"If she does get the carbon tax legislation passed, Abbott will be in real trouble. If he threatens to repeal it, he will lose the next election because Gillard will be able to campaign on the massive economic disruption that he will cause by doing that."

WRONG, this is the purist optimism on the Labor/green side.

If the carbon tax is passed, Abbott will have a peg to hang every cost of living issue and interest rate rise, and the Labor government will be in the indefensible position trying to claim that the cost and interest rate rises were not all based on the carbon tax.

Juliar is in a lose lose position.

I notice the Green's vote is falling too.

Hi Comptom, I also I look forward to seeing the independent advice you recieve on.

A Rebatable Carbon Tax, which exempts no one but provides a rebate to those who take specific actions to protect and improve the environment. It also provides for all carbon tax revenue to be devoted exclusively to development and production of clean energy. I intend to get some independent opinion on it

Interesting reactions to what was indeed a moderate article. JonJ is an absolute denialist - "I don't want it therefore it isn't there, whatever the evidence!" Stencil at least quotes a scientist, though Pielke's conclusions are not highly regarded by the climate science community (which is easily checked); Amicus as usual makes little or no sense.

However, I take issue with one statement in the original article, which suggests that there is an obvious left-right divide between those who accept the science, and those who don't. This seems to me to be specious. Clearly, the denialists who are associated with the IPA or the Lavoisier Group or the US Heartland Institute are ipso facto associated with right-wing political ideology. It's what these organisations do for a living: promote the politics of the free market economy.

However, there is no such clear association between climate scientists and left-wing - or any other - ideology. Scientists tend, if anything, to be a-political. There may be right-wing scientists or left-wing scientists or raving red communist scientists - but there is no logical connection between their political beliefs and their scientific work. If you insist that this is the case, that (for example) the IPCC has something to do with world government, you tell me more about yourself and your beliefs than about the real world ...

Does anyone remember an advertisement from long long ago where a young man was sitting in an armchair, in 3–piece suit, smoking a pipe, with his 2 children playing around his feet. The little girl looks up at her father and says: "Daddy, what did you do during the War?". Imagine an old man sitting in an easy chair and the kid saying:" Grandpa, why didn't you do anything about climate change?" I think that this piece by Everard Compton is one of the most sensible comments on climate change that I have read for a long time. Incidentally, the "armchair scientists" might benefit from reading a real scientist's opinion in the Monthy, November 2010 I think, where Peter Doherty gives his opinion on the matter.

Okay, look I'll point it out - ther author writes that seven other countries, including the UK, have a carbon tax..

I was totally surprised by that information. What other countries have a carbon tax, does anyone know? I certainly cannot name them. Perhaps the author is thinking of recent (very doubtful) claims that certain countries, including China, have put a price on carbon.

As for the UK it has an impost it calls a carbon tax on 4,000 of its largest businesses and organisations. The material I read stated that this will raise one billion pounds a year, which is nothing among 4,000 organisations. It bears no resemblence to the Australian proposal.

However, the UK is far and away the most advanced of the developed countries actually trying to do something about emissions. Then nothing.. The only genuine ETS scheme is in Europe and that is limited. The NZ scheme is limited and the US state schemes which have joined up are partial..

Then there is the problem that China and India have shown no real interest in doing anything (China's promises in this respect are either empty or meaningless), nor have countries like Brazil or Canada or.. you get the idea.

Although I agree with the author that Gillard might now have to go forward with her proposal, and it could cost her government, I think he has just repeated the statement about seven countries having carbon taxes without properly checking it first.

nicco .. I know it's complicated so will try to simplify it for you

Someone bemoaned the fact that there are negative posts about climate change/AGW

By doing so, was himself being negative

I asked what was there to be positive about ..

do you get it yet? Can you answer it? (probably get some silly questionnaire in response now)

It's an interesting point, the government is faced with a negative subject (Suspected AGW, doom, hysteria, anger from the alarmists, disbelief in paying tax to reduce source of alarm by skeptics) and adds another negative source of conjecture, a tax, to the mix and must wonder why they cannot get a win.

They won't say what the tax will be or what it will do to mitigate AGW, but are trying to tell us that no one will be affected except the 1,000 big polluters .. so if they know that, just tax them. We all know though, that's not the real game, the real game is the tax and redistribution of wealth.

Then of course you have articles like this that are written by people irritated by anyone disagreeing at all, and why don't you all just listen and get on with it.

Why, because some time ago, most of the population stopped believing anything the government says, they lie they deceive, they even have a propaganda team traveling circus (independent of course) to try to sell the bad news.

What will the tax do to reduce or have any effect on climate change caused by mankind? We'd be better off stopping land clearing, or replanting, but that won't happen now, because the government is picking winners, a great big new tax.

The effect is now lost in the argument about the size of the tax, so the ALP is on familiar grounds, Tax and Spend .. business as usual