On his very first morning as Julia Gillard’s $720,000 carbon tax salesman, Tim Flannery blows the entire scam wide open:

   "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years".
Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-fast-result-in-cuts-flannery/story-e6frg6xf-1226028366173

What a total farce this has all become.  Gillard acts like a raving maniac on Q & A so desperate is she to have her insidious tax grab passed.  Most people know this stinking Carbon Tax is nothing more than a tax grab to fund Labor and the Greens loony, wasteful Policies and has really nothing to do with global warming (oops, the Earth is not warming anymore).  Gillard is so desperate to balance the books after so much of Labor's disastrous, wasteful and mismanaged spending of Taxpayers money.

Will Tim Flannery be told to toe the Labor Party line if he wants to keep his huge tax funded income or will he do a typical Labor backflip and say that he didn't say or mean what he said at the Geelong Forum?

Ju-liar, you have no mandate to introduce this obscenity of a tax.  Haven't you got the guts to hold a new election and let the people decide for themselves?

On another note, tonight will be a fun night watching the NSW Election coverage and I and some of my friends have all our goodies lined up to have a super duper pigout as we watch the downfall of yet another disgraceful Labor Government

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years".

So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!?

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

On his very first morning as Julia Gillard’s $720,000 carbon tax salesman, Tim Flannery blows the entire scam wide open:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-fast-result-in-cuts-flannery/story-e6frg6xf-1226028366173 What a total farce this has all become.  Gillard acts like a raving maniac on Q & A so desperate is she to have her insidious tax grab passed.  Most people know this stinking Carbon Tax is nothing more than a tax grab to fund Labor and the Greens loony, wasteful Policies and has really nothing to do with global warming (oops, the Earth is not warming anymore).  Gillard is so desperate to balance the books after so much of Labor's disastrous, wasteful and mismanaged spending of Taxpayers money. Will Tim Flannery be told to toe the Labor Party line if he wants to keep his huge tax funded income or will he do a typical Labor backflip and say that he didn't say or mean what he said at the Geelong Forum? Ju-liar, you have no mandate to introduce this obscenity of a tax.  Haven't you got the guts to hold a new election and let the people decide for themselves? On another note, tonight will be a fun night watching the NSW Election coverage and I and some of my friends have all our goodies lined up to have a super duper pigout as we watch the downfall of yet another disgraceful Labor Government I hope you are going to turn all your lights out for earth hour sandy   ;)

oh gawd $720.000 pa no wonder she wants the Carbon Tax...

good on him he wont have the job for long.. and that will spell out everything we from the right already know about this govt..

what ever talkback says is the go.. oh and booby of course..he is like one of these cult leaders I always find..

."its believe me.. its what I say that counts not what I do..."

he would have to be the biggest hypocrite in the parliament..

jumping on planes and into limos at the drtop of a hat.. bet he has his aircon going 24/7...

havent seen solar or a windmill on top of parliament house yet..

my goodness they are taking their time..maybe they dont like the look of them offends their eyes..

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!?

AND WHY NOT ;D ;D ;D ;D

No fast result in cuts: Flannery Mitchell Nadin, Stuart Rintoul From: The Australian March 26, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share
Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?THE Gillard government's chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years.
Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists.

In an interview with Macquarie Radio yesterday, Professor Flannery told hosts Steve Price and Andrew Bolt that if Australia achieved its aim of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases on 2000 levels, it would have a negligible short- or even medium-term impact on world temperatures.

"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years," he said.

Professor Flannery leads the Climate Change Commission, an organisation created by the Gillard government charged with "leading public dialogue covering the science of climate change, how climate change may affect Australia, how carbon pricing could interact with the Australian economy, and what other countries are already doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageTax to make no difference to climate Herald Sun, 9 hours ago
Black pall over Labor carbon tax Courier Mail, 9 Mar 2011
Flannery quits as climate body chief Courier Mail, 5 Mar 2011
Where's Tim? The Australian, 3 Mar 2011
Tim Flannery The Australian, 15 Feb 2011
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The commission is currently in Geelong, 75km southwest of Melbourne, the first of many host towns to hold discussion forums.

In the interview, Professor Flannery said he was not there to offer comfort to employees or talk about the carbon tax, but added he would speak about the broader economics of the situation.

Professor Flannery also admitted that the Prime Minister had incorrectly stated that her side of the argument was "backed by every reputable climate scientist in the world". He agreed that there were reputable scientists who did not necessarily believe in the science of climate change.

But Professor Flannery said doing nothing risked "triggering a change we can't control".

Before last night's forum, Professor Flannery had compared climate change deniers to flat Earth believers and said the level of debate on the issue in Australia showed "a lot of heat, but not much light".

