"Er... Pastel Blue, the comment I made about the Maya Prediction was tounge in cheek & not meant to be taken seriously."

Yes I know. My reply was meant to be in the same spirit. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

"Am I in favour of poluting the Atmosphere. NO! But a steady phasing OUT of CO2 producing industry will be great for mankind.
Am I in favour of Alternate Energy sources. YES! But, a "steady" phasing IN of Green Energy will be great for mankind & Big Business.
The optimum word here, being, "STEADY." A win, win situation.

The sudden collapse of the Carbon Industry would be catrostropic for mankind..."

I couldn't agree more.

"Freedom from the power company monopolies is why I advocate for solar energy, not the fear of carbon or climate change."

Hear, hear!

"I will support any government initiatives from either party that makes it easier and cheaper for households to acquire solar energy. If the government is serious about promoting green energy why are they reducing the subsidy or putting time limits on the subsidy?"

Fiscal responsibility? Pressure from the energy companies?

My question is: What is the solution?

MickC, you've hit the nail on the head.

"Everybody is saying this or that about the carbon tax , will it or wont it reduce the CO2 and everybody is still bypassing the main issue, who pollutes?....ITS ALL OF US...."

Population is perhaps the bigger issue. But how long will it take us to deal with population? At a guess, 100 years (3 generations) minimum? If the scientists are right, we don't have that much time.

Turning our attention to the smaller issue of carbon emissions, the fact that it's 'all of us' - i.e. the problem is systemic, means that a systemic solution is required, i.e. a carbon tax. By fiddling with the incentives in the system in order to put downward pressure on carbon-emitting consumption, we can begin a process of reducing the per head carbon emissions now.

Of course, a carbon tax is only part of the solution. There are other things, like encouraging the take-up of solar and wind energy, and the provision of public transport. And of course, population reduction.

Patel Blue said "Some *geologist* from a minor, provincial university has a view on climatology. Good on him, I think that's great. However, I'm betting on the vast majority of *climatologists* being right. Also, even I could see what appears to be a rookie error in his reasoning.

Does this mean the only scientists you will accept are the ones the government accepts. Just because a scientist comes from a smaller university doesn't negate his credibility. You can see a rookie error in his reasoning yet you cannot tell us what that was. By the way, what's your scientific credentials to judge which scientist is right or wrong? Correct me if I'm wrong but Cate Blanchett isn't a scientist either but I'll bet you accept her opinion

PB - "I can also see the rookie error in *your* reasoning: That we should judge the science for ourselves. The majority of the population are simply not in a position to do so. To try to overwhelm the average citizen with a specious piece of scientific argument like that is unreasonable and, frankly, dishonest."

Are you saying the people do not have the right to decide their fate? Are you also against the people being given the opportunity to vote on a carbon tax? Do you even believe in democracy? Maybe you would be in favour if the vote was sure to go your way.

Continuing on the above...

The people will eventually vote on this issue and those who impose an unjustifiable tax on us will be turfed out. Plan on it!

Interpreting your (Pastel Blue) comments... if government scientist with an obvious agenda produces a report, and the government spends millions of dollars selling it, the people should believe it. However, if a fairly unknown scientist expresses an alternative counter theory on YouTube, that's is being unreasonable and dishonest. It seems like in your view (and probably Labour's & the Greens) - the people should not be allowed to see counter arguments on this subject or decide for themselves what they believe is the correct way to go.

It's the Believers who are trying to silence those with opposing views and so far with the media's help, they have done a pretty good job to date. Unfortunately the truth leaked out and the people are expressing their distrust. Why would so many, like myself, who once believed in manmade global warming change their mind? It's because once we saw both sides of the evidence, the naturally occurring cycle makes sense. That doesn't mean we hate the planet but it does justify not supporting a tax or a government that has proven it cannot be trusted with our money.

We live is a democracy and we still have a choice to believe what we want... or would you prefer all the 'deniers' get locked up?

"Does this mean the only scientists you will accept... You can see a rookie error in his reasoning... By the way, what's your scientific credentials to judge which scientist is right or wrong? ...Cate Blanchett isn't a scientist either..."

It means I don't accept the word of one psychologist against the weight of opinion of the entire world of oncologists - not to mention the rest of the medical world - on a question of oncology. Although I myself am not an oncologist nor even a medical student. I was a smoker, but I quit on the advice of medical consensus, in spite of the ranting of deniers. I think most people would see this as sensible.

Just for example, Carter, when convenient for him, assumes a linear relationship between carbon emissions and current temperature.

See? You are already using the 'you-are-not-a-scientist' argument against me when I complain about a single marginal scientist who is ranting against the best advice of his colleagues.

I don't accept Cate Blanchett's *scientific* opinion. I may however be interested in her *political* opinion. Cate Blanchett is a professional communicator not a scientist. Climate scientists are nerds, not communicators. I see no reason why they shouldn't work together to communicate science to ordinary people.

"Are you saying the people do not have the right to decide their fate?..."

Just the opposite. I am saying that ordinary people have the right to decide for themselves and should not be intimidated by so-called 'experts' like Carter.

On voting: Of course I think they should be given an opportunity to vote on a carbon tax. I welcome it. And I am encouraging my fellow citizens to use the opportunity to do the right thing by themselves and not be led astray by rent-seekers and free-loaders and grouches and eccentrics who oppose the carbon tax.