Its well documented that the carbon tax probably wont have any real
positive effect on CO2 a bit like putting solar cells on houses.
Good FLUFFY politics with low out comes.

The EU has not seen any positive benefits from CO2 tax and are reveiwing policy.

Can we trust government to ADMINISTER the policy effectively and are
the government institutions capable of doing the job.
As weve seen in past they seem to be lacking in some skills.

Were never going to be able to get ridd of CO2 we like to burn stuff
to much and its the whole bases of western civilization.

But we can implemeant smart policy like smart electrical networks
that can reduce co2 by 10%.

Do we trust other counties who will take our co2 dollars and use them
to make the world a better place.

Carrot and stick is not the way to move forward.
Target the 5 biggest polluters and assist them.

Lets not demonise them...lets nurture them.

A few comments on Des Moores article which seems to create a Climate of Discontent through misinformation.

• Tony Abbott, like Des Moore, seeks to leave the impression that the Carbon Tax is a direct tax on every individual tax payer (A Great Big New Tax) when both know it is a direct tax to be levied only on the top 1,000 companies responsible for the largest greenhouse gas emissions.

• Des Moore writes “Abbott might even dare to describe global warming science as a scam” In fact Abbott has already done so, declaring it to be “crap” despite the clearest evidence of its reality and, increasingly, its effects.

• Moore complains that Gillard has given no explanation as to why Australia should take a leading roll by acting on its own to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – yet another fallacy which ignores the fact that many developed countries, notably in Europe but including Japan and many of the United States have acted to price carbon in order to reduce emissions, making far larger reductions than the 5% proposed by Australia.

• He complains that government has given no substantive reason for introducing a price on carbon when in fact is has repeatedly justified its decision by stating that (unlike Des Moore) it accepts the science of climate change, it recognizes the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions, it accepts advice that the most effective way of doing so is by pricing carbon emissions and that the most efficient way of doing this is by putting an ETS in place. It has opted for a carbon tax as an interim measure until it has completed the design and gained popular understanding of an ETS.

• Des Moore writes that “a carbon tax of any size in Australia would expose businesses to serious international competition” and that the government fails to recognize this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gillard has repeatedly made it clear that revenue raised by the tax will be used to compensate households, trade exposed industry and to stimulate development and use of clean technology.

• His concluding advice: Price carbon so low that it has no effect on business or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Makes as much sense as the rest of his article.

Des Moore is Director of the Institute of Private Enterprise which he established in 1996 to promote the cause of private enterprise and argue for a reduction in the role of government. Understandably, he is more concerned with protecting vested interests and their short-term profits.

However, the longer term effects of global warming will certainly damage and probably destroy those interests if we and other countries adopt the “Business As Usual” approach he advocates. Such myopia!

Agnostic, what is this “science of climate change” which you mention.

The only available science is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate.

The IPCC accepts this by default, when it says that it is “very likely”. At the time that it made this unsubstantiated claim, it foreshadowed that proof would be demonstrated when the “hotspot” in the troposphere was shown to exist, which would be “ the signature” for AGW.

It is clear now that there is no such hotspot, so the IPCC, instead of retracting their failed claim have elected to keep looking for the “hotspot”. They also hope to find a unicorn.

Natural CO2 comprises 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Human emissions are said to be 3%. There is a natural variation of 10% in the CO2 cycle, so the 3% is not noticeable in the natural cycle and cannot be shown to have any effect.

The settled science is that warming occurs in natural cycles, and human input has not been shown to have any effect. It is highly unlikely that it will be shown to have any effect.

Probably why 32,000 scientists have signed a petition to Congress that no action be taken on AGW until a scientific basis is produced.

All the alarmist support seems to come from a small group of scientists associated with the IPCC. You have no doubt heard of them. They are the authors of the disgraceful Climategate emails, which disclose their underhand methods of promoting the scam.

AoM, as has been said;

Don't waste your knowledge, intelligence, wisdom or words of advice on answering those who are too ignorant or naive to appreciate it.

In other words, don't cast the pearls - they will get lost in the mud where the intransigents wallow.

Yes, Agnostic, bonmot believes that any demolition of the AGW fraud should not be answered.

Of course there is no answer to it. bonmot's ploy is to say that he does not want to answer it, and he does not see why he should.He thinks that his answer somehow disguises the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any effect on climate.

He also beieves in the ad hominem attack, the first refuge of fraud backers when they have no basis in science.

I would like to know the basis he has for belief in "knowledge, intelligence, wisdom or words of advice" that have never been evidenced by him in any post on On Line Opinion. Perhaps they have an existence of some sort in his dreams, but he needs to understand that he must distinguish reality, where there is no such thing as a scientific basis for AGW.