Well yeah, definitely, climate change IS a solid science. There can be absolutely no doubt that the climate is changing. Changing quite drastically actually. What IS most definitely in dispute is ANTHOPOGENIC climate change/global warming, i.e. "man-made" climate change.

I brought up the fact that Europe used to be covered in trees and Julius Caesar found evidence that grapes used to be grown in the south of England, and that there is evidence of global warming on Mars (and other planets as well) to illustrate the point that these changes are cyclic and have nothing to do with man. I think it is terribly arrogant of man to assume that he can control the climate.

Skiff said ".... but what is the net harm of reducing pollution and deforestation?" The answer is that there is absolutely no harm at all. But you must realise that "reducing pollution and deforestation" has absolutely nothing at all to do with the IPCC or the "Cophenhagen" agenda. The environmental movement, which is laudible and always has been a good thing, has been hijacked by this bunch of lunatics and scammers who see it as a way of robbing the poor to pay the rich.

Skiff, you also mention the fraudulent data and "fudging" of evidence by IPCC "scientists" and seem to think it is "harmless", well I'll go further than this and say I think there should be accountability culminating in jail time for these "scientists". Something like "conspiring to defraud the public of large amounts of money", maybe?

I am pretty confident that there will be no agreement in Copenhagen. Mainly because you will never get agreement with the three main "polluters", China, India and America. They all believe that they should be on an "equal footing" with each other, but that is not on the European's agenda.

There has been a lot of publicity this week about the hypocricy of the attendees of the Copenhagen meeting. Have a look at this article, it is a real eye opener.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - Telegraph

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

However, Skiff, I really am wondering if you are living in the same world as, at least I, am, when you say :"...But New Zealanders, and most westerners, now live in the lap of luxury! I think we can skip the occasionally latte', PS3, or new cellphone in exchange for helping the planet".

I can quite honestly say that I don't "live in the lap of luxury", I work for $13.95 an hour, never even consider buying lattes or PS3s and have never had a cellphone. I think I am more of an average NZer than you think. And if this ludicrous ETS scheme goes through (which fortunately I rather doubt) I will be paying "through the nose" as will all the people I know with young families who struggle on the minimum wage, it will take the food out of their children's mouths, just so that "leading politicians" can bask in luxury and cause all the pollution that they want, with impunity.

These incredibly greedy people will quite happily cause pensioners to die of cold during the winter because they will not be able to afford the extortionate price that - under this scheme - electricity will go up to, and cause children to go without enough food because their parents have to pay for the increased cost of petrol, electricity - well just about anything really, so that they can have caviar wedges and operate their private planes and maintain their luxurious lifestyles. And you seem to think that that is "human nature" (paragraph 6 of your post). God, I hope it is not really "human nature".

So now, Skiff, I'll get to your questions:

"Since when is trying to limit smoking a 'silly law'?" I am not saying this out of a personal sense of grievance as I am a NON SMOKER. However, I think any law to force someone else to do/not to do something that has nothing to do with you, is very silly. Evil might be a better word.

"What is so terrible about preserving (overall) ecological diversity?" Nothing at all, of course, is wrong with that. I am just saying that it has nothing at all to do with the "anthropogenic global warming scam".

"So, you think Europe being stripped of it's (former) forest's is beneficial?" No, of course I don't think that. I meant that if it was still covered in forest, like it was, then there would be no roads, fewer buildings and less farmland. Forest is great, but we've got to be practical.

As an end note. I'm sorry if I have come across as insulting to you, I just think we always need to debate things, I don't intend to be mean. The difference is, where you said " ....frankly, I lost faith in society's ability to do virtually anything right without government intervention a while ago now. I see "government intervention" as the problem. No matter how bad things in NZ get, government will always manage to make them worse. There are only two reasons government employees ever do anything that they do. The two reasons are money and power. Money and power for themselves. Politicians don't care about people, they only care about justifying their own existance and staying in parliament after the next election so that they can continue to get an "over the top" "salary" and have "parliamentary services" pay for everything for them. And government employees don't care about people either, they only care about justifying their own existance (as well) and spending other peoples' money (taxpayers money) on their personal agendas, and getting paid their overinflated "salaries".

When you've been told so may lies over a lifetime (from governments) cynicism comes naturally, in fact it would seem odd not to be cynical.