I was never one for conspiracy theories but after the near signing of the protocol in Copenhagen that would have replaced Kyoto and would have bound us to the UN run overlords, virtually making our constitution dull and void, then I am starting to wonder. Rudd was going to sign it and he hadn't even read it!

Of course you can't criticise the scientists feeding the right information to the politicians Rudd, Wong and company. If you do you are referred to as a denialist, a sceptic or of unsound mind. Gee they certainly get down and dirty when people disagree. No you dare not criticise science now. Even respected scientists are not allowed to criticise or question the science behind the global warming theory.

Before any further signatures are put to any new protocols by any Prime Minister in the name of the Australian people at these so called "conferences" in the future we, the people, have to have full explanation of the ramifications and a referendum prior to signing. Nothing less is acceptable. Otherwise, I might just think they are trying to keep us all in the dark.

It is a tough ask RaeBee.

Regardless of what side of the debate one sits, what would it take to convert either side to the other ie. for any scientist to provide irrefutable evidence that AGW is real or not real. I know I am still undecided on the extent of man's impact on GW although man has certainly been responsible for many other environmental disasters. Although, that fact in itself is not evidence.

There are scientists on both sides of this debate that is the difficulty for the layperson to get their head around when there are so many facts, figures and modelling that all seem to contradict. Modelling is not perfect science, is full of estimates and the data is not conclusive.

The other aspect is the vested interests on both sides. It is a complex issue and one that probably should be scrutinsed before we make any irreversible decisions that will have no impact unless all the major polluters agree to cut emissions.

In the meantime it would not hurt to reduce emissions for good reasons such as pollution and more importantly, given that deforestation is ongoing at rampant rates, we need less not more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So true, CJ. I'm sick of these mega-rich researchers using their wealth and power to discredit and attack struggling industries.

We need a taskforce of sensible, down-to-earth professionals to combat these "scientists" and their "data". The accountants can do a cost-benefit analysis to tell us how many BMWs the Exxon board must go without just to preserve some island nations full of brown people who probably aren't even Christian, the cotton farmers can do a double-blind-drunk trial of the effect of farming chemicals on waterways, and the property developers can compile an endangered species list with only one entry: Australians living more than 50 metres from a Westfield shopping mall.

We discussed above, Col, why we can't use natural warming as an argument. The evidence is already sketchy, and we'll just have to do another embarrassing backflip in a couple of years when we can't sustain it any more. Otherwise, good work. Now we just need a believable explanation for why mosquito control deficits would encourage mozzies to move up mountainsides into areas which couldn't previously sustain their life-cycle due to low temperatures.

The socialist conspiracy is a good start. Do we say the mozzies are communist, or is it the villagers who are getting infected for the greater good of socialism?

I've put together a brief plan for how we can combat this alarmism. It's borrowed and edited from the fossil fuel industry's leaked strategy (http://www.aip.org/history/powerpoints/GlobalWarming_Oreskes.ppt), but I think if we try to reinforce these points it will help in this case, too:

- Argue over significance of facts (we can adapt to malaria)
- “No proof” strategy: science is uncertain
- Argue against credibility of epidemiologists
- Maintain that any concern over malaria is hysterical
- Press the case that medical researchers are communists and anti-Christian
- Argue whether facts are facts
- Supply alternative "facts"

Think it will work?

Sorry Sancho but mozzies live in very cool climates and Europeans even Russians can die of mosquito spread disease. Mozzies like any brackish, still water. Different type of mozzie, same sort of disease. But I still agree with your posts. Of course we should all try harder to pollute the world less and I think we do very in this country compared to others.

However, I would like more detailed evidence about everything so called scientists come up with if they want (a) people to pay them and (b) us to pay taxation because of their findings. That is not a hard ask is it?

I am an average person with an average intelligence but I don't believe half of what I am told is true and correct scientific findings.

I will continue to study what these people espouse and if, that is a very big IF, they ever give clear and concise reasoning for their findings, not just human modelling fed computer statistics, then I may, just may, agree that we are causing global warming.

Bit like religion really I will not believe until someone can tell me it is fact. I can't see that happening and I will not be a sheep.

CJ says: “You're absolutely correct, Sancho. I've worked with many scientists…hell, I used to be one myself, so that's how I know their tricks”

Yes indeed CJ, I’ve heard on good authority you were a scientist in the Margaret Mead mould.

RaeBee - malaria is carried by the Anopheles mosquito, which has very specific habitats. These habitats are increasing due to global warming, allowing the Anopheles mosquito to increase its range to higher altitudes and therefore causing a concomitant increase in malaria. A similar thing is happening in the PNG highlands, just to Australia's north.

These findings are uncontroversial among entomologists and epidemiologists.

Horus - you don't know much about science, do you?

I note that the obviously fraudulent scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology have just announced that the last decade was Australia's hottest on record. This should be disregarded because they have clearly jumped aboard the AGW gravy train.