to “force” (because of the cost of penalties) carbon emitters to reduce their output and allow more carbon friendly industries to develop and emerge.

The funds drawn from the market will go into government general revenue and be “disbursed” at their discretion to those “hurt” by the scheme and those who deserve financial encouragement.

If $10Bn per annum goes into government coffers, what is our “bang for buck” projection?

Normally government income, less what it costs is their “profit”. Costs for this scheme appear to be the infrastructure to measure carbon, administer (collect/pay) and the new bureaucracy to support it. If we sign up for Copenhagen there seems to be our contribution to the $160Bn the UN wishes to collect and disburse for “adaption” for poorer nations.

My questions are: How much of what the government collects will go to actual carbon mitigation? (as a %). Is that residual enough have any impact on carbon reduction at all? Why are discussions quoting gross income of $10bn when the net (after costs and disbursements) don’t appear to have been determined? What will Australia’s contributions to the UN Copenhagen Treaty be?