Speaking to The Weekend Australian, he also defended the lack of a climate change sceptic on the federal government's new commission, saying deniers were not sceptical enough to allow for the possibility of climate change.

"Climate deniers say they know the future; they know what will happen; the climate isn't changing. That is not a scientific way of approaching things," he said.

About 500 people attended last night's forum, in an industry and trade-exposed city, filling the town hall to standing room.

At one point, a man in the audience asked how much he had profited from years of "scaremongering and alarmist false predictions", but it was an isolated comment and Professor Flannery was applauded when he replied that what was needed was a clear and level-headed discussio.

;D ;D ;D ;D

TIM Flannery, an expert in bones, has made a fortune from books and lectures warning that we face global warming doom. He scared us so well that we last year made him Australian of the Year.
In March, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

In fact, Adelaide’s reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.

In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”.

In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane’s wettest spring in 27 years.

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in just two years.

In fact, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951.

In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”.

In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the city’s wettest November in 17 years.

Maeve wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:08am:

TIM Flannery, an expert in bones, has made a fortune from books and lectures warning that we face global warming doom. He scared us so well that we last year made him Australian of the Year. In March, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” In fact, Adelaide’s reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009. In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”. In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane’s wettest spring in 27 years. In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in just two years. In fact, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951. In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”. In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the city’s wettest November in 17 years.

ONLY 1000  YEARS  LOL ;D ;D ;D[/color]

LOL...at the bizarre habit of right whingers of engaging in endlessly-self-contradictory doublethink...

I see the right attack the man and not the science.....Flannery was honest and did a great job in conveying the need to act on climate change....I see no argument from the right that contradicts the science!!!


Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

How many astro turfers do you think we have?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

How many astro turfers do you think we have?

whats an astro turfer smithy??


as it happens I see no one from the hardleft is game to contradict the Australian of the Year...lol...

just attack the messenger.. oh well no one from the right will be surprised about that...nem is still giving her vote to the Labs in NSW hysterical..I would rather vote for my dog and he sleeps 23 hours a day.. and poops the rest.. sound familiar????.. lol.


anyway smithy never heard of astro turfer fill me in so I know what you guys are all talking about.

Sandy, I think you simply misunderstood what he said. To be clear, he did not say we would have no influence on the climate.

Ah, you lefties don't get it do you?  What a laugh you are.  A passenger in the taxi I drive only said yesterday that the weather is very changeable lately, and I said, "don't worry, Gillard's tax will fix everything".  The climate goddess will look down on Australia, see that we are being taxed to the hilt and then put a stop to the shenanigans and give us perfect weather.  Did we have a good laugh.  But..............Flannery now tells us that we will have to wait for at least 1000 yrs for it to happen.  This gets more ludicrous every day..................but party on Labor and destroy your credibility even further.  Wait on, has Labor ever had any real credibility other than lies, deception, waste and mismanagement? ::)

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Sandy, I think you simply misunderstood what he said. To be clear, he did not say we would have no influence on the climate.

sorry FD.. but who in the hell would be game to predict what will take place in 1000 years from now...even 50 yrs is a big ask..

I think this was a PANIC BUTTON push by some who were hoping to get PANIC votes..and its now on a rollercoaster ride from hell.. and they cannot get off it.. it has gone feral as they say..

you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next.

we, our management! is trying to find a way of TAXing the miners because they have run out of options. we are taxed to the hilt and they know it... so they need to look at other options they think this will be popular with us all.. thats all.

booby is probably scratching his head and wondering why so many are not that way inclined

cods wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:30am: How many astro turfers do you think we have? whats an astro turfer smithy?? as it happens I see no one from the hardleft is game to contradict the Australian of the Year...lol... just attack the messenger.. oh well no one from the right will be surprised about that...nem is still giving her vote to the Labs in NSW hysterical..I would rather vote for my dog and he sleeps 23 hours a day.. and poops the rest.. sound familiar????.. lol. anyway smithy never heard of astro turfer fill me in so I know what you guys are all talking about.

Quote:

Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual promoting a personal agenda, or highly organized professional groups with money from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often, the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research. Beneficiaries are not "grass root" campaigners but distant organizations that orchestrate such campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Sandy, I think you simply misunderstood what he said. To be clear, he did not say we would have no influence on the climate.......freediver

Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke.  Maybe the planet's population of about 6.9 billion which is estimated to rise to about 9 billion in the not too distant future might have something to do with it, maybe not.  The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing, ever heard of such things as sun spots and the like?

GILLARD'S CARBON TAX IS NOTHING BUT A SCAM TO RAISE MORE MONEY TO HELP PAY OFF LABOR'S GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTRY'S FINANCES. Anyone with half a brain can see that

Quote:

you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next.

