I can see the manner in which CO2 increases temperature but I have been
suspicious of the way so much weight is given to computer models.

My suspicions were confirmed when the Upsalla Unis Global Energy
Systems Group published its paper on the amount of fossil fuels
available and stated that the real quantities are less that what the
IPCC puts into its computer model.

The Upsalla group suggests that the temperature rise will be much lower.
From memory they suggest less than 1 deg C by 2100.
Not sure if that was using the IPCC's computer model.

There is another factor I have not seen taken into account.
Will we be able to afford to be able to burn so much fossil fuels ?
I suspect not as much will be too poor in ERoEI and will cost too
much to extract. We are already seeing this with shale oil and tar sands.

Whether you agree with AGW or not or if you think an ETS is the right way to go or not, once the next election is long past we will still be living in a changing world.

If we are penalised economically by our trading partners for refusing to comply with international standards via tariffs and have to implement even more savage cuts just to catch up with this missed opportunity I wonder how many will recall these arguments?

I don't really believe my house will burn down but I still pay my Fire Insurance policy because it's a less drastic option.

I also feel uncomfortable taking advice on the phoney health effects of smoking from paid representatives of Philip Morris because that's the equivalent of what's really been behind this debate all along.

Poirot

'Interestingly, the Catholic Church tries to take the science into account:'

Since when have you started to treat the Catholic church seriously? After growing jup in it I don't.

I'm interested in all sorts of human paradigms, runner. I once drew a portrait of John Paul II for some Catholic friends which is now hanging in the cathedral precinct. I'm not a Catholic, but that picture made a few people happy, so it's all good. Perhaps my tastes are catholic in the truest sense, in that I have a broad interest in humanity.

What I don't enjoy is judgmental and derogatory commentary cloaked in religious self-righteousness.

LNP , this mornings news, is targeting education teaching our kids *wrong things* climate change?
Few of us find reason to question science on other issues.
Even less look down their nose at cures for illness science bought us.
Every day evidence of weather taking the very path we first received warnings about.
Some even tell us their is no climate change.
Some say there is but man plays no roll in it.
Some say so what? it will be good for more than it harms.
In this single debate, if you truly look,is evidence we one day.
Will be ruled by a world dictator ship, not what we want, but our inability to even manage our world with so many talking heads.
A possible victor in a war, or a combined dictator ship will remove our ability to have choices.

Belly,

"Few of us find reason to question science on other issues."

What a pertinent observation so succinctly put. There you have the absurdity of the skeptic's stance potted in one sentence.

I've often questioned skeptics as to why they aren't also raging against all the other science and technology abounding in modern life. Why is it that they consider only those scientists working and finding consensus in the area of climate to be dodgy and part of a conspiracy to take control?