When are people going to wake up to the scam of AGW and realise that a CO2 tax is about another derivative scam and financing the UN for their Wold Government.

There are many scientists now that do not get the media attention who say that the evidence stopped supporting the theory back in 1996.Too many people now have their noses in the trough and don't want the truth to be revealed.

"As the distinguished climate advisor, Ross Garnaut warned, climate science uncertainty says things may turn out better or worse than expected but it is naïve to think things will be better."

There is no credible evidence that things are going to get worse.

There is the evidence of three hundred years of economic growth to show us that things are probably going to get better without a carbon tax.

There is the fact that every doomsayer in the last five thousand years has been proved wrong to show us that the global warming doomsayers will probably be proved wrong.

The carbon tax is futile and unnecessary. It is an ideological sop thrown to the Green movement for their continued support. But the Greens will soon abandon any party which continues to work for Australia's economic growth, and when that happens the rest of Australia will abandon the Greens. Then perhaps we can get back to rational government.

Nicole, you have a lot more reading to do. I hear your distress at what you see as our missing the point of the global warming issue, but after four years of close study of the issue, I have to say that I am quite unpersuaded either that disaster awaits us or that the carbon tax is necessary. Ross Garnaut is not 'a distinguished climate advisor', but an economist who simply accepts the IPCC as the fountain of wisdom. It isn't, and 'the consensus of thousands of their scientists' is a great exaggeration. Do some more study. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that do not support the alleged consensus (Google 'NIPCC' and go on from there).

There is nothing special about this issue. What you are seeing is what happens whenever any government proposes to do something for which the evidential base is weak. Our entry into the war in Iraq was much the same.

Nicole should return to the shallow end of the pool, & concentrate on her film making.

Fantasy works better there.

Some people have missed the point, they can-not see the bigger picture. All they want to see is CO2. The world has got to get off oil and coal.
AU has no reason not to move in that direction. Sooner or later it has got to happen, and it will not happen without incentive.
For their own political reasons some think it will happen without any encouragement at all.

"As we saw with the $22 million anti-mining tax campaign, whoever can afford the best advertising agency and largest media buy, will win the debate. "

Rubbish, the government has spent hundreds of millions on AGW advocacy. Advertising, awards, research schemes, reports, studies, commissions, conferences, flying Al Gore down and other lunaries of the AGW world .. all with our money.

Yet it has not won support .. and so many believers think it is a travesty that this is so.

More than 60% of Australians are now skeptical of AGW and the effects of a great big new carbon tax being of any benefit, except to help Swannies "surplus" in 2012/2013.

There is no "debate", the government believer forces simply refuse to come to the table and prefer to post YouTube videos, saturate the ABC and Fairfax with articles in favor and generally berate and lambast anyone who does not agree.

that is not debate

The skeptics would love the opportunity to debate, but alas, the believers prefer to throw stones and pick up grants and cosy jobs while hurling abuse on opinion sites.

I love the ABC debates, where everyone is a believer and agrees with each other .. what scaliwags they are!

If you want to turn this around, have an election and get a mandate, we're a democracy and will wear it .. but the last election was deliberately deceitful on this point.

Maybe we just do not like tricky governments and once gone, trust, in everything is hard to get back for a deceitful government.

Well done Nicole!

To vote for a party on a single platform is stupid. So much for mandate.
We have govt's to govern. The carbon tax is as good as passed. So what are you arguing about. Julia did say all promises were off before any govt; was formed. Results of a hung parliament, and there's nothing to stop it happening again.

If Tony Abbott goes to the next election with a "carbon scheme", and then after the election not only dispenses with it, but unravels the GreenALPindy scheme, regardless of cost ..

Would anyone be upset?

I'm sure all the AGW believers, who find it acceptable that the government lied, will have no problem with anyone or any party lying in future.

Or is it just the particular lie that's OK?

Deceit is deceit, and the ALP will never get past this .. their "whatever it takes" culture is not acceptable.

Some might find lying politically expedient, the majority of Australians, clearly do not.

huh .. someone just pointed out, that I must be the only person surprised that believers find lying acceptable

It seems to me that society might reasonably arranged in three groups of thought about AGW:
First, the scientists at the pointy end of observations and assessment of data, and those who accept analysis from them. This group has grave concerns about increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere due to human activities.
Second, that spectrum of society which is in adamant denial of any reason for concern for human society out of the scientific observations; and also in denial of the veracity of those scientific observations.
Third, the population in the middle who depend upon dissemination of information provided by one or other of the above; depending upon information which is given merit, not according to scientific veracity, but by editorial decree.

