Jeff, I'm much like you about climate change. A sceptic but wonder why the poles are melting. A cycle maybe. I do know that I can stand on the same rock at the surf spot near Newcastle baths that I did 50 years ago and the water doesn't seen any higher. I've seen Stockton Beach and Kirra Beach with no sand many times but it always returns.

The overwhelming scientific research tells us that there is climate change. Taking it down several levels, we've only been using petrol and oil based fuels and products over the last 100+ years with a huge growth in world population, so wouldn't that have an impact on the world? We all have to make sacrifices for the future generations - like the last generation did in fighting World Wars - so we should support an ETS. It's frightening to see leaders denying this issue - even if their happy enough to believe in religion.

I'm with Jeff. Stevo106 ~ I'm a very clinical and (healthily) skeptical person. I just can't take an absolute position that human activity causes climate change. Ever heard of sun spots? I do absolutely believe that humans are causing diabolical pollution ~ but that's a different thing to climate change. I'm on the fence.

The arguments that 'scientists are arguing about whether climate change is real' is like me saying that 'experts are still debating whether or not we landed on the moon in 1969' or that 'experts are arguing about whether cancer can be cured by special magnets in jewellery'..... You see, with the internet and communications these days, you can find tens of thousands of people that believe all sorts of stuff, many claiming to be 'experts' or 'specialists'. Its the same with climate change - the VAST OVERWHELMING peer reviewed scientific reporting tells us that man induced climate change exists - just because you can say that there are tens of thousands of people who disagree doesn't mean diddley squat! My dad says climate change doesn't exist cause he can't feel it!! Very scientific!! Now, if you will excuse me, I am going back to the internet to read about the debate regarding these dinosaurs .... apparently, christian scientists have just published a paper proving that dinosaurs never existed and the world is only 5,000 years old......

Don't feel alone - you neatly echoed my own confusions in your column this morning! It will only get worse, as government, opposition and industry spin doctors convince us that the skywill/will not fall in if we do/don't take some action. You have overlooked JOBS - threats to, as an argument used by sceptics. I have become fascinated how every economic activity is now supported in terms of how many jobs it will create - or save. Want a new shopping centre - great - 200 jobs during construction, 85 in operation- No one seems to count the large number of smaller businesses who close. And thousands of miners will be on the scrapheap. Nowithstanding, I try to avoid cynicism and depression. Personally, at 73 I will be relatively unaffected - nor will my sons - but my grandchildren and great-grandchildren may be living in a world far different to the one you and I inhabit. Keep up your efforts to keep the bastards honest!!!

An interesting topic for today’s blog –I suspect you’ll be overwhelmed with responses. I became interested in this issue as a child in the 70’s, with dire predictions of an imminent ice age. Later as a professional in an environmental field (not a climate scientist I hasten to add) I had more than a passing interest in the emerging theory that increasing greenhouse gases as a result of human activity could theoretically result in a warming of the globe. Superficially at least it seemed plausible, but certainly by no means proven. Of course I was also aware of climatic change over the course of millions of years, and in recorded history.

I believe in “climate change”. It is impossible to ignore the very real historical evidence that there have been substantial changes in climate in the past, and folly to believe there will not be in the future. The big question which is relevant to the ETS is if human activity has any influence on climate change. The answer to this, despite what many on either side of the argument will say, is equivocal at best. There are many excellent reasons to pursue the development of renewable energy – fossil fuel reserves are finite, their extraction and use causes a myriad of environmental problems and the main sources of oil in particular are from politically unstable counties who in the past have not been afraid to hold us to ransom, and no doubt will again in the future. However, I am not so sure that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is one of those good reasons.

Like it or not, the science supporting this hypothesis is shaky. The computer modelling is based on limited, incomplete and unreliable data sets. It has failed when applied retrospectively i.e. it is unable to replicate climate in the recent past for when records were available. The short term predictions have also proven erroneous. We have had cooling rather than predicted warming. Even in today’s NH there is debate as to if rainfall will increase or decrease in the Hunter - the modelling is inadequate. Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” should be compulsory reading for anyone seeking an understanding of this issue. I am on my second reading (and trying to read some of the more readily available references). While there are certainly some contentious matters in his book, they are no more contentious than the data used to support the hypothesis from the ACC camp.

The leaked CRU e mails are also revealing about the mindset, if not the science of some of the major players. I urge anyone interested in this issue to search this on google – it is quite startling the lengths so of the pro-anthropogenic climate lobby appear to be prepared to go to protect their patch, including corruption of the peer review process. Your DS has a copy of the whole lot (~60mb zip file) BTW.

Many will say “so what” – even if the data is wrong, it is still a good thing that we are becoming more aware of our environment. Maybe, but if we put all our resources in to mitigation of carbon use, we may well be putting our eggs in to the wrong basket. If CO2 is not forcing climate change, we may well need to explore adaptive technologies, which ironically may require additional energy use. For this reason alone the science needs to be pursued rigorously.

I am not 100% convinced that humans are wholly to blame for the climate change..the world has gone through changes before...ice ages etc;.although it wouldn't hurt to put a few emission controls into place....but hey! what would I know?

Well presented position DS. I am one who in the absence of conclusive evidence either way is prepared to accept that reduction in emissions is inherently "good" and as such should be pursued. Is an ETS the way to go? Not so sure on that one, especially if there are significant exemptions for the major players. What will that achieve other than awareness (which i accept is also good). This is one area where the market will determine the value of renewables, but should the true cost of carbon based fuels be factored in now so that we pay a true amount at the bowser, or through our electricity bills? I also wonder what the Federal Govt plans to do with the funds raised by the CPRS. Will they collect and simply redistribute to the greatest polluters as some pundits are claiming? That's a key point for me - where is the money to be directed, if any is collected. As an aside, I saw a comedian recently state that he doesn't worry about his carbon footprint, because he drives everywhere.

At the end of October this year, I listened as Alan Jones (2GB) interviewed Dr Richard Lindzen - Massachusetts Institute of Technology – atmospheric physicist – regarding what he calls a global warming scam. I do not know or understand all the arguments, but I choose to believe this chap over Mr Rudds so called expert who is nothing more than an economist. Already I see the Power companies have included so called Global Warming as an excuse to have massive increases in power bills. This is just the beginning. Nobody in the pro camp has yet mentioned the increase in petrol and all associate offshoots. If this warming is so evident, why has not the Government made clear what they are hoping to sign in Copenhagen. After all, the big 3, USA, China and India have all said they wont sign anything.

Jeff, your blog this morning has really got me thinking - and the contributions thus far have been excellent! Particulary that of Direct Sport who makes some excellent points. My initial training was also in Environmental Science, and although I'm no climate expert I have worked on some signifincant energy efficient projects and climate change policies in the past decade. I am a natural sceptic, and question EVERYTHING. I understand that there are some holes in data and modelling, but there are holes and gaps in every aspect of science. Its like creationists saying 'evolution is only a theory'!! But what if we take climate change and ETS taxation out of the equation??!! Does anyone think its desirable to dig up coal, drill for oil and burn stuff at the rate we are doing so anyway?? Would you want a coal mine, oil rig or gas pipeline in your backyard? Why not? Whenever there are better options don't we owe it to ourselves and our great grandkids to do the best for the place in either case? - I'm sure everyone agrees burning fossil fuels the way we do isn't the best solution (although perhaps the cheapest). Even if climate change doesn't exist, are we doing the right thing?