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.