Cods, you misunderstood it to. He is not changing his mind. Try reading again what he actually said, rather than letting your imagination go wild with what you think he said.


Quote:

Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke.

Fortunately our economists stick to reality. A tax will have an impact on our emissions, and it will do less harm to our economy than any other mechanism.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:16am:

Quote: you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next. Cods, you misunderstood it to. He is not changing his mind. Try reading again what he actually said, rather than letting your imagination go wild with what you think he said. [quote]Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke.

Fortunately our economists stick to reality. A tax will have an impact on our emissions, and it will do less harm to our economy than any other mechanism.[/quote]

Good luck FD
100's have tried in all sorts of ways but until Tony is PM and says he wants a carbon tax it will not be so.
Of course if that ever came about they would then critise labor for not doing enough on such an important issue ;)

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

Sandy, I think you simply misunderstood what he said. To be clear, he did not say we would have no influence on the climate.......freediver Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke.  Maybe the planet's population of about 6.9 billion which is estimated to rise to about 9 billion in the not too distant future might have something to do with it, maybe not.  The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing, ever heard of such things as sun spots and the like? GILLARD'S CARBON TAX IS NOTHING BUT A SCAM TO RAISE MORE MONEY TO HELP PAY OFF LABOR'S GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTRY'S FINANCES. Anyone with half a brain can see that

What a croc of shyte - policy of the Libs is to SPEND UP BIG on 'direct' measures and therefore the Libs will have to find the money from somewhere - either through increased taxes and/or reduced expenditure...

Since the Libs also seem hell-bent on worshiping the economic irrationalist doGma of lowering corporate and high-end income taxes, the cost will be disproportionately-borne by those who the Libs currently seek to hoodwink...

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

GILLARD'S CARBON TAX IS NOTHING BUT A SCAM TO RAISE MORE MONEY TO HELP PAY OFF LABOR'S GROSS MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTRY'S FINANCES. Anyone with half a brain can see that

The one thing I would like explained -

If you put a carbon tax on Australian manufacturers of carbon intensive products - such as steel for example - but you don't place any carbon related restriction on imported carbon intensive products from countries which don't have any controls - how is that beneficial to either Australia or the environment?

What you end up doing is making it more expensive for AUS manufacturers and harder for them to compete against their overseas competitors?

In fact Australian manufacturers may well be more carbon efficient than say the Indian steel makers - yet no restriction is in place on them - so in Australia we could very well be contributing to increased carbon emissions in the world?

Is this not a valid point?

Just wondering what supporters of this carbon tax feel about no restriction on incoming products from manufacturers subject to no controls at all.

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!?

what claims are they and where are the proof other than some loosely constructed OBSERVATIONS on a temperature gauge

There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens)

Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

But it will cost Australian manufacturing jobs and increase the cost of living to Australian families.

Sounds a winner doesn't it?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

Doing nothing will not prevent global warming.....Australia is committed to cutting its carbon output just like other countries.....How we make these cuts is what the debate is about.....Australia needs to decide what mechanism it will use to make the required cuts and work towards that goal using a combination of renewable options!!!


:)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:53am: There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Doing nothing will not prevent global warming.....Australia is committed to cutting its carbon output just like other countries.....How we make these cuts is what the debate is about.....Australia needs to decide what mechanism it will use to make the required cuts and work towards that goal using a combination of renewable options!!! :)

Phil, I know you are a supporter of a carbon tax.
Do you want to address my concerns in the above post about imports?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

But it will cost Australian manufacturing jobs and increase the cost of living to Australian families. Sounds a winner doesn't it?

Gillard said on qanda that it will help families at the Supermarket ie making those products will a higher carbon footprint more expensive therefore we will choose cheaper ones

But she failed to tell us the cheaper ones are usually from China - which CLEARLY has a higher carbon footprint

And if you continue to select Chinese made products then you will drive Australian manufacturing offshore

In addition - as Australian products become more expensive due to the tax Australian exports will decrease

How many in the overseas market actually make a purchase decision based on carbon footprint? And if there are any - will this sustain Australian exports? NO!!

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Doing nothing will not prevent global warming.....Australia is committed to cutting its carbon output just like other countries.....How we make these cuts is what the debate is about.....Australia needs to decide what mechanism it will use to make the required cuts and work towards that goal using a combination of renewable options!!! :)

Doing SOMETHING will not prevent global warming either

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:00am: Doing nothing will not prevent global warming.....Australia is committed to cutting its carbon output just like other countries.....How we make these cuts is what the debate is about.....Australia needs to decide what mechanism it will use to make the required cuts and work towards that goal using a combination of renewable options!!! :) Doing SOMETHING will not prevent global warming either

All countries will be expected to meet there obligation.....Australia is committed to meet its obligation no matter which party is in power.....The debate needs to be about what is the best mechanism to reduce our carbon output in Australia.....your argument is irrelevant.....Action will be taken and it will cost a great deal of money no matter who is in power...Your views are not represented by any political party in this country!!!


