The same arguments are being trotted out on both sides and the same ad hominem aspersions being cast, both directly and indirectly as in the case of the "herd" of climate scientists being denigrated in absentia. And now the Australian Govt.
For balance you could mention the slurs made against the hydrologist and all those fighting the AGW promoters hijack of science and logic by labelling them as being like holocaust deniers. But I've done it for you, so no need.
It is possible that some of them might even be better qualified.
Some of them are undoubtedly better qualified in their small corner of speciality, but I think my training in assessing scientific theories provides me with a wider perspective.
Nor do I suscribe to conspiracy theories, either economic or political in nature.
That's just another slur to add to the list Tom.
all of the discussion, seems to center around the potential consequences to the Western economy that will ensue from ignoring the impact of warming or seeking to mitigate it, depending on one's views.
Well, as you said, it's not easy to assess the validity of the scientific lines of evidence, so we tend to end up discussing the consequences of accepting or rejecting them. The cheapest and most sensible solution is to be ready to adapt to climate change given that no-one knows whether global temperature will rise or fall in the coming years, nor whether reducing human generated co2 will either reduce the airbourne co2 fraction or reduce temperatures.
There has been no mention of the human cost for some of the world's poorest, most vulnerable populations should the global warming hypothesis turn out to be true.
Measures are already in place to prevent these countries developing, ensuring their inhabitants die prematurely of cookfire smoke inhalation while Sven Teske is happy to include the ~10% of the worlds energy use those cookfires represent as part of the "renewable energy mix" in his aim to have renewables providing 80% of need by 2050.
We in the West emit the CO2
China is the biggest emitter, India will overtake the US soon. Neither of these countries believe the AGW hypothesis and they will not sign emission reduction treaties. That is the realpolitik of the situation. History shows that wealthier, better developed countries become cleaner countries, eventually.
I agree with Rog that we understand very little about historical climate change and the evidence that CO2 has affected anything is thin.
I could point to Australia's economic performance vis a vis the UK over the last 15 years, but I suspect it's not worth the effort
Please do. Australia has done well because it is not a clapped out 2000 year old economy which shut down its mines to please the whim of a despotic prime minister.
I hope I won't be pointing to Australia in 15 years time and lamenting how a young vibrant nation threw away its opportunity to be a shining light and beacon of hope in the English speaking world.
I don't think we've come full circle - I don't think we've moved at all.
You're wrong about that. The BPL massive is better informed about the issue than it was, and the ratio of climate realists vs climate doomsters has improved markedly. This isn't just down to me, but has been ably assisted by the repeated foot shootings the AGW movement has inflicted on itself with climategate, glaciergate, windmillgate and other such mirth-filled escapades. The wheels have been coming off the wagon, thanks to the continuous insistence on the correct application of the scientific method and the scrupulous following of procedures for assessment demanded by diligent and attentive people beyond this website as well.
So, on a day on which a group of 200 Australian climate scientists met with Parliament over their concerns about the death threats they've been getting I have posted my last on this thread.
Sceptics get their fair share of death threats too. It's amazing what people will write in email and on the net they'd never have the cojones to say to someone's face or try to do to them with a knife.
The carbon flame war rumbles on.
On a lighter note though, another funny climate cartoon from my mate Josh:
As Mike Reid pointed out, there are other costs to playing the AGW game apart from financial ones. Lets not find ourselves in a position where we ruined the planet in order to save it eh?