The climate change proposition was started by green ideologues who assert that global warming is man-induced. The IPCC was set up for the purpose of finding scientific evidence to support this assertion, and.it is staffed predominantly by scientists and others who unquestionably accept the assertion. After 20 years of searching, the IPCC has been unable to come up with any convincing evidence.
Kellie presumably is influenced by the IPCC’s alarmist climate change projections that are derived with the use of computer climate models and quoted widely in the media. She should be aware that none of these models has ever been validated. Consequently, its models cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and the projections can be regarded only as speculative. Further material that seriously questions the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims may be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm , which lists some 50 articles.

Therefore, it is not surprising that scientists with inquisitive minds have challenged the alarmists to table scientific evidence to prove their case. The alarmists have responded with name calling and everything but irrefutable evidence. They have conned many, including the media, politicians and lawyers, into believing that climate change is man-induced.
There is no scientific or economic justification for implementing the socalled carbon pollution reduction scheme policy. The policy is not in the national interest, as it is being driven on unfounded political grounds. The proponents have not even conducted any due diligence.
Global warming, if any, is due to natural processes, and consequently there is no valid rationale for proceeding with the implementation of a CPRS. It follows that the proper human obligation is to adopt a do-nothing policy and adapt to whatever global warming eventuates. To do otherwise would be an absolute waste of resources, and would cause irreparable economic damage in the process.

All we can do is defer to the experts in the matter of climate change, the vast majority of whom say that human induced global warming is a fact. I'm sceptical about carbon trading myself, but only because it evades responsibility. All scientists, as far as I know, acknowledge the uncertainties of climate change; the phenomena is way too complex for accurate modelling. But in any case, the far more compelling reason to act is the moral one. Presumably no one will argue that our natural resources are infinite, or that they are being rapidly depleted. That depletion is a direct result of the conspicuous consumption of wealthy nations, who have maintained their obscene disparity at an enormous cost to the environment--that is to all the other species with whom we ought to share this planet, which we treat as resources to be exploited mercelously, rather than husbanded.

What are our human obligations?
Our obligation is to get some understanding how nature works so that the babies of today will be able to survive and have the best possible life. This with a projected 9 billion people along with depletion of resources on top of a hotter climate and all that entails. To avoid that calamity we will be obliged to understand our world, ourselves and our place in nature. Unfortunately understanding is difficult for many people as most people, who do well, concentrate on knowing whether it’s about spirituality or nature and science. The reason that people don’t bother to understand is it’s easier to remember facts and is the best method of “improving” oneself. But the situation today requires understanding of the physical situation and of our nature as well as the present socioeconomic system.
Kellie Tranter wrote “Competing reports from both sides of the climate change divide confuse the psyche and public paralysis sets in. If everyone has a different view of the way forward, there is no way forward.”
Solving complex problems by partisan determent to win debating issues is bound to create confusion and that result is satisfactory when the intention is public and governmental paralysis.
Kellie also wrote “But even then scepticism and cynicism undoubtedly would find a way of taking hold!” This is the job that journalist do successfully when clarity of an issue would jeopardise their boss’s privileges.