the current clowns get their way in Canberra. Of couse it all swings on what is, at this time, an hypothesis, a belief system. The hypothesis is dangerous because it will wreak havoc on economies, if governments proceed down the path of "cap and trade". It amazes me that the AGWers aren't attacking water vapour. It is far more plentiful in the atmosphere and a far more potent greenhouse gas. I would have thought that if you have a belief in rising temperatures and GHGs, that you would also look at water vapour. Surely some of this must be man made. Eg, steam from cooling towers at power stations This whole issue of AGW smacks of politics. That alone is sufficient to question the credibility of the arguments! tempterrain Robin, I noticed that you had taken me to task for attributing the words "dangerous hypothesis" to you. OK Sorry about that. I should have had it letter perfect, I should have written "dangerous AGW hypothesis". You might find CNTRL + F , useful if you want to check on exactly what was written. It does strike me as odd that the sort of argument being promulgated about "con tricks" , hoaxes, scams, and conspiracies does tend to come almost excusively from the conservative right. Why do you think that should be? Incidentally, does anyone know of any exceptions to this rule? Its natural that political opinions should vary, but I would have expected that the science of global warming should