The least polluted countries are the wealthiest countries, and the wealthiest countries are those that have managed to exploit fossil fuels -- and other resources -- most effectively to improve the health, welfare and happiness of their citizens. All that curtailing carbon dioxide can possibly do is to return us to medieval technology, medieval health care, medieval death rates and medieval population levels.

"I can't come in to the tannery today, boss, I'm off to the barber for a bloodletting. You'll have to get someone else to collect dogshit for you."

I agree that explicit CO2 pricing, either carbon tax or ETS spot price, is the best approach. The EU is showing us how not to run an ETS with a plethora of free permits and questionable cheap offsets. Direct Action creates an implicit CO2 price that is obscured. However as the true cost is revealed the temptation is to back off. That is what I predict will happen within a year of the Abbott landslide election. Meanwhile evidence of climate change mounts, for example hereabouts autumn was 1.5C warmer than average.

This article is a cachophony of errors. The author says:

"I decided that the issue deserved some serious thought."

None is evident in the article.

Gore's 2006 film was judged to be "partisan political views" by the English High Court:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

The author is enamoured of an ETS; he should study what has happening to carbon trading in the rest of the world since an ETS is a carbon trading scheme:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/eu-carbon-trading-crashes-german-bourse-closes-and-irish-end-carbon-rort/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/09/death-of-a-carbon-salesman-chicago-climate-exchange/

Carbon trading and ETS's have been unmitigated failures, riddled with rorts and scams which is not suprising since they are basically trading hot air That hasn't stopped this criminally incompetent government alligning the Australian price of carbon with Europe in the expectation it would be $30 in 2 years time when today it is as low as $3 with no hope of rising.

The author says he is sick of nastiness and then says this:

"Only three per cent of scientists claim that climate change forecasts are a fraud" this is drivel as 2 minutes googling would get you these repudiations of the 97% consensus lie:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/fuzzy-math-in-a-new-soon-to-be-published-paper-john-cook-claims-consensus-on-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/#more-86303

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/the-madness-of-97-98-consensus-herds/

And see this about the original 97% claim:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

When one side deliberately distorts the facts and lies [has the author even read the climategate emials?] nastiness is inevitable.

The author's argument degenerates into a contradictory concern about the world's billions and a desire to 'clean up' energy.

Since 'clean' green energy doesn't work any move to replace those energies with it will condemn the world's billions to a worse fate.

A sad mish-mash from the nominally conservative side.

"only three per cent of scientists claim that climate change forecasts are a fraud, "
Where precisely does this figure come from? This statement unfortunately ruins the credibility of the whole article I'm afraid.

Oh Wow, cohenite!

(She says as she snow ploughs her way through the plethora of links form WUWT and Nova)

Aren't you forgetting this?

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

If a small number of people did not stand to make billion of dollars (Al Gore & Co) and Governments did not use it as an excuse to implement new taxes I may have believed it.

Global warming scam.

Carbon con.