There's no question that climate change is real, the question is whether catastrophic man-made global warming which policy can improve is real, so honesty and understanding would be a good start, wouldn't it?

The whole debate is so asinine, so many layers deep in fallaces, religious hysteria, and corruption, that discussions like the author's strike me as just another example of popular delusions and the madness of crowds.

The author is absolutely right to say: "Depending on the timeframe, it is possible that if no global action is taken to limit carbon dioxide emissions, the impacts of climate change may become irreversible."
I'm not sure how much the general public understands the gravity of the situation, of how close we are to the tipping point that will send us into runaway global warming, an ice free Earth and sealevels rising by 75 metres. Such a sea level rise would not occur this century, but 3-5 metres is possible with horrendous ramifications, not least the flooding of major cities as well as inundation of major deltas and low-lying countries like Bangladesh with flow on effects with respect to food production.
I have been in a state of rage ever since seeing Media Watch on ABC-TV on Monday in which Jonathan Holmes revealed how the 'Shock Jocks' on commercial radio are treating climate change and deriding any attempts to deal with it. Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, says such people (the deniers) should be accused of treason. They are the ones influencing public opinion which will in turn put pressure on government not to introduce effective action such as a carbon tax. And, in turn, that will mean climate change and the "storms of my grandchildren" - not just James Hansen's - will destroy civilisation as we know it.

You have forgotten a fourth greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

However to me the critical issue is how much each of the greenhouse gases contributes to the greenhouse gas effect and how much of that is caused by nature and how much by man.

The best evidence that I have found so far is water 95%, CO2 3.5%, N20 1% and methane 0.5%. Nature accounts for 99.7% of the greenhouse gases and man 0.3% so why bother with a carbon tax.

What is noteworthy is that when Abbott raised this issue on 15 March 2011 he was immediately villified by Labor politicians. Yet two weeks later Gillard says we need to use facts not fear when discussing climate change.

The hypocrisy is breath taking.

EQ, you say:

>> The best evidence that I have found so far is water 95%, CO2 3.5%, N20 1% and methane 0.5%. Nature accounts for 99.7% of the greenhouse gases and man 0.3% <<

Would you mind telling us where you found this "best evidence"?
Perhaps you could just provide an internet link, thanks.

poppingperish "They (deniers, presumably)are the ones influencing public opinion"

What? You can't get a skeptic (denier!) on the ABC if you try, the ABC are like religious evangelists in their across the board condemnation of any other view but alarmism, and regularly roll out all the usual alarmist figureheads to support that, Garnault, Flannery, Karolly etc.

if you post a comment on the ABC questioning Alarmism, it is never printed .. you can flame with impunity if you are an alarmist.

There are $ Billions spent worldwide on Alarmism, books by the dozen (against half a dozen total on skepticism) that get a great run on the ABC radio and TV and the Fairfax media. There are probably half a dozen or less conservative journalists who question CO2 as a problem.

no one "denies" the climate changes, what is questioned is CO2 being a problem, and whether a tax will have any effect, even if it is.

"I have been in a state of rage ever since seeing Media Watch on ABC-TV on Monday in which Jonathan Holmes revealed how the 'Shock Jocks' yada yada"

I'm not surprised that MediaWatch has now also become a forum for alarmism.

You "rage" at your fellow Australians, but blame who you are told to, by the ABC? Did you know about skeptics (deniers) before the ABC told you?

You clearly have a problem with folks of a different opinion and are concerned that after all the above money spent and careful coaching of the public, and all the government scare campaigns and bile, that a very small group of skeptics can "control" public thinking.

Don't underestimate the average Australian's potential to spot bullshyte and bullshyters. Your own BS detector might need to be looked at. Shock Jocks merely reflect what their callers tell them, it's a forum for people who are otherwise not heard, certainly not on "your" ABC eh?

most Australians do not believe taxing them for CO2 emissions, while the rest of the world goes on with progress and development will do any more than make a few alarmists happy

The author covers many points in his article but one theme, I suppose, is that the message the switched-on, intelligent, aware, elite want to convey concerning climate change is not getting through to the grubby, ill-informed, skeptical masses (which includes myself). Further, the media (of which I am also a member) is getting in the way, with this habit of pointing out that its not all straight forward.

In fact, most scare stories run through a series of phases. One could be called "experts declare crisis is at hand and public believes them".. a couple of steps further along, it is "experts declare crisis is still coming, but public starts switching off". The crisis never arrives of course.

In this case the switch off occured during the so called climategate scandals, when even the public at large heard that the senior scientists involved in the climate warming had not been behaving as they should. This was followed by the Copenhagen meeting when, again, the bulk of the public (but not some activists) realised that no international agreement was ever going to occur.

Now they are being asked to pay a new tax which is obviously not going to make any difference, irrespective of what the science may or may not say. I would take issue with many of the author's comments on the science, but he overlooks the basic point that this tax was obviously going to run into substantial opposition on logical grounds. The general public, after all, are not activists, nor are they so easily led - particulalry when they have to di into their own pockets.