The Sceptics

Carbon dioxide tax

Isn't it time for an Insight program on the hot topic of a "carbon dioxide tax".

Religious clothing

In a Secular country we ought to ban all religious clothing, except for the ‘clergy’. Be it Jewish cap, Muslim headdress and other clothing, etc. Headdress in particular in all human societies is designed specifically to draw attention, and often to make a status or role statement. For Muslims to pretend that they are in some way exempt from that cultural norm across every race and society is irrational, and unacceptable. When this breaches basic discrimination laws and norms it makes it even worse. Social animals all use facial expression as a major means of communication, more truthful than oral communication.

Equity for Climate Scientists

Should Professors of Mathematics or Physics be forced to debate the general public on whether their latest work was correct? Would a similar band of amateur "skeptics" rush to claim the maths/physics was false, and start crackpot websites to disprove their theories? No!!! And if they did we'd doubt they were right. But this is the nonsense that climate scientists have to put up with every day. Please give the professional climatologists a bit of credit; most believe CO2 warming is real.

Fantastic Ignorance

Lets be quite clear on this, qualified climate scientists that do not agree with anthropogenic induced climate change are skeptics and account for about 1% of climate scientists. The rest that of us just simply don't know; and indeed apart from tossing a few facts on par with a grade 9 science students knowledge never ever add anything meaningful to the "debate". Why don't you deniers spare some your incredible expertise over to criticizing the latest findings in oncology or nuclear physics?

not so funny

Back in the early sixties when i was just a kid i remember my dad saying " bloody politicians they'd tax the air you breath if they thuoght they could get away with it" and i use to laugh ,well guess what.

Probability

I think one of the most important points that was addressed is that science deals to a large degree with probabilities rather than absolutes, something a lot of laymen overlook, believing science is always about absolutes. With the consensus of the *experts* being over 90% for AGW, denying AGW is like siding with the one doctor telling you that you don't have cancer when the other nine doctors are telling you that you do. You can take that chance if you want too.

The audience

Some have suggested a hint of arrogance on the part of the audience but I feel they controlled themselves extremely well under the circumstances. Schneider was a political activist as well as a scientist and his political training was evident with some of the responses he gave. He clearly wandered off the from the main point of a question into the details of other remotely related areas. To a TV audience who accepts authority without question, a very patient audience might then appear arrogant.

Pollution

Reducing pollution on a global scale is needed whether it has caused global warming or not. Aust acting alone will have little effect & extra taxes will make me hate politicians even more. China, India etc need to join in. I would like to be assisted to have FREE installation of alternative energy on my roof that I can pay off over 20 yrs. Give me a carrot don't beat me with a stick.

sceptics

The earth is 4.54 billion years old. Arsenic is a trace element in the human body, but too much will make you very unwell. Take enough and you will be very quiet for a long time.

Climate Change

Two points which I have not seen mentioned. First: Funding for Climate Research is provided by politicians who are out to win votes. How much funding is going to research by scientists who don't toe the party line? Second: If human CO2 is the problem, then surely that indicates that the ultimate cause is an excess of humans on the planet? I don't hear the scaremongers advocating a reduction in the planet's population, do uyou?