Rich2
1. Your asking someone to prove AGW is not happening has the onus of proof back-to-front. The onus of proving the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve, is on those asserting it, not those waiting to see some real-world evidence.

2. To assume that something is true, and then look for evidence, any evidence, no matter how dubious or partial, is pretty much the OPPOSITE of scientific method.

Credulity and consensus are not the basis of scientific method.

You have got a hide expecting people to accept a hypothesis for no other reason than that the government says so - what kind of intellectual method is that?

Your starting point should not be credulity, it should be skepticism - the PROPER scientific attitude.

3. But supposing the globe is warming, and it's man-made ... so what? What are you saying would be the negative consequence of it? Please be as specific as you can, so we're not just left dealing with speculations of catastrophism. What exactly is the problem, IYO?

4. How have you taken into account the negative consequences of governmental action?

5. What real-world evidence do you have that we face catastrophic man-made global warming?

6. If you have no real-world evidence, please admit that you are wrong.

If you respond by
- assuming it
- reference to absent authority
- reliance on vested interests
- personal argument, including argument to the effect that you are so scientific, or that your opponents aren't
that amounts to admitting that you have no real-world evidence, and your belief in AGW is religious, not scientific

I am simply amazed that so many have missed the point entirely. The proposed Carbon Tax has nothing to do with attacking global warming, nor anything to do with supporting alternative sustainable energy development. It is just a crude tax grab to support socialist ideological wealth redistribution - "in support of lower and middle classes" - the looking after struggling families catch-call. (And with a hefty concurrent building up of bureaucracy - jobs!)
Nor would a carbon tax do anything to offset CO2 emissions, for Ms G is not proposing any significant dividends to alternative energy sectors - in fact the main money-shuffling is to reimburse intensive-energy-use industry to offset their higher costs. Pinch Peter to pay Paul - ludicrous!
The whole CPRS/ETS in the first place was for Mr Rudd to strut the world stage with the big boys, under the guise of pursuing "the greatest challenge of our times" - what a banner! What a farce!
Global warming is real - as evidenced by changes in glacial flows - and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the greenhouse effect is real. (Of course most are forgetting that nitrous oxide produced multifold in chemical manufacture is 300 times more greenhouse than CO2, and lingers infinitely longer in the stratosphere doing the dirty!)
No, the way to reduce CO2 is through massive change to electricity and chemical production - nuclear, bio, geo, solar, wind, wave, new tech whatever. The "Base Load" problem is a construct to protect our coal producers and established power generation - it can be overcome, as seen in some European solar facilities - magma.)
Best of luck, but we are being sold a pig in a poke!

Everyone seems to overlook that Julia Gillard changed her mind about
the CO2 tax because she could only be PM if she introduced a carbon tax.
I don't think it is a tax grab as she wants to give it away to those
that get lumbered with increased electricity costs, which negates the
alleged reason for the tax.
That is surely the proof that the purpose is to keep her in the Lodge.

I find it hard to believe it will actually come into effect.
Something will happen inside the Labour Party to remove the tax.

Considering that they are manufacturing most of our goods on our behalf, I wonder how much of our CO2 generation has been outsourced to China, and what the true local CO2 figure would be.

“I find it hard to believe it will actually come into effect.Something will happen inside the Labour Party to remove the tax.”

You could be right Bazz. In any case, the Liberal Party will remove the tax if elected.

“Considering that they are manufacturing most of our goods on our behalf, I wonder how much of our CO2 generation has been outsourced to China, and what the true local CO2 figure would be.”

Good point, although unlike Gillard I understand that CO2 is not pollution – it is essential to life.

But adopting Labor’s lie, it makes for an interesting discussion. In addition to all the coal plants they’re building in Red China, their treatment of workers is appalling, even in "green" industries.

By destroying jobs here they’re empowering dictators over there. Naturally, therefore, their so-called pollution reduction figures must be questioned.