;)

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

True.
But the reality is even more risible. Only about half of the population will effectively pay more, the other half will be compensated. Eithr way, it will make no difference to he climate.

Flannery, like all the other 'climate commissioners' doesn't know what he is talking about, so he comes up with wilde guesses, like
"Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed ...

The atmosphere has 0.037% CO2 in it, up from 0.032 fifty years ago.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif

Let's reduce the scale to better see how dramatic it really is.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-1.gif


I am scared.

Humanity is on a self-destructive course to receive premature Darwin Awards en masse...whilst ever a small group of amoral, wealthy and powerful people and corporations can get away with profiting from confounding the issues and spuriously-separating their destructive actions from the scientific evidence...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:00am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:53am: There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Doing nothing will not prevent global warming.....Australia is committed to cutting its carbon output just like other countries.....How we make these cuts is what the debate is about.....Australia needs to decide what mechanism it will use to make the required cuts and work towards that goal using a combination of renewable options!!! :) Phil, I know you are a supporter of a carbon tax. Do you want to address my concerns in the above post about imports?

I deal with facts Andrei not scare mongering......You should know that by now.....I will comment when the details of the policy are released and I hear what the impact will be....The government has already stated that affected industries will be compensated.....I see no reason to start sprucing fear and mistrust until we see what is actually offered in the detail!!!


:)

Equitist

Yes the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration should be of great concern to all life forms on the Planet Earth.

As these NON-SPINNED, NON-POLITICISED plots clearly show
http://aim.hamptonu.edu/library/p7hg_img_2/fullsize/co2graph_fs.jpg
http://www.scambs.gov.uk/images/southcambridgeshiredistrictcouncil/GraphCO2.gif

Quote:

If you put a carbon tax on Australian manufacturers of carbon intensive products - such as steel for example - but you don't place any carbon related restriction on imported carbon intensive products from countries which don't have any controls - how is that beneficial to either Australia or the environment?

That is not the plan.


Quote:

Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account.

CO2 rises are a real worry
http://www.scambs.gov.uk/images/southcambridgeshiredistrictcouncil/GraphCO2.gif

......"Anti-climate-change opinion gets a lot of gut level support by confusing the planet with our world. The planet is 4.6 billion years old; heavy industry started 200 years ago. "Two hundred years versus four and a half billion years and we have the conceit to think we are a threat," joked the late US satirist, George Carlin. He's right: our carbon emissions won't kill the planet. But human-caused climate change will alter the world we depend on for survival. (It's worth remembering that the so-called "climate-change controversy" is in the press, not the academic journals.)

On the opposite side, sustainable living is painted as a duty that's "good for the planet". No, the planet's fine. It's good for us. It's not a moral issue, but a survival issue, and that should galvanise us."


".....talking about the world not the planet changes how we see our role here. In "saving the planet", humanity gives itself the role of custodian. It implies that the planet is ours to use. And that's exactly the attitude that got us into this mess.
If we want to save our world, then we need to remember that it is many communities, not just of human beings, but of plants and animals (ecosystems). Instead of behaving like citizens, we've behaved like consumers. Even the projects to change our behaviour still frame us as consumers.

This is unsurprising, since we've reframed the whole idea of citizenship as a commercial relationship. There's a crucial difference between being a "taxpayer" (a consumer) and a citizen, a member of society, contributing. Governments referring to its citizens as "clients" is equally wrong: a government is not a service provider in the same sense. This consumer approach to democracy encourages passive citizenship"


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45632.html\

We won't kill the planet, just our world

Global economic forces are destroying our manufacturing base - with the tacit consent of politicians of all toxic flavours!

Manufacturing has been in terminal decline for decades - and we would be wise to couple our carbon-constrained economic restructuring to incorporate a sustainable manufacturing base (even if that requires dreaded subsidies and concessions)...

If someone gives me two bob I'll go out & get a dozen Flim Flammeries.

