It should not be used as a platform for anti-global-warming conspiracy theory nutters.
And who would the conspiracy theory nutters be peterc005? I don't think there's been a conspiracy. I think there's been a lot of snouts in the trough and millions of unknowing people with good intentions encouraged and led by vote-grabbing politicians (and money/fame hungry ex-US politicians) and complicit, irresponsible and lazy sections of media; both of whom should know better, and money-grubbing non-profits, in willingly handing over their money and the money of others for some imaginary, ridiculous and unattainable ideal. And what greater ideal can there be, To Save the Earth!
...but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.
A consensus! I guess the Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever doesn't have any credibility either when he asks members of the audience to judge for themselves whether climate change is a "pseudoscience" at the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates, 2012.
Lindau Mediatheque
In the video linked above, he outlines how science comes in many forms: real science, pathological science, fraudulent science, junk science, and last on the list, pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is where you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you. And then you only look for things that confirm the hypothesis. You don't look for other things.
Global warming has become a new religion, because you can't discuss it...and that's not right.
Do the quotes have familiar overtones?
BTW, I don't expect you'll watch the video, but others might.
•The cost of fuel will rise by about 4.5 cents a litre, which is about 3%.
In 150 years, the earth's temperature has supposedly gone from an average of 288K to 288.8K. A rise of 0.3%.
NET EFFECT: somewhere between nil and a tiny bit.