C, there is a big difference between the climate and a car. Cars were created by humans so we know exactly how they work but the same cannot be said for the climate, far from it. There is more that we don't know we don't know, than what we know we don't know if you know what I mean :) Some people have stopped listening to the 'experts' because we have realised that they have brutally suppressed the other side of the argument, who have legitimate criticism that is ignored. We've seen scare story after scare story and none have come true, many have been shown to be false. It's the 'boy who cried wolf' effect. We have seen what they are trying to get the world to do in response and who will benefit from that response, both in financial terms and in terms of control. Humans are incredibly adaptable, that's how we survived the last ice age. We will adapt to any change of climate as we always have, and we have far better technology this time around. I have not formed my beliefs because of some opinion column in a newspaper, material or electronic. I have read through a mountain of material on the internet found from a variety of sources. That is the only way to get a proper picture of any issue in the present day.

The sad thing is that people have stopped listening to the experts, on the subject of the environment, the vast majority of whom are confident that action needs to be taken now to avoid serious troubles.

Someone who had read a few opinion columns on the subject in a newspaper would never try and tell their mechanic that their prognosis on their car was nonsense. So why does this break down when it comes to science that has major implications?

This article calls for the debate to be kept open however the UN and the scientists that produce its reports are not willing to debate, they never were. The IPCC constantly repeats "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" and it doesn't seem to matter what new information is revealed, they never ever stop repeating those phrases. They aren't interested in debate, like V said they are a political organisation trying to prove AGW, not find the truth. Many of the scientists who resigned from the IPCC have said that the IPCC ignores peer reviewed studies that doesn't agree with their views, and the climategate emails show that the scientists involved in the IPCC were actively trying to keep opposing papers out of scientific journals. Science is never settled, and neither is it done by consensus. I call out anyone who says that it is as not being a true scientist. The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change (a conference for skeptical scientists) that was held recently invited many of the prominent scientists who promote AGW to speak there. Two accepted. I hadn't heard of either of them before and I read a lot about the subject. I say again, they do not want to debate. They want everyone to accept what they say and they will rubbish anyone who has a legitimate opposing argument.

Thankfully people are reviewing these spurious claims of disaster by the IPCC and now the truth of insider perversion of climate records here in NZ and world wide cannot be dismissed. It's pure Baloney That CO2 drives our climate.

Great blog Phoebe, I was thinking about this the other day and thought it would be best to define yourself simply as a "future thinker" because thats what we are :). I wish people like V fully understood the process that goes into producing IPCC reports, ANYONE can review them, all the submissions must be taken into account. Unlike a report by a few 'sun scientists' the IPCC is a collaboration of thousands of leading scientists, climatologists and others, from around the world. The reports are a consensus of facts, because as we know 'facts' can have varying definitions. They are very comprehensive and usually make conservative predictions.

Science is not about consensus, Its about theory's, Facts and reproduced experiments, Its about sharing data so others can reproduce results and theorys. With all the one way traffic coming from the IPCC (a political organisation setup to PROVE AGW) and with closer examination by mathematician and other Climate Scientists of the FUD reports from IPCC and with the release of internal Email and NON-release of FIO requests the real story emerges of total corruption of science and politics. That is obvious to even the man on the street. NOW with reports from Solar Scientists no longer fearing for their jobs after the Rout of the Global warming Alarmists, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/ so much for man made Gaia.

I'm right with you Phoebe. The terms such as hippie, denier, redneck, socialist rarely add to a debate and generally indicate a lack of tolerance in the user. If there is another bugbear that I would add to the debate is the use of pre loaded submission forms. They should be disallowed if the submittor is too lazy to find their own words to express an opinion. Also let's add the use of school kids to protest or send letters to the editor. I'm sure that many individual young people do legitimately add to the debate in papers and on the street but all too often the debate is lessened by what appears to be adult orchestrated protest. The kids appear to be exploited by the adults.