There's a fourth group you haven't taken into account - those who believe that climate change is a given, and that regardless of what causes it, humans won't be able to do anything about it - witness Copenhagen. Therefore, take the worst case scenarios, and prepare for them. See the Copenhagen Consensus (the Consensus, not the Convention), and the UN Millennium Goals. Of course the reason we don't want to get our heads out of the sand is that these solutions are far too difficult politically - much easier to believe that the politicians and other experts can solve the problem with the odd tax or two. What we should be doing we should be doing regardless of climate change.

If The Media Had Covered Climate Change As Well As They Did Toyota……….
“It is a well known fact that the vast majority of scientists all agreed that *climate change (* ”unstoppable warming“-IPCC ) was real and humans were contributing to the warming of the planet.”

The truth was, that what precisely they were all agreeing on, was that the effects could range from unstoppable warming to as little as not being measurable at all. If they had all been sure of unstoppable warming, you would have seen the scientists marching instead of the believers. Even the consensus scientists had differing views on how CO2 could ultimately effect the planet. So science got a free pass when the crisis they predicted “was” and “wasn‘t” a danger.
That is why the scientists all agreed.
Questions: How many more consensus scientists have to break ranks for you fading believers to start doubting Climate Change and what has to happen now to prove us deniers were correct ?

"I think the choice is between a national emissions consumption-based "cap and trade" scheme (with no offshore permit trading), and a national consumption-based emissions levy. Evidence favours the latter."

There is always a default choice -- 'do nothing'. This is the rational choice when there is extreme uncertainty about whether there is anything to stop, whether it should be stopped, whether it can be stopped, and whether the cost of stopping it will grossly exceed any benefits. The average temperature range from season to season around the globe is about 10-15 degrees Celsius, and we cope with that perfectly well every year, polar bears and all. There is no reason to rush into badly-thought-out and under-researched policies to address an alleged problem which -- if it exists at all -- is going to produce temperature changes of something like .2 of a degree per decade: particularly when even the advocates of drastic change admit that it will have a negligible effect anyway. As for 'evidence favours the latter' -- what evidence?

There's acknowledgement here that scepticism is respectable and the author makes reference to the recent "dark ages" approach where sceptics are ignored, silenced and ostracised. Testimony from prominent sceptics and the content of the "climategate" emails confirms much of this. The unprofessional conduct of televised "flat earther" name calling by the IPCC chief probably also deserved a mention here.
In any case, having acknowledged the suppression of science the author brushes this aspect aside and guides us through the sales pitch for his preferred type of insurance policy.
Can we get back to the science please?

Primitive - and not so "primitive" - cultures project their fears onto Nature. Climate change, today's cause celebre, is such a case. It has become this century's secular God. Mysterious, incomprehensible and appropriated by various alarmist authorities - states, churches, political parties, green economists, activists, etc - to serve their own ends and schemes while, naturally, "saing the planet". A breath-taking delusion that will be around probably as long as the two-millennia belief in a Supreme Being?

Magna est veritas et praevalebit!

Alice (in Warmerland)

Skepticism has lost the battle in Australia, the greens do not tolerate dissent and now that they control the ALP's decision making - it's over, we lost.

There never was a debate in our society, there were opinion pieces and the odd blog or fora like this.

Climate conferences in Australia are either believer or skeptical - at skeptical conferences, believers were invited. At believer conferences, skeptics were not invited and lambasted through the events.

A pity, as science is the loser in the main. People with a bent towards control and big government have won, and we'll see how that goes.

A price now on Carbon (not CO2, that was too complex) will eventuate, and I'm sure we'll see the "world" temperature drop. In realityland, that tax will go to general revenue and be p*ssed away by big spending greens and the ALP as usual.

I'm OK, I can afford to move where I like or even overseas should this land become an idiot's paradise for the next few years. People will eventually wake up to the outcomes of this religion, they always do, in the meantime I can only hope the stuff ups are big enough for people to realize what a folly this is. probably take 10 to 20 years though, but by then AGW will I expect, be a complete joke. As I said earlier, the sciences will suffer for this folly as well.

in 1804 the global population hit 1 billion for the first time

in 2 years the population will pass 7 billion

every day we burn more than 70 million barrels of oil

and add more than 200,000 extra people to the planet

how can adding 6 billion humans to the planet in 200 years and burning millions of tonnes of fossil fuels not be affecting the climate??

I don't agree that any one policy action will be sufficient; it will take a mix of actions including some direct action to force construction of low-emissions plant and closure of high emissions plant and probably taxes on production of fossil fuels if only to avoid avoidance of taxes on consumption. At the least there will need to be accounting of how much leaves the ground if only as a method of auditing emissions. In the current climate the electricity generation sector appears to be confident of their ability to lobby for exemptions and to continue building coal power plants that, at best, have Carbon Capture and Storage as possible future add-ons which they know they won't have to actually build if (when) it fails to be economically viable.

Most of all policy needs to be based on science of climate, not on popular opinion as manipulated and manufactured by vested interests.