Encore: -


wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

......"Anti-climate-change opinion gets a lot of gut level support by confusing the planet with our world. The planet is 4.6 billion years old; heavy industry started 200 years ago. "Two hundred years versus four and a half billion years and we have the conceit to think we are a threat," joked the late US satirist, George Carlin. He's right: our carbon emissions won't kill the planet. But human-caused climate change will alter the world we depend on for survival. (It's worth remembering that the so-called "climate-change controversy" is in the press, not the academic journals.) On the opposite side, sustainable living is painted as a duty that's "good for the planet". No, the planet's fine. It's good for us. It's not a moral issue, but a survival issue, and that should galvanise us." ".....talking about the world not the planet changes how we see our role here. In "saving the planet", humanity gives itself the role of custodian. It implies that the planet is ours to use. And that's exactly the attitude that got us into this mess. If we want to save our world, then we need to remember that it is many communities, not just of human beings, but of plants and animals (ecosystems). Instead of behaving like citizens, we've behaved like consumers. Even the projects to change our behaviour still frame us as consumers. This is unsurprising, since we've reframed the whole idea of citizenship as a commercial relationship. There's a crucial difference between being a "taxpayer" (a consumer) and a citizen, a member of society, contributing. Governments referring to its citizens as "clients" is equally wrong: a government is not a service provider in the same sense. This consumer approach to democracy encourages passive citizenship" http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45632.html\ We won't kill the planet, just our world

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:25am:

Quote: Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account.

I made the original post with the 6,910,000,000 reference to show that Labor DID NOT take the global situation in hand

You seem to deliberately left out this 6,910,000,000 so you can convince us the ALP gave it considerations

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

Further to this post....

we have 6,910,000,000 carbon emitting humans

environmentalists can't tell me in percentage terms how much humans contribute to it

what if these 6,910,000,000 carbon emitting humans only represent 1% of the total carbon emissions on Earth?

even if ALL of the 6,910,000,000 are wiped out it would not stop global warming

Summary

6,910,000,000 = 1% of ALL carbon emissions

Does anyone know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere?

0.01% to 0.1%
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/912_liftoff_atm.html

in percentage terms how much of this 0.01% to 0.1% do humans contribute to?

so equitists and ALL others - YOU HAVE NO PROOF other than some loose observations on some temperature gauge

so Gillard wants to
(1) tax 21,000,000 Australians which only contributes 1.2% to the 6,910,000,000 polluters
(2) which represents potentially 1% to carbon dioxide which only makes up between 0.01% to 0.1% of the atmosphere
(3) All this costing Australians billions $$$$$ a year for thousands of years

FOR WHAT?

so 21 million Australians can win some moral argument against the other 6 billion around the world??!!

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:16am:

Quote: you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next. Cods, you misunderstood it to. He is not changing his mind. Try reading again what he actually said, rather than letting your imagination go wild with what you think he said. [quote]Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke.

Fortunately our economists stick to reality.
A tax will have an impact on our emissions,
and it will do less harm to our economy than any other mechanism.[/quote]

That's not correct, they stick to their perceptions of how they think things should be, which is currently, not reality!

The proposed Carbon tax, will not significantly affect our GHG emissions, particularly not if the Population continues to grow at levels suggested by both the Labs & the libs!

IF any significant GHG reductions are to be forthcoming, then they will have to be from Legislated annual reductions, with TAX Credits for achieving those reductions & Debit for Non- achievement!

By far, the greatest harm to our Australian & the Global Economy, will come from TPTB/POLITICIANS and their attempts to continue with the status quo or business as usual!

While it may be admirable for someone like Tim Flannery, to try and create a more balanced, and conciliatory, approach to how we discuss  the issues surrounding  Climate Change, the wilful misinterpretation of what he actually said, shows us that the position of the, hard core, denialist camp is rooted in adversarial extremism.

Only the most extreme could interpret his words as exposing AGW as a scam, and the sad truth is that their views are inspired by, and rooted in, strict obeisance to a particular political ideology.
Because of that, as another poster here already pointed out, they will oppose any, and all Climate Action, until someone from their own side of politics proposes it, so we must hope that people like Tim Flannery can inspire some of those politicians to have a closer look at the science involved, and begin to appreciate the sense behind mitigating our risk exposure.

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

Humanity is on a self-destructive course to receive premature Darwin Awards en masse...whilst ever a small group of amoral, wealthy and powerful people and corporations can get away with profiting from confounding the issues and spuriously-separating their destructive actions from the scientific evidence...

ANYTHING against which this passes for an argument has my vote.

wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

......"Anti-climate-change opinion gets a lot of gut level support by confusing the planet with our world. The planet is 4.6 billion years old; heavy industry started 200 years ago. "Two hundred years versus four and a half billion years and we have the conceit to think we are a threat," joked the late US satirist, George Carlin. He's right: our carbon emissions won't kill the planet. But human-caused climate change will alter the world we depend on for survival. (It's worth remembering that the so-called "climate-change controversy" is in the press, not the academic journals.) On the opposite side, sustainable living is painted as a duty that's "good for the planet". No, the planet's fine. It's good for us. It's not a moral issue, but a survival issue, and that should galvanise us." ".....talking about the world not the planet changes how we see our role here. In "saving the planet", humanity gives itself the role of custodian. It implies that the planet is ours to use. And that's exactly the attitude that got us into this mess. If we want to save our world, then we need to remember that it is many communities, not just of human beings, but of plants and animals (ecosystems). Instead of behaving like citizens, we've behaved like consumers. Even the projects to change our behaviour still frame us as consumers. This is unsurprising, since we've reframed the whole idea of citizenship as a commercial relationship. There's a crucial difference between being a "taxpayer" (a consumer) and a citizen, a member of society, contributing. Governments referring to its citizens as "clients" is equally wrong: a government is not a service provider in the same sense. This consumer approach to democracy encourages passive citizenship" http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45632.html\ We won't kill the planet, just our world

This is cute. But we 'killed our world, when we learned to use fire. We killed our world when we learned to navigate the seas. We killed our world when we started agricyulture and then a few thousand years later, industry.

About other 'communities, not just of human beings'. I don't think viruses, bacteria, algae, noxious weeds, cancer cells etc have ever heard of this.  I think you'd better get out there and educate them.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me why its a good idea to have a carbon tax on products made by Australian manufacturers but there will be no tax on imports made from a much more carbon intensive process?

How is that good for

a) Australia
b) World pollution

Answers on a postcard - or on here.

In a scientific dictatorship, the regime becomes a legitimate target being outlaw murderous gagsters as per NAZI Germans and Stalinist Russia. 8-)

I condemn all outlaws and murderers of the innocent. :P

FRED. wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:07am:

Equitist wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:03am: sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!? AND WHY NOT ;D ;D ;D ;D No fast result in cuts: Flannery Mitchell Nadin, Stuart Rintoul From: The Australian March 26, 2011 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these?THE Gillard government's chief promoter of the climate change debate has admitted even a global effort to cut carbon emissions would not lower temperatures for up to 1000 years. Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery also said Julia Gillard was wrong in saying there were no respected climate-sceptic scientists. In an interview with Macquarie Radio yesterday, Professor Flannery told hosts Steve Price and Andrew Bolt that if Australia achieved its aim of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases on 2000 levels, it would have a negligible short- or even medium-term impact on world temperatures. "If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years," he said. Professor Flannery leads the Climate Change Commission, an organisation created by the Gillard government charged with "leading public dialogue covering the science of climate change, how climate change may affect Australia, how carbon pricing could interact with the Australian economy, and what other countries are already doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related CoverageTax to make no difference to climate Herald Sun, 9 hours ago Black pall over Labor carbon tax Courier Mail, 9 Mar 2011 Flannery quits as climate body chief Courier Mail, 5 Mar 2011 Where's Tim? The Australian, 3 Mar 2011 Tim Flannery The Australian, 15 Feb 2011 .End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. The commission is currently in Geelong, 75km southwest of Melbourne, the first of many host towns to hold discussion forums. In the interview, Professor Flannery said he was not there to offer comfort to employees or talk about the carbon tax, but added he would speak about the broader economics of the situation. Professor Flannery also admitted that the Prime Minister had incorrectly stated that her side of the argument was "backed by every reputable climate scientist in the world". He agreed that there were reputable scientists who did not necessarily believe in the science of climate change. But Professor Flannery said doing nothing risked "triggering a change we can't control". Before last night's forum, Professor Flannery had compared climate change deniers to flat Earth believers and said the level of debate on the issue in Australia showed "a lot of heat, but not much light". Speaking to The Weekend Australian, he also defended the lack of a climate change sceptic on the federal government's new commission, saying deniers were not sceptical enough to allow for the possibility of climate change. "Climate deniers say they know the future; they know what will happen; the climate isn't changing. That is not a scientific way of approaching things," he said. About 500 people attended last night's forum, in an industry and trade-exposed city, filling the town hall to standing room. At one point, a man in the audience asked how much he had profited from years of "scaremongering and alarmist false predictions", but it was an isolated comment and Professor Flannery was applauded when he replied that what was needed was a clear and level-headed discussio. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Tony Abbott would laugh at you so hard!  :'( :'( :'(

Prevailing wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:33pm:

In a scientific dictatorship, the regime becomes a legitimate target being outlaw murderous gagsters as per NAZI Germans and Stalinist Russia. 8-) I condemn all outlaws and murderers of the innocent. :P

Were you at the rally????


Quote:

One placard held directly behind Abbott's head read: ''UN IMF global government. Agenda 21 Genocide''. That, if you are wondering, is the cry of the fruit loops who believe the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have hatched a fiendish scheme to abolish democratic nation states, and that the UN's Agenda 21 for sustainable world development is, yes, a plot to kill us all.

