Yes the vast majority of nations once believed that the earth was flat and it was blasphemous to believe otherwise.The majority concensous is not always right.Remember to two Aussies who went against all coventional rationality and found that stomach ulsers are caused by a bacterial infection.

The science community is divided however it is the pop media who are pushing one side of the argument for economic gain in both carbon taxes and derivatives traded on the share market.

His explanation is clear and simple but unfortunately incorrect. He fails to list H20 as the major greenhouse gas, in fact he fails to list it as a greenhouse gas at all.

He says: "Too little, less than about 330 parts per million (ppm) and too little solar energy is trapped in the atmosphere. The surface of the planet becomes too cold for homo sapiens and the life forms on which they depend to survive."

Well then how did humans survive in 1700's when the atmospheric CO2 was about 280ppm.??

Not clear and simple but simplistic and facile. This man is seemingly unaware of the complexities involved in what contributes to changes in climate and he has a lot of 'facts' wrong.

I have to take issue with Boethius; This is not a tax on the 4th most common element it is more a tax on the air we breathe. This perfectly compliments the labour party taxes on water. Roll on the election and yes lets have it on AGW taxation

well well finally the UN after being caught making an apology after '"poorly substantiated" and resulted from a lapse in standards'

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/un-says-sorry-for-glacier-error/story-e6frg6xf-1225822334349

don't forget guys that the science is settled and all the smart people agree.

Mike Pope writes that the less rational are convinced that by simply denying the scientific basis for AGW, "that denial is, by itself, proof of their claim".

Judging by the comments made so far, on that point at least, he may be right.

On one side of the fence, compelling science has, quite rightly to be put forward but on the other side, no such need. One simply has to say "No" and that puts an end to the matter.

A meaningful debat, do you think?

For a rational, well considered and balanced argument, why you need look no further than the Chris Monckton contribution at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9906

There is no way that the believers in anthropogenic global warming on the one hand and the climate sceptics on the other will ever affect a compromise. Now if this was just a scientific dispute it would be of little consequence to the non protagonists, if we had to wait say 100 years for a defining experiment.

However the climate debate is not just science it is also political. The politicians not scientists have become the leading players. Science may wait for its evidence, politicians can not. Politicians want to act in the immediate future, pass bills and make laws.

There is a solution to the political problem and that is by an enquiry. The enquiry needs the powers and prestige of a Royal commission. That way witnesses can be tested by cross exanimation while under oath.

Of course, a royal commission will not settle the scientific component. However practically, the evidence presented by both sides can be weighed. A substantial assessment of the evidence will then be available to the politicians. I am aware that the findings of a commission are not binding on Parliament.

The advantage of this approach is that the evidence for and against will be assessed and evaluated in the same document by an impartial umpire.