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.