Phase 1: Cite 'global opinion' as a precedent for taxing carbon dioxide.
Phase 2: 'Global opinion' shifts against AGW and the IPCC.
Phase 3: Cite 'European prosperity' as a precedent for taxing carbon dioxide.
Phase 4: European prosperity goes down the gurgler.
Phase 5: Cite a carefully selected minority of Anglophone nations as a precedent for taxing carbon dioxide.
Phase 6: Who knows? But it doesn't look good for the alarmists.

The other thing that gets me going about Julia and co going on about "I believe in climate change - its real". And "we have to do something to reduce emissions" to fix it.

So simplistic. Of course we all notice that the climate changes - all the time. Who doesn't "believe" in climate change. Note though that she cleverly avoids the real questions. Is man having an impact on climate change? (My answer - probably). If he is, are anthropogenic factors greater than natural factors (My answer - not really known. Probably not). Of the anthropogenic factors are anthropogenic CO2 emissions a major factor (My answer - not demonstrated. Probably not). If anthropogenic CO2 emissions ARE a major factor, is the likely resultant climate change adverse/costly? (My answer - not demonstrated. Probably not.)

And finally. Even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are demonstrated as having a seriously adverse impact, what, practically, can we do about it. (My answer - not much).

Julia and co just avoid all the above questions, and jump straight the conclusion that We Must Have A Carbon Tax.

If you ask me it is all about politics, spin and plain bs. Not about reality.