The pressures working upon the third group are illustrated by contrasting statements during the past week from retired vice-chancellors of two different universities:

Ian Chubb, holding a Masters in Science degree, took up the position of Australia’s Chief Scientist after being Vice Chancellor of the ANU. In his opinion, there could be serious problems: “--you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modeling if you just factor in natural events. If you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction.”

Don Aitkin, a past Vice Chancellor of the University of Canberra, says (above) “-- after four years of close study of the issue, I have to say that I am quite unpersuaded either that disaster awaits us--.”

Our ability to assess it will not alter the science itself.
Don Aitkin ( OLO, previously) stated “Carbon Dioxide is a fertiliser - the more of it the better”. Under some controlled conditions carbon dioxide might be a fertiliser - in what quantity before it before it becomes a poison (as do other fertilizers)? Earth’s benign atmosphere contains nitrogen/oxygen/carbon dioxide in percentages of approximately 78/21/.04. Not Venus by a long shot; but an optimum earth temperature for human society depends fundamentally upon atmospheric proportions very similar to the present

@colinsett

I don't agree with your 'reasonably'. There are several different groups of scientists, and those who like models often differ from those who work from observations. Those who work from ground and sea observations often differ from those who work with satellite and balloon data.

Try this grouping:

Supporters of the AGW orthodoxy

1 Strongest The IPCC has raised the alarm. We must do something now, and that something is to get global agreement to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. The science is clear, and now is the time to act. This is fact the orthodox or IPCC position.

2 Partial Support There is no doubt that adding more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere must increase the world’s temperature. But we don’t know yet how much extra warming there is likely to be.

3 Lukewarm support Adding more carbon dioxide will very likely increase the temperature, but there are other factors at work too, and the effect may well be pretty small, or even positive for some parts of the world. We need to know much more before we do anything.

Dissenters

4 Agnostic dissenters The orthodox arguments rely heavily on models and conjectures. AGW is plausible and possible, but we need real evidence before we do anything. In particular, we need to be able to distinguish AGW from natural variability. A little warming may be good for humanity, as it seems to have been over the past thirty years.

5 Sceptical dissenters Many sceptics are well informed about one or other aspect of the central AGW proposition, and can show difficulties with it; they tend to argue that the failure of the orthodox to satisfy them in these domains means that the whole AGW proposition is void.

6 Opponents AGW theory is just a scam, a sign that the Marxists have taken over the green movement, an attempt by some to construct world government, a conspiracy, a sign of lazy journalists, the effort of bankrupt governments to stay in power, etc. There is nothing to it.

An intelligently written article that summarizes the situation well thanks Nicole. Yes the sceptics camp does seem to be domoniated by old narrow minded 'grumps'of my generation (baby boomers). A small gang from this camp will predictably howl against your article as they do all progressive articels on the subject in these columns; some are indeed paid to do so.

Citing Max Planck is most apt...."A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I've often though this in my working life trying to facilitate progressive change in land management.

Re your call to 're-conceptualise the climate change debate and stop using dirty language', I think it was a mistake from the start to tiptoe around the 'tax' word. It's more truthful and constructive to think of a carbon price in whatever form as long overdue tax reform. Tax the waste (energy waste) rather that productivity. This is precisely what the Government are doing by raising the tax free threshold to encourage those on the margins into work. The carbon price is really a progressive (good) tax that encourages more effciency and productivity. Also it provides an opporutunity to divert more of the revenues into kick starting renewable energy. This should be read as 'energy security'- freedom from future petroleum and coal price rises and shortages. Sun and wind are free energy whereas the price of fossil fuels can only go one way - up.

PS. I think we'll see the time when we'll wish it had remained a straightforward tax. Trading schemes provide so many avenues for dodgers and sharks (excuse the 'dirty language' but I couldn't think of better words). Then there's the uncertainty of fluctuating market prices. I think many in industry would even now prefer the certainty of a straight tax; it's becoming clear it wont be very burdensome anyway and the small CPI hike of less than 1% will be one-off.

@colinsett

I ran out of space. Try those groupings, and fit the authors of what you read into them. I think it works. I am both a lukewarmer (although the Earth is not a black body, some increase in temperature can be expected from an increase in CO2) and an agnostic dissenter (so much of the data are corrupt and dodgy that it is hard to make anything precise out of them). It may be that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but our basis for thinking so rests on truly awful data. If you don't agree, Google up sea-surface temperatures and read on!

