Like Romany, I am still perched on the fence on the issue of AGW. Most of us accept that human activity has created problems in our environments world-wide, but how are we ordinary laypeople to know just what impact we have had on GW. Statistics are bandied about by both sides of the debate and the consensus is that Australia's man-made contribution to greenhouse gases is just over 1%. This is a separate issue to global warming as a natural cycle.

I am highly sceptical of the ETS or Carbon Reduction Scheme because it fails on many levels mostly in it's goal to reduce emissions by failing to rein in the emitters.

Secondly if AGW is minimal then the whole idea of an ETS becomes a revenue raising or profit raising exercise in which the poor will be the greatest losers. It seems madness to implement an ETS and then sell coal to China. It is like watching an episode of the three stooges when everyone is running about hitting themselves and each other over the head. It looks busy and productive but nothing is actually happening.

There have always been very good reasons to seek renewable energy sources, pollution or chemical free options and sustainable lifestyles prior to the huge debate surrounding AGW/GW.

As far as changing minds well it would have to take strong new evidence based on solid science. Sometimes the evidence does not come out strongly one way or the other until it is too late.

There is nothing wrong with reducing emissions even if the impetus is global warming. With ever-growing populations and exploitation of natural resources, sustainability was always going to be a growing issue.

For interest, just recently I read an article that showed in the US fish were contaminated with prescriptions medicines like Prozac and concerns were raised about Canberra's own water supply.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/chemical-sewage-causes-fish-to-flounder/1479073.aspx

Logging of old growth forests is continuing throughout the world, pollution and pesticide residues are having greater effects. These are the issues we should also be addressing as part of the whole environmental debate.

What would it take to change my mind?

1. Reliable, authoritative evidence.

2. Rational, logical argument.

3. Passionate but reasonable presentation of evidence and argument.

4. Reliable, authoritative evidence.

In that order, on any topic.

Well said CJ. I echo your well thought requirements.

As for AGW, I'm pretty much of a mind with Romany and Pelican that:

1. We have polluted much of our environment.
2. We are still systematically destroying old growth forest.
3. We continue to exploit/waste and remain dependent upon fossil fuels.
4. A tax called "carbon" is just a money raising scheme that doesn't do a single thing to address the above 3 points.
5. The majority of AGW 'sceptics' rarely address any of the above issues (except for the carbon tax).

While I am not so much as sitting on the fence of AGW as I am leaning towards the belief that whatever we do has consequences, I am waiting to hear that we (world wide government and business) are actually going to work towards a clean sustainable economy and environment irrespective of GW.

BTW I do not believe for a nanosecond that the "market will solve itself" as the market has caused much of the above problems due to demand and supply, and that humans do not always act responsibly - in other words we do need government restraints on the so-called 'free' market.

Now that the dust has settled on the G20 mass-debate, I probably shouldn't hold my breath.

CJ MORGAN, FRACTELLE

Almost everyone, even our old friend BOAZ, believes they hold their opinions for rational reasons.

My experience is that the amount of EMOTION people have invested in a point of view has at least as much to do with their resistance to changing their minds as any rational argument.

Few people of course will put it that way. They will invent apparently rational reasons for rejecting evidence that contradicts their favoured point of view while finding reasons to believe any evidence that appears to support their position. Consider the way Holocaust deniers find reasons to disbelieve eye-witness accounts. I once knew a fellow who was both a Holocaust denier and a passionate believer in UFOs. His mental gymnastics were quite startling.

Before you feel too superior CJ MORGAN, I can think of quite a few issues that would press your emotional buttons and where you would refuse to change your mind no matter what evidence was presented. I'm sure you could think of ways of returning the favour.

In the end we are all fallible human beings. None of us is entirely rational.

<< I can think of quite a few issues that would press your emotional buttons and where you would refuse to change your mind no matter what evidence was presented. >>

Name one, STEVENLMEYER.