In a scientific dictatorship the regime becomes a legitimate target like the NAZIs and can be morally taken out.  I condemn scientific dictatorship as reprehensible and   genuine threat to the innocent, to freedom and civilization. 8-)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

I am still waiting for someone to tell me why its a good idea to have a carbon tax on products made by Australian manufacturers but there will be no tax on imports made from a much more carbon intensive process?

It would be wacist. It is sooo typical of you to be insensitive to this.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:53am: There are 6,910,000,000 people in the world (give an take a few Greens) Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Further to this post.... we have 6,910,000,000 carbon emitting humans environmentalists can't tell me in percentage terms how much humans contribute to it what if these 6,910,000,000 carbon emitting humans only represent 1% of the total carbon emissions on Earth? even if ALL of the 6,910,000,000 are wiped out it would not stop global warming Summary 6,910,000,000 = 1% of ALL carbon emissions Does anyone know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? 0.01% to 0.1% http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/912_liftoff_atm.html in percentage terms how much of this 0.01% to 0.1% do humans contribute to? so equitists and ALL others - YOU HAVE NO PROOF other than some loose observations on some temperature gauge so Gillard wants to (1) tax 21,000,000 Australians which only contributes 1.2% to the 6,910,000,000 polluters (2) which represents potentially 1% to carbon dioxide which only makes up between 0.01% to 0.1% of the atmosphere (3) All this costing Australians billions $$$$$ a year for thousands of years FOR WHAT? so 21 million Australians can win some moral argument against the other 6 billion around the world??!!

Mate, I would walk straight out of Harvey norman if I got you!

 ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)

You're a joke!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:

Mate, I would walk straight out of Harvey norman if I got you!  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) You're a joke!

Make a nice change to being thrown out for shop-lifting though won't it?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 1:06pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:49pm: Mate, I would walk straight out of Harvey norman if I got you!  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) You're a joke! Make a nice change to being thrown out for shop-lifting though won't it?

Why don't you go and make your greed breed some more bodybags girly man!??!  8-) ::)

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!?

I laughed one boobie off at that one.  The pinnacle of the "useless comment".   ;D ;D ;D

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Equitist wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:03am: sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!? I laughed one boobie off at that one.  The pinnacle of the "useless comment".   ;D ;D ;D

Please stop grossing the online community off their weetbix!

Please stop grossing the online community off their weetbix!

yuk!

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!?

Actually Thy, it's a statement well worth jumping on......It removes the artificial urgency to act 'yesterday' and highlights the fallacy behind the various emissions trading schemes and the carbon tax...

If any result, like reducing the temperatures (which are currently below optimum for human life,btw), is going to take 200 to 1000 years, then there is in fact 'time' to change over from our current power and industry system to an alternative system...

We can really 'phase out' fossil power gradually, and replace it with other things, like Thorium Reactors etc, and STILL spend time on R&D for solar and Fusion power...

Who knows, if we work at it long enough, we might even get solar up above 35% effective???

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 1:41pm: Equitist wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:03am: sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!? I laughed one boobie off at that one.  The pinnacle of the "useless comment".   ;D ;D ;D Please stop grossing the online community off their weetbix! Please stop grossing the online community off their weetbix! yuk!

You should have finished your breakfast by now slowbie.

None of the above postulations changes the fact the Tim Flannery is really the flim flam man hired by Gillard to sell an obnoxious, Australian destroying tax that will do practically zilch climate wise.  Propaganda at it's worst as Gillard and her crumby lot will find out sooner rather than later

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

None of the above postulations changes the fact the Tim Flannery is really the flim flam man hired by Gillard to sell an obnoxious, Australian destroying tax that will do practically zilch climate wise.  Propaganda at it's worst as Gillard and her crumby lot will find out sooner rather than later

But they won't care...because they'll be able to go to the next election crowing about a budget surplus........which is the whole point behind the carbon tax..MONEY...

But they won't care...because they'll be able to go to the next election crowing about a budget surplus........which is the whole point behind the carbon tax..MONEY...
__________________

That's what it is really all about gizmo.............."Climate change" (yet another name change from the original "Global Warming" mantra) is just the vehicle the red bimbo and cohorts are using to create a whopping new TAX.  The whole thing is a SCAM just as 'Rudd's -"the greatest moral challenge of our time''  mantra was a scam.  

Penny Wong - Speech to AIG luncheon 6th February 2008:

“The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore” and “There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.”

Penny Wong – The Australian 23rd February 2009:

“A Carbon Tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.”

A carbon tax is “A recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target, each time subjecting these adjustments to the inherent uncertainties embedded in the political process.”

