Curious that the link provided by Jon J alleges sources of corruption from the heart of the AGW scientific engine room, The Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit. This has hit the New York Times, the UK’s The Telegraph, Fox News and the BBC. There has been 600 comments overnight on this site and yet, nothing in the Australian media. Fascinating?

Rudd/Wong must have even more influence that I thought possible. Could it be that it might be a delicate time for the CPRS bill and the media has also been bullied into submission?

SUBJECT: Nations to seek billions in 'climate debt'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26380589-23109,00.html

CENTRAL American nations will DEMAND $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries(SUCH AS AUSTRALIA) for DAMAGES caused by global warming, the region's representatives say.
Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

Ferrate minister said the region "had never faced" so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security.

A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.

His Nicaraguan counterpart Juana Arguenal said that Central America would press industrialised countries to reach concrete decisions to reduce "greenhouse" gases at Copenhagen.

"We hope for a deal that is ethical and moral," she said.

What a SICK TWISTED JOKE on the world. Third world countries can destroy their own environment through deforestation and poor enviromental practices, yet they expect Australians and others to pay them to fix these problems that they themselves have caused!
Am I the only one that has a problem with this logic(or lack of it)!

Making a virtue of scepticism is fine. Recognising that most great science emerges from rejecting the prevailing paradigm is correct. Yet in order to squeeze climate denialists into those particular realities requires some interesting feats of contortion. The problem with the argument is that it simply requires that you accept reductio ad absurdio as a standard of science. It ain't. Because scepticism in science is necessary, therefore climate scepticism is good is crap logic and it characterises the entire argument...Well, most - the rest is comprised of intimations of conspiracy and financial benefit. The notion that this is a conspiracy defies any logic - except the logic of the paranoid and insane. None of this means that I support Rudd - in some ways he is worse than a sceptic. He claims he is doing something but the modelling of his own government makes it clear the CPRS will not reduce Australia's emissions and will provide windfalls to the very polluters it is supposed to be phasing out.
The problem that the denialists have is that they are ignoring a vast body of evidence (and most of it is suggesting that the IPCC report was way too conservative) and in doing so are prepared to risk incredible long term problems in order to protect a fossil fuel based economy that we CAN transition out of. This is where I agree with Rudd - that kind of response is dangerous, stupid and in my view criminal...

Next,

Ah, now we're getting somewhere - disagreeing with AGW is denialist, like Irving denying the Holocaust. Skeptics/sceptics are just as bad, dangerous and CRIMINAL. What next ? That if skeptics had their evil way, doubting, disagreeing, they would be worse than al Qaida ? Governments should have emergency powers to arrest and jail doubters, with no recourse to trial ?

Perhaps we can put a prohibition on skepticism and doubt in a Bill of Rights ?

As it happens, I agree that there is global warming, probably brought on by rising levels of CO2 and other gases, which has been probably caused by human activity and the over-use of fossil fuels. I wish that pretty much all energy will be generated by renewable means within a couple of generations. But people are entitled to raise questions, to expect ample and convincing evidence, without this sort of hysteria.

And it doesn't do the anti-AGW case any good by extravagant claims of catastrophic sea-level rise, or that we will run out of food, water and air, that hundreds of millions are going to die, mostly in violent wars over resources. Sure, if we do nothing, these things could happen in a few hundred years, but since the logic of capitalism is to find ways to make a buck out of everything, don't you think its agents aren't already planning the transformation of the economy in this direction, in a thousand ways, and within the next generation ? Not out of the goodness of their hearts, no, but with their eyes on the main chance, as always.

Joe

Loundmouth and co,

There is a difference between a sceptic and denialist. however the ground available for sceptics is bloody thin and poorly populated by anybody who is really in the position to know. As I said earlier 30,000
scientists (in what? what is their competence) when it comes to seriously working scientists in the field there are minor detail differences but 99% agree on the basic objectively arrived at conclusions.
Like in the link clearly shows http://tiny.cc/GDN7y. (Thanks CJ)
The vast majority of claimed 'sceptics' are neither competent or qualified to comment at the depth that really makes a difference.

In reality most are emotional denialists.

The latest *observations* are incontrovertible.