Both radical, extreme sides of this debate are wrong.

If co2 is a problem, an ETS/CPRS is the worst possible solution.

The loony left forget to mention that Malcolm Turnbull used to work for Goldman Sachs. Wall Street invented Carbon Trading so that the rich could steal from the poor. The ETS, (Economic Treason Scheme) & CPRS (Create Poverty Ruthlessly Scheme) have been fiendishly designed to steal from ALL of you & give to the mega rich international bankers.

In the short term co2 emissions will actually increase, and the next GFC, following the next boom will be worse than the current GFC, which has, in America already surpassed the Great Depression. Australia will be uniquely positioned to end up worse than Iceland is now, when GFC2 arrives and your children will be working for Chinese owned mines, as quarrying will be the only industry left in Australia, other than tourism. Those of our children not mining will have the privilege of serving coffee to those international bankers, here to see whats left of the Barrier Reef, IF, the AGW doomsdayer's are correct.

Whats the bet that these same bankers, donate some of their ill gotten gains to red/green/left NGOs, tax deductible of course, and retiring politicians like Bob Brown, Penny Wong & Peter Garrett end up on the board of these well funded, NGOs with fat pay and perks, piously preaching their new religion like television evangelists, to following fools like C J Morgan.

Back to the science. Am i the only Australian to remember GD or Global Dimming. The very same activities that increase CO2, also add smog to the atmosphere, or dust, soot, particulate matter, little microscopic lumps of carbon, etc. This acts like shade cloth, reducing the amount of sunlight entering our atmosphere in the first place, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight which can bounce back or cause the Greenhouse effect.

Back to the economics. Malcolm Turnbull, the responsible minister in Howard's Govt announced the ONLY CO2 reduction so far, the phase out of incandescent light bulbs and all done without an ETS or CPRS.

The name calling continues.
Hands up - who would like some facts ? Bueller ?

I am not interested whether you are one camp or another. All of you have some explaining to do.
The choice boils down to :
Do you deny facts or deny models ?
What's it going to be ?

Facts tend to be very inconvenient sometimes. Which fact are you more likely to respond to ? A confirmed observation, or the fact that a scientist expresses their theory ? Early in the 20th century many scientists supported eugenics, and some politicians tried to apply the theory. Fortunately WW2 resolved the 'debate' in the negative.

Are facts only facts when they are peer reviewed ? On that basis many scientific discoveries would still be waiting.....
Clearly recent climate observations have some way to go to gain traction and destroy/modify existing theories. This is par for the course in science.

On the political front, clearly Rudd is comfortable with hurling a bunch of abuse and then nicking off out the country, yet the so called deniers are the cowards ? The Lowy speech would have to mark an all time low in political discourse coming from a PM. I thought Rudd was going to "govern for all Australians". Nice thought, but I think most would agree it needs a little more application ! Rudd's tirade is not something I would expect in a leader (but maybe in a hightly frustrated/desperate one).

Another question ? Why can't the issue be debated in the open ? Why is it that both sides cannot be put in the same TV studio at the same time, and we'll see which "side" makes more sense ? This has never been done, yet we've been subjected to 10 years of crisis projections without confirmation that the modeling is robust.

Many commenters here are fully supportive of government action on this issue, and seem ready to adopt the governments plan. I have a couple of questions -
1. If you sincerely believe in AGW, what's stopping you from taking your own action on the issue ? Why are you waiting for government to force you ? Must be a pretty weak belief. Maybe you think they'll be something in it for you. Fair enough, but where does that something come from ?

2. Have you read the governments plan ? If it's a plan, does it have an objective ? Does it have a means of measuring progress towards achieving the objective ? Does it have an exit strategy ? ie. when the plan suceeds, there must be a means to deactivate the plan, as success would make the plan redundant.
The silence is deafening on these aspects

Until this data is analysed there should be NO VOTING on any ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System) by the Senate.
Additionally, there should be no negotiation at COPENHAGEN until the veracity of the claims made in the data are verified.
It would be HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE of the Labor Federal Government to do otherwise given the gravity of the implications of what is at stake for the future of Australia in implementing an ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System).
Potentially this may be the Smoking Gun which proves that the population has been conned by all the man made global warming fanaticism.
Remember "The opposite of sceptical is gullible.” The scientific process should always remain open to investigation, which means, “to criticism”.
The Earth's climate is tremendously complex and far from thoroughly understood.

The data I refer to in my previous post is of course the leaked data from a leading climate change research centre in Britain on Friday 20/11/2009.

Read about it here:-

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/its_spreading/desc/

Sorry for the confusion.

The climate is always changing. Global warming is likely linked to loss of arable land where ancient civilizations once lived with ample food. Right now it is human sewage nutrient pollution feeding algae that is smothering and damaging coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Science can not dispprove such reality.

An ETS/CPRS will not save the GBR, proper sewage management will.

Claim that CO2 linked global warming is damaging the GBR provides example of the lies being told.