Oh, and you under-valued Ian Chubb. He has on Oxford DPhil in science. I don't, but I have spent a good deal of the last thirty years assessing scientific claims for very large amounts of money, both here and abroad. So I've learned a bit that way.

Why is it that nowhere in the article nor in the comments does anyone refer to the group of scientists that have written peer-reviewed articles based on empherical data, supporting the view global warming might not be caused by human activity.

I'm now convinced that the theory of AGW is totally flawed based on incorrect data.

Carbon is the basis of all life and the major fuel which makes possible our civilisation.Tax carbon and you kill our humanity.

What a deceptive article. 'Tim Flannery notes that Australia is one of only a few countries that are still debating the science of climate change as a tactic to delaying action'
Countries like the US know that taxing people fraudulently is unacceptable and makes them unelectable like here in Australia. That is why this Government used lies and deceipt to con the public into believing their would be no carbon tax. I think Nicole needs to make a movie called the convenient truth uncovering all the lies told by Al Gore in his money making endeavour.

Nicole writes

'In our lifetime we have seen and will continue to see irreversible climate changes, and the future generations, our grandchildren will have to live with the severity of those changes'

The same nonsense I heard decades ago. The beaches are still the same, the climate is hot in summer and cold in winter, the air is just as clean and all this with massive more carbon being produced. People live longer, have a better quality of life and more choice in food.

It really is quite arrogant and naive to think that man can change the climate by taxing people. The Chinese must think we are iriots.

You're right runner.The Chinese think we are "strupid iriots" but are laughing all the way to global dominance.

Some people are just not suited to living in a clean and sustainable country. The carbon tax is going to desecrate some. Just like Abbott can't stand women, let alone be overshadowed by one, you lot must find it hard to sleep. You worry about the welfare of other countries, before you worry about the welfare of Australia.

This article begins somewhat neutrally with an apparent protest about the confusing language surrounding climate change politics, but it doesn't take the author long to reveal her strong pro-AGW views and produce her own dirty language eg 'deniers,' etc.

Also the '2504' agreeable scientists mentioned as listed by the IPCC in 2007 were mainly administrators and assistants, not scientists at all. In the end a cabal of about 30 or so agreed to the final document and simply listed all the other names gratuitously.

Reconceptualise the debate, she asks? There hasn't been any debate because the science was already 'settled' before it began, remember? And anyone on the other side is a 'denier' not to be taken seriously. She says as much herself. So there cannot be a debate.

A very feeble and naive article devoid of substance and scientific evidence. Clearly the author is ignorant of actual climate science, but appears to be well versed in the believer's rhetoric.

Statement - "In our lifetime we have seen and will continue to see irreversible climate changes."

What total rubbish! For a start, the author's own lifetime has been very short. Judging by the photo, not more than 40 or so. What "irreversible climate changes" has she seen in those years? No substance. She is obviously and totally oblivious to the fact that the climate of Earth has seen massive variability over it's history. Events of the recent past (eg. mean surface air temp up 0.8 deg C over the last 150 years) are absolutely nothing on a universal scale and are very questionably irreversible. Who knows what the Earth plans to do tomorrow? Earthquakes? Volcanoes? Tsunamis? Anyone?

Nicki Roller then uses a technique of posing rhetorical questions to support her case. The answers to which, of course, are implicit in the preachings of the IPCC gospels and the answers are obvious only to the faithful.

She writes - "People from a broad range of demographics including a hairdresser, a trade person and a mother advise and frighten us of 'the world's biggest tax with no environmental benefit', repeating, 'why threaten our jobs?'"

That's a damn good question Nicki. Why didn't you answer it?

Why threaten people's livelihoods, standards and styles of living for little or absolutely no environmental change? So why doesn't she answer this question? Why doesn't she state, with empirical evidence the scientific detail that will accurately specify the environmental outcomes of attempting to change the Earth's temperature by way of paying tax? The reason, I strongly suggest, is because there is absolutely no possible scientific way that humans can ever change the temperature of the Earth, by paying tax or by any other means, ever.

They know it, so they say nothing. They cannot and will not specify scientifically any outcomes.

(Cont...)

Next one - "Is it possible that thousands of unpaid scientists around the world are colluding in a massive conspiracy?"

Hmm. Well I don't know. But then, who are these thousands of UNPAID scientists that she speaks of? They go unspecified - lack of evidence.

