"if you ask for scientific evidence, you’re called names "

Without having read Rudd's speech, I am nonetheless confident that this is complete nonsense.

Certainly, the deniers who deserve to be called names are the ones who don't go and look at the evidence. Anyone who wants the evidence can find it easily enough. The ones who pretend to want the evidence but don't get it because Kevin Rudd hasn't sent them a personal copy, and complain about that, deserve to be called names.

That is to say, no-one can seriously complain about not having evidence. If they evaluate it differently, or find opposing evidence they think is stronger, then that's another matter. (I just wish they'd write that up in a scientific research paper. The denialists I've got into email conversations with don't know what a serious scientific research paper looks like).

Another US Republican hack, backed up on here by the usual right wing suspects,runner, Leigh et al,is there anything that Rudd, Labour or Obama and the Democrats can say or do that would make these people happy,I don't think so.
They want to go back to the days of Howard the Liar and Bush the war criminal who incidentally has done more damage to the US than a lot realize,and the near crazy right wing loons on Faux News.
To bad boys the world has changed and as I assume none of you are climate scientists I think I tend to go with them rather than a bunch of so called skeptics.
Who seem to include people like Bolt,Ackerman and co,News Ltd and its leader Murdock,none of whom I either trust or take much notice of

wow..we just gathered enough evidence to say conclusively that the world is round.

"the world is flat".

no it isn't..here some evidence that conclusively proves its round.

"all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you".

no, here you go, have a look at the evidence.

"all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you".

no, come on...have a look at it all.

"all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you"

ok..now you are just being a stupid person on purpose.

"see, see that...all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you"

fine, you go ahead and live in a flat world then while the rest of us get on with dealing with the round one.

"see see, there, see, seee...all you do is insult me because i don't agree with you

What rstuart said.

Nova appears to be little more than an American version of Jennifer Marohasy - similar weasel words, similarly hypocritical bluster from a similarly junior science PhD in the service of the 'business as usual' crew.

Also, what Cheryl said - there's clearly enough scientific evidence to suggest strongly that carbon emissions be reduced as a precautionary measure.

Just to do a little balancing of some of Joanne's assertions -

The reason CO2 rose *after* temperature during the ice ages is understood. The ice ages were triggered by changes in solar heating, and CO2 then magnified the effect. CO2 can also cause warming on its own. It happened during the Eocene era. To see more detail, look here:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/co2-lag-during-ice-ages/

The hockey-stick graph was an honest attempt at a difficult task, and has undergone normal scientific sceptical examination. Improvements are being offered, reportedly with similar results. It is not appropriate to offer shrill denunciations like "inept, dishonest, and fatally flawed" just because you don't like the answer.

The science of greenhouse gases has been understood for over a century. The climate has been pretty much following the course predicted by James Hanson and others up to three decades ago, except now it's changing faster than expected. That is evidence the theory is correct. It is nonsense to claim "there is no evidence" or "it is unproven".

Yes, *science* is about scepticism, not consensus. But we need to act before all the effects of CO2 emissions take hold, or it will be too late. That means politicians need the collective best judgement of climate scientists, which is what IPCC and other bodies provide, as rstuart notes. A discussion of these issues is at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

You can also see reputable recent evidence that global warming has continued after 1998, and that sea level is rising faster than ever at http://betternature.wordpress.com/ .

Much of the 'evidence' for AGW has come from data supplied by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK. It is interesting, therefore, to see that a whistleblower has recently leaked many megabytes of what appears to be their internal documents and emails. If this information is true it puts a very different perspective on the so-called 'consensus' of 'reliable' 'scientists' -- sorry, I'm running out of incredulity quotes, but you can find coverage here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

If true this is not merely a smoking gun but a loaded howitzer with fingerprints on.