The best action is none of the above.

The best action is to constitute a balanced and impartial commission to evaluate the scientific evidence. Proponents and antagonists of anthropogenic global warming theory should be subject to severe cross examination under oath. What we want to know is this.

Is global warming real? What is the evidence? How is it measured? What are the assumptions in the sampling process and aggregation of results? Can we be given proper statistical confidence limits and not subjective guesstimates?

If global warming is rigorously established: How important is this to the human situation? Wild and imaginative scare stories are not acceptable evidence.

Geoff Carmody should get his thinking straight, as his persistent carbon levy push is having a bad influence on politicians -- witness John Brumby's irrational proposal to prepare for the introduction of a carbon price as laid out in his just released White Paper.

Carmody should first consider the need for reducing carbon emissions, instead of unquestionably accepting anthropogenic global warming . Anthropogenic CO2's alleged influence on climate is an hypothesis which has yet to be proved scientifically. Warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years.

Consequently, there is no scientific justification for reducing CO2 emissions.

The introduction of a carbon levy as proposed by Carmody would raise electricity prices substantially, do irreparable damage to the Australian economy, but have no impact whatsoever on climate change

Waiting for the world scientific community to finally agree on the amount of man-caused global warming might take for ever, given that many scientists are employed by vested interests capable of demanding the answers that suit them. A bit like the occasional doctor who still claims that smoking is not harmful.

I prefer to reach my own conclusion based on a bit of common sense. It seems that with all the fires, reactions, and friction that mankind has caused since being here, it would be logical for some degree of warming to result. We have also been busy consuming oxygen and converting it largely to carbon dioxide, to the point where I would believe we now have more carbon dioxide than we need. Australia being a rich country can afford to do something to reduce both these problems, perhaps setting an example to others currently messing up the planet faster than we do.

A straight tax on emitting carbon and carbon dioxide seems to me a simple thing to do. Far easier to apply and understand than the complex trading game proposed by some politicians. Such a tax would focus the minds of all industries paying it to look seriously for better alternatives. The tax collected by government could be applied (if the government were wise) to pay a research organisation (such as the CSIRO once was) to also research better alternatives. If Australia was to just that little, I would feel happy that we were doing our share to minimise our damage to planet Earth.

SURE...a price on emissions....

BUT...

NOT A "MARKET BASED TRADING" approach to dealing with the collected levy.

NO NO NOOOOO..(yes..I'm SHOUTing) Sorry Bob (Carr) Envex is not going to pay you a stupendous CEO salary on MYYYYY carbon doller levy! grrrr

If we collect money for reducing emmissions... it should go STRAIGHT to reducing emissions HERE.. in our country..

BASIC setup

SOLAR panels + Grid Connect inverter.

ADVANCED setup

The above plus Battery storage

All this in a context of high efficiency lighting and gas heating and cooking.
*voila* we have made progress. (and we are all the richer in our hearts :)

I’m with you anti-green and Raycom, it seems that Julia Gillard is also supportive when she says of the Citizens Assembly, that the fundamental science needs to be examined. Unfortunately, she also has a bob each way when she says that she believes in AGW but wants to provide deep community consensus for people who “disagree” with her. Quite what this means I’m not sure.

Will we ever get a review of the science? That’s doubtful.

I’ll stake my claim to being skeptical and qualify that by saying if ever the two sides of science do get together and produce an opinion, I would support that opinion. Why is it so hard to get the international community to offer us a joint review body? If the issue remains so contentious and divisive it is because it remains unresolved, so why not resolve it?

It is also frustrating that we have so many well respected economists who are willing to abandon years of training and business principles to leap to an advocacy position and avoid examination of the “causes”. This has been my criticism of Mr. Carmody’s article and I have already documented the principles that from my experience have been violated or ignored.

I say again to Mr. Carmody, you have solutions to the problems defined by the pro-AGW movement. In light of the hundreds of scientific papers expressing contrary opinion, would you be prepared call for and apply internationally recognized decision making principles and examine both sets of input criteria?

Otherwise we have to assume you have adopted an advocacy position.

Spindoc.

I understand that the French Academy of Science will be undertaking a scientific review starting in September or October.

Also as a result of dissension from Fellows of the Royal Society against the stated views of their President, the Society will re-look at the evidence.

I also believe that members of the American Physical Society are also doubting the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global warming
theory.