carbon tax, page-46

No Twoodcock. What I am saying is this is not a numbers game. I am simply disputing the root idea or consensus behind the carbon tax, that science has proved global warming/climate change is caused by man made action. You say it has. I say it hasn't. You say there is a consensus. I say there isn't. I also say that a consensus is not scientific, hence the flat earth analogy. The round earth theory is a consensus but it has enough evidence to support it. I say that anthropogenic global warming doesn't. But it does have a choir of government funded scienctists to support it whereas the sceptic's side pretty much has to financially support there own case. Hence I was using the Exxon millions to the government billions comparisons. I was also using the example of the NZ climate science study that used now proven false historical data to highlight that we have science, and then we have 'science'.

Actually I already believed and still do what MRyan said that this is a beat up from the beginning to enable banksters to make large coin on carbon emissions trading schemes. A commodity class made of hot air that is going to dwarf all other commodity classes. No, I don't believe that our shining knight Al Gore took it upon himself to educate the world on his own environmental concerns out of the goodness of his own heart and it just coincidentally led to a carbon tax and a carbon trading scheme. I believe the idea for a carbon scheme was there already amongst our financial elite before the 'Inconvenient Truth' movie conveniently came out.

I don't dispute that our ice caps are melting and that there are many extreme climactic events happening.

All my opinion only. I will now endeavour to leave this topic alone.