The evidence is not there that conclusively proves our causal role in global warming and do keep in mind the globe cooled last year as Marty reported. This argument that we better act now just in case is one of the most frequent statements used in this debate and it is a good one. However, we must keep in mind that in the face of limited evidence we are looking at huge economic costs here - the carbon tax will be pervasive and long lasting, likely ending up in the control of the UN and out of the hands of our democratic control…

That aside i believe there is a key point here we should all be screaming about - why introduce another tax when there are so many other wonderful options.

Where is our public transport??
Where are the electric cars?? “Who Killed the Electric Car”, a must watch doco.
Why exactly dont we all have solar panels powering our homes? Oh thats right, coal powered lobby groups took our rebate away!!

If we arent doing the most logical things first such as green power - the rest becomes very suspicious in my view.

If we do work on and implement solutions to climate change now and it turns out that the scientific evidence was wrong, all we will have done is to make the environment healthier and cleaner. If, however, we do nothing and it turns out that the scientific evidence was right, it will be too late.

It is true that implementing solutions to combat climate change will involve significant economic and lifestyle changes but it doesn’t matter how economically well off we are we cannot buy what’s not there.

“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.” Cree indian proverb.

I know which chance I am taking.

I don’t doubt global warming - its been happening for 10000 years and seems to be happening on other planets as well as ours.

I have trouble accepting the science that suggests that global warming is man made. The science in this area is flakey and the data is often selected for effect. In many cases, if you choose an alarmists graph and actually find the longer term originals you can see this selectivity. The temperature graphs typically starting in 1950’s or even 1970’s are selective and misleading. A lot of the NASA stuff is also misleading (ie, selective datasets and “accidental” errors). The IPCC - the loudest of the lot - has a vested financial interest.

I’d like to see a reduction in emissions because the smog we live in can’t be healthy. Tumour anyone?

However, I am very concerned that if we spend our financial war chests on combating man-made global warming we will not be in such a good position to counter or adapt to natural global warming.

I am also concerned that the socialist tree-huggers are pushing this issue because these types restrict free speech. “Case Closed” anyone? I’d like to see more analysis on the link between carbon emissions and climate without the shrill screeching of the chicken littles.

At this stage - in my free opinion - man-made global warming requires a lot of faith, where faith is defined as “an irrational belief”.