I do believe that it is very possible that there could well be thousands of PAID scientists around the world who are colluding in a massive fraud. Corruption occurs in all professions, at all levels and in all walks of life. I see no reason to expect scientists to be immune to this human foible.

And it goes on. There are so many other points of contention throughout the piece with which I could drive home the point, but time precludes it.

The only person in this article who I suspect of having become Homer Simpsonised in their thinking, is Nicki Roller herself.

"Might climate change and its tax, be an opportunity for regaining public trust?" she asks.

Yeah, sure Homer.

The words climate change have certainly got a lot of people frightened.
I think the best thing about it is the chance to get off oil and coal, which is going to happen. If that stabilizes the atmosphere all the better. If it dont it dont.

Hi Colinsett, I thought we had sort of settled questions of CO2 fertilisation. If you doubt that CO2 is a fertiliser, then check out my blog post plus the references to a Science Show program http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/08/30/perhaps-abcs-williams-might-do-a-more-discerning-interview/

If you think CO2 is going to poison us all if it gets much above its current level, then you need to look at the graph here
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167/F4.expansion.html. We're at the very lowest levels of CO2 ever known on the earth.

And we also know that CO2 isn't a poison, although too much of it in the atmosphere could cause us all to suffocate, although CO, it's less stable cousin is a poison.

Don is completely correct in his position on CO2.

For Colinsett:

Don Aitken (by his own definition) is both a "lukewarmwer" and an "agnostic dissenter". One could be forgiven for thinking that the ‘Don’ is sitting on the fence. Perhaps that is what 'political scientists' do.

Others here have a 'faith' that makes it difficult for them to accept that AGW is significant (if at all) and give the impression they are ‘knowledgeable’ in ‘climate science’ when clearly their expertise lies elsewhere.

Both views imply that more "proof" for AGW is required ... before what, exactly?

Is it not enough to move towards a more enlightened world of energy supply or use?

Most reasonable people would say yes, regardless of their ‘beliefs’.

Yet, the protagonists say; not now, can't make up my mind, or they adopt a strategy of ‘deny and delay’, for ideological or religious reasons.

The real ‘debate’ that the world is having now is about how and when to move to a better energy mind-set.

AGW is but a diversion.

qanda is tired of those skeptics asking the same questions and has moved on, but asks, what are they waiting for?

The questions to be answered of course, how come if CO2 is still going ballistic, temperature is not? Isn't that the basis of the whole argument from the true believers? Temperatures are not going ballistic, so that of course gives the skeptics cause to pause and ask .. what's going on?

The believers though ignore this and say well the science is settled, we genius humans of this age know everything there is to know and that's that!

The "debate" about energy use is a different argument .. since there never was a debate about AGW. It is convenient for believers to use this as their argument, but is still doesn't convince people and less people are convinced now than before.

how about that qanda, it's so passe to talk about AGW, because your position is even worse now than ever before, so stick your head in the sand is now the preferred position of the true believer?

So if we pay a big new tax, and the justification is to save the world, how much tax do we pay to lower the temperature .. and why can we not have the benefits of increasing temperatures .. what's wrong with the world becoming warmer, apart from models predicting yet more hysterical conclusions? (believers just ignore this logic of course)

The reason the PM and her government are in trouble is people DO NOT subscribe to what you say.

@qanda

There are views at both extremes, and my position is in the middle. That doesn't make me a fence-sitter unless you define it that way. I could argue that it is the most reasonable position. But to get past the cocktail party debate, you say the following:

'Is it not enough to move towards a more enlightened world of energy supply or use?
Most reasonable people would say yes, regardless of their ‘beliefs’.'

Amicus has already picked you up on the logic, and so do I, rather differently. First, by using 'enlightened' as your adjective, you stack the cards your way. Why is it 'enlightened' to use wind and solar power (no pun intended)? We do so at considerable cost to us all, because of the forced subsidies that we pay. 'Enlightened' assumes the truth of what you are arguing. I could argue that the market will determine when we should shift, just as the use of trees for firewood ended when there were few trees left for his purpose, and the naval leaders were pleading for oaks to be preserved for ship-building. In came coal. I have some faith in our capacity to overcome shortages through technology.

Second, I agree with Amicus that if we are to go down the alternative energy sources path, we should do for a reason other than AGW, which rests on dodgy data grounds and is not even supported by contemporary (much better) data. Shouldn't we do things for the right reason?

For Amicus: Yes. While there's still wide debate in the scientific community about nuances and technicalities, we have “moved on”.

