"The planet's fevered condition".. oh, yes, that would be the reason why there's been no global warming in the last ten years and 2008 is the coldest year this century:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
http://tinyurl.com/6a65z9

After an initial period of concern I have come to believe that Rudd may simply be waiting for the public (and his ministers) to wake up to the global warming hoax before committing Australians to economic suffering on its behalf. The 'disappearance' of Peter Garrett is a hopeful sign in this direction.

“In a post-denial world” reminds me of the other AGW alarmist mantra “the science is settled”.

Except that it’s not.

As the previous poster pointed out, the temperature hasn’t increased since 1998 – that’s after ten years of constant increase in CO2!

You and the IPCC have been successful in pulling the wool over people’s eyes, and many politicians and business people, for their own reasons, have gone along with the fraud.

But I’m pleased to say that now the game is up, and you will be shown up for the con artists and spivs that you are.

The scariest thing about this article is its lack of insight. Those who ask that we think twice before wrecking the national economy are fundamentalists? Really? What about those who demand a global warming response which, as this author impliedly concedes, is completely inconsistent with a liberal capitalist economy? They demand that without concern for the massive social upheaval and destruction of economic welfare which must surely accompany such a path.

And those who say "hang on, let's make sure that we don't wreck our economy for a largely symbolic gesture" are said to be the fundamentalists.

The real goal for people such as this author is, in the end, a socialist one. Poor people in the third world should be allowed to keep polluting, because they haven't had their go yet. The planet is either in danger, or it is not.

The point to this argument (assuming there is one) must surely be that pollution has to be reduced. Accepting for the moment that global warming is a real threat, our goal surely has to be to reduce pollution, not export the production of it and get poor in the process. Will adoption of an ETS make any appreciable difference? No. Why? Because those who have to act will not follow our example. They have a sense of entitlement to the economic good fortune countries like ours have already achieved. It's hard to argue with that view, mostly because they wouldn't listen if we did.

The whole issue then comes down to this: do we indulge the social consciences of some to put masses of the poorest out of work and turn a large number of wealthier people poor?

Jon J: "oh, yes, that would be the reason why there's been no global warming in the last ten years and 2008 is the coldest year this century"

Did you actually read the article that you posted a link to? ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
"World heading towards cooler 2008"

.. "The principal reason is La Nina, part of the natural cycle that also includes El Nino, which cools the globe. Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease. "

The artcile goes on toe discuss record-breaking global ice loss. You can see NASAs take on it here too:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

The problem with setting up the economy as the “god who must be revered” is that all other aspects of society are abandoned. A “healthy” economy does not succour better social outcomes and almost certainly the demands of continued growth are wrecking the environment. So complaints that any remedial measure such as the ETS will result in “massive social upheaval and destruction of economic welfare” are spurious; continuing avidly along our current path is far more likely to lead to upheaval and destruction as we abandon any pretence of living within the means of the planet. A healthy economy is based on a healthy society, not the other way round.
There are huge economic opportunities in learning to use our resources more wisely, and if the ETS is only a first attempt at pointing us towards them it is not be excoriated but embraced. Let us deny this society based on fear and rediscover some traditional Aussie “can do” and who knows, we may discover that it is good for our families and our neighbourhood too.

Quite correctly 10 years is too short a time period to decide that
global warming is a non-event.

The point I would make is that if we do go out ahead of the big
economies and reduce our financial resources and global warming happens
anyway we will not have the resources to mitigate the effects of GW.
What we will have done will have zero effect anyway.

We will have squandered it all for absolutely nothing.
I think Brendan Nelson's suggestion is too timid and that there should be
a halt placed onto the start until others at least make a commitment.