I too am confused by the science of climate change. As a school girl I remember being taught that humans breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants need carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

It is not difficult to see in simple terms if we are emitting more carbon than can be absorbed there will be an adverse effect. According to some statistics, deforestation is the second biggest contributor behind the burning of fossil fuels.

The increasing confusion and fervour on both sides of the debate just makes the layman's job more difficult in wading through and understanding all the information available.

One thing is for certain there are many contradictions and I think we should not dismiss the sceptics view outright.

Why for example is our Government so determined to get a flawed ETS through the Senate? This on one hand would convince us the Government has bought the AGW side of the debate. However, sustainable population is a dirty world for our governments. One would think that if one was serious about climate change, one way to reduce emissions is to think seriously about population pressures on demand for fossil fuels and destruction of forests as cities grow and demand for wood and paper products increases.

If the scientists cannot agree plus throw into the pot a wide range of vested interests where does this leave integrity and accuracy of the GW debate?

From the Weekend Australian;

"The emails were illegally hacked from a computer systam at the University of East Anglia and then stored on a Russian web server. On November 19th a computer in Saudi Arabia was used to post a link to the stolen emails on a website popular with climate change skeptics and deniers."

Saudi Arabia, eh...phew...for a while there I thought all this might have been orchestrated at the behest of big oil interests...seems I was mistaken.

Csteele;
Several sources have said it was a whistleblower and one
place I read that actually named him.
If correct it was an inside job.

None of us on here really know what is true, we are only taking
someones word for it either way. We can adopt our favourite scientist
and push his/her barrow depending on what we believe is more likely.

My personal beliefs are as follows;
I believe that our local politicians believe what they say.
Global warming on a long time scale may well be happening.
I am nowhere near convinced that it is due to human activity.
I think the ETS scheme is utterly stupid whether AGW true or not.
Simple tax scheme will keep the finance industry out of it.
In the shortish run it won't matter anyway as we will be more
interested in getting something to put in the tanks of our cars.
That is why it will be dangerous to sign up to the Copenhagen treaty.
Once signed and ratified, you can't get out except with UN permission.

Bazz,

I've read your posted site and it does seem to make a serious point, however, I still remain unconvinced because;
- given it's narrow, simplistic focus away from the science.It focuses on two elements and a small cadre of scientists.

- it's implicit reliance on a conspiracy that lacks a credible motive.

- none of the people involved are appropriately qualified or display a deep understanding of the science they are critiquing.

- Lack of credible alternative explanation for the combination of events not seen in the last 100k years.

- lack of scientific knowledge. As one article states "this (AGW)is not about the laws of thermodynamics, (science) known by few and understood by fewer..." . IMHO it is about understanding the objective science.

To believe that AGW is a fraud based on this site's articles is a leap of faith my skepticism won't permit.

In the lead article particularly the author starts with the conclusion and write to prove it including self referencing ( it is so because I said so in a previous article). The facts quoted in that (self referenced) preceding argument don't support its conclusion either. Arguably a case of GIGO x 2. thought provoking entertaining reading, but authoritative?

In essence it is opinion not fact, equivalent to essays in the Article section of OLO.

I, for one, am sick of being called a sceptic or a denialist. I have probably read more links, more books and listened to more arguments on both sides than many of the poor silly buggers who believe this nonsense. I do not agree with an ETS I have no idea why European politicians and the UN want an ETS right or wrong. I don't understand why our government is going to force people into a lesser standard of living because some scientists have been given the licence and money to prove global warming is going to kill the planet. Excuse me, they are not going scew the facts and figures if their livlihoods depend on it and it is not going according to plan?

I have looked at the links here and on other sites and think the IPCC had better get some other scientists and modelling happening because the stuff they have is not convincing nor is it covering a wide enough data base, it simply can't, there are not enough years of factual readings. While on that point why would they be taking climate readings at Cobar Airport for the last few years; one of the hottest, driest places in this country and using those reading as one of the barometers? I have the feeling politicians think we are all stupid and cannot read or listen to scientific data from both sides and understand it. Perhaps they can't?

Well, the net is here and happening, and polticians are going to have to get used to the idea that people will research the 'so called' facts for themselves. They will not just put up with motherhood statements on what should happen or will happen any longer. Mr. Rudd get a grip we are all here in the 21st century too and just lying another tax on people for some obscure, unproven reason will not work.