It's a common distortion among so called 'sceptics' and 'believers' that the "science is settled". Science is never settled, there is still a possibility you will spontaneously combust tonight.

A psychological defence mechanism projecting onto others that which you engage in yourself:

"stick your head in the sand"

There will be benefits to a warmer and wetter world: food yields for an increased world population, for example.

There will be disadvantages as well - answers to the same old questions.

Models? So called 'sceptics' discount 'models' at the same time they exhort the 'models' of Roy Spencer - epitome of hypocrisy.

--

For Don Aitken: Play semantics if you like, I won't.

Solving the world's energy problems requires a mix - horses for courses - pun intended.

There's no semantics-playing in my post, qanda. Read it again. If fossil fuels get too expensive, because of decreasing supply, we will find alternatives. There are many of them, and some will be more useful than others. Neither wind nor solar can be used at the moment without large subsidies, and they come with other problems too, like unpredictability and storage. There is a major new possibility in gas, too, which could give us more time in which to find a base-load energy supply that has minimal costs and few unpleasant consequences. Even then that new supply has to be competitive with existing supplies.

Qanda you are obviously not a practical person, otherwise you would realise that the only alternative to fossil fuel is Nuclear. I hear no suggestion of adopting nuclear from any proponents of a carbon tax.

None of the current crop of alternate energy production technologies are of any use for volume production.

Only dreamers, greenies, & it would seem politicians could be silly enough to believe they could supply our needs, if they actually did any study on the subject.

If your real interest is in reducing CO2, we can reduce our output from power generation by 30% just by building the latest coal fired systems, & even more by using our new found gas. This is of course of no interest to those proposing a carbon tax.

Their only reason is ideological, & probably a desire to punish the working & middle class for being too prosperous.

For Hasbeen: You obviously don't understand the term, or 'figure of speech' - "horses for courses".

Allow me to make that idiom simpler for you to understand. When I said to Don Aitken;

"Solving the world's energy problems requires a mix - horses for courses"

It's like saying: Nuclear power would not be appropriate for Vanuatu, it could be for Sydney - horses for courses.

The pun might have been somewhat too cerebral to grasp Hasbeen, so let me put it this way:

I think we should adopt nuclear power AND I am a proponent of a carbon tax.

However, I agree with you,

"we can reduce our output from power generation by 30% just by building the latest coal fired systems" (just like China) - but, we don't.

You say building these state of the art coal fired power systems "is of course of no interest to those proposing a carbon tax".

Wrong. Some of the tax revenue raised will be reinvested in new coal fired power stations.

The Australian coal industry is expanding, exports are increasing and applications are being prepared.

Hasbeen, the Australian government won't be shutting down Old King Coal - despite the vacuous and disingenuous remarks (lies by any other term) of 'naysayers', who in travelling Australia-wide, spruik the coal industry will be ruined.

Hasbeen, you say;

"Their only reason is ideological, & probably a desire to punish the working & middle class for being too prosperous."

That is just silly (interesting and revealing monicka by the way).

A very proud old hasbeen, who has has much time to learn quite a lot. As someone might tell you some day, better a hasbeen that the other thing.

If you don't know the UN is out to screw the west to the wall, you are one of those never was.

Qanda, apart from stand alone small systems, supplying isolated communities, the only reason for a mix of generation systems is that your preferred system doesn't stack up economically, or vote buying.

Just like the stupidity of ethanol use in transport fuels, where the cure produces more CO2 than the disease, the same is happening in Hybrid cars, battery cars, & windmills generating electricity, mostly when it's not wanted.

It should be mandatory that all greenies have to learn enough math to be at least able to follow a simple sum. That would cure half the stupidity in the global warming argument.

Again Hasbeen: I have not indicated my "preferred system".

If you want to appreciate what I mean by "mix" - think of the Europe, or the US, or China - for example.
They are not "isolated" as far as I understand.

A few other things:

> Whether things "stack up economically, or vote buying" is the Crux - it has nothing to do with the science.

> I agree with your summation about ethanol and hybrid cars.

> You confuse windmills with wind-turbines - one for flour, one for power.

> Everybody (not just greenies) "should learn enough math to be at least able to follow a simple sum."

> Global warming is real, Hasbeen - it is not stupid (just ask Roy Spencer).

> You believe "the UN is out to screw the West to the wall" - 190 plus countries disagree with your assessment.

> You appear to be changing goal posts - I am not surprised.

Great piece, Nicki!
Helen P