So it seems that not only the Libs but also Labor have divided camps and yet it is the Libs who always get attacked.  Why is that I wonder?  At the moment, Gillard is spouting one thing (mostly a huge, huge lie/s, Flannery is contradicting her, Garnout is out to make himself big money along with all the other greedy parasites, which includes Malcolm Turnbull it seems, and yet, the majority of people on here will swear black is white and will not be swayed from their brainwashed mindset, just because it is LABOR who is proposing the Carbon Tax.

Now just suppose that this monstrosity comes into being, how the dickens do you lefties think that Labor will be able to implement the huge changes necessary, knowing their history of mismanagement & waste and excessive rorts?  Dream on if you think Labor are up to the task.  A bunch of union thugs, a janitor, commies and pedeophiles, two balmy Independents along with the freaky Christine Milne, Sarah thingo and other assorted mis-fits are behind all of this rot.

Our debt is around $200 BILLION AND RISING, that's the real reason behind the Carbon Tax and people are waking up to that fact, much to your chagrin.

Instead of taxing the life out of Australia to supposedly help reduce pollution, (Co2 is NOT a pollutant), why not introduce big tax incentives to big polluting companies instead?  That's not on with Labor is it?  Labor needs money because the coffers have run dry

How can you suggest that a Carbon Tax is all (or even mostly) about 'money'/revenue!?

Kindly elaborate upon your gross revenue and expenditure assumptions...

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

How can you suggest that a Carbon Tax is all (or even mostly) about 'money'/revenue!? Kindly elaborate upon your gross revenue and expenditure assumptions...

You really need someone to explain it to you?????

WOW....

Ok, here's the translation...ANY business that faces a 'small' or 'medium' increase in production costs will simply pass those costs onto the consumers, correct?? E.G...if the price of milk from producers( the people who actually milk the cows) increases by 0.02c per litre...then the price of milk to the consumer increases by 'AT LEAST' 0.02c per litre....

So WHY if the cost of producing a MW of electricity increase by $X dollars per MW, won't the cost per MW to the electricity consumer also rise by $X dollars per MW????

Net result, the government 'collects' the $X dollar tax on Carbon, and the company simply passes the 'tax' on to the consumers...

There is zero incentive to any producer (like a steel manufacturer or an electricity maunfacturer) to spend millions or billions of dollars to rebuild or modify their infrastructure when they can simply up the price and recover the extra tax from the downstream consumers....

And so, the 'polluters' still pollute, the Government gets extra money and poor suckers, like US, pay the difference....

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

Prevailing wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:33pm: In a scientific dictatorship, the regime becomes a legitimate target being outlaw murderous gagsters as per NAZI Germans and Stalinist Russia. 8-) I condemn all outlaws and murderers of the innocent. :P Were you at the rally???? Quote: One placard held directly behind Abbott's head read: ''UN IMF global government. Agenda 21 Genocide''. That, if you are wondering, is the cry of the fruit loops who believe the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have hatched a fiendish scheme to abolish democratic nation states, and that the UN's Agenda 21 for sustainable world development is, yes, a plot to kill us all.

Agenda 21 is a blue print for scientific dictatorship and genocide - these people are dangerous extremist maniacs.

Prevailing wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:33pm: In a scientific dictatorship, the regime becomes a legitimate target being outlaw murderous gagsters as per NAZI Germans and Stalinist Russia. 8-) I condemn all outlaws and murderers of the innocent. :P Were you at the rally???? Quote: One placard held directly behind Abbott's head read: ''UN IMF global government. Agenda 21 Genocide''. That, if you are wondering, is the cry of the fruit loops who believe the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have hatched a fiendish scheme to abolish democratic nation states, and that the UN's Agenda 21 for sustainable world development is, yes, a plot to kill us all. Agenda 21 is a blue print for scientific dictatorship and genocide - these people are dangerous extremist maniacs.

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/Certifiably_Insane___Blank_by_Mearu.jpg

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:28am:

I see the right attack the man and not the science.....Flannery was honest and did a great job in conveying the need to act on climate change....I see no argument from the right that contradicts the science!!! Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

and it doesnt concern you that almost every word he sprouts is proved wrong? every prediction he has made for the near future has failed miserably.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:25am:

Quote: If you put a carbon tax on Australian manufacturers of carbon intensive products - such as steel for example - but you don't place any carbon related restriction on imported carbon intensive products from countries which don't have any controls - how is that beneficial to either Australia or the environment? That is not the plan. [quote]Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming

Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account.[/quote]

do you SERIOUSLY believe that?

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:35am:

Encore: - wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:28am: ......"Anti-climate-change opinion gets a lot of gut level support by confusing the planet with our world. The planet is 4.6 billion years old; heavy industry started 200 years ago. "Two hundred years versus four and a half billion years and we have the conceit to think we are a threat," joked the late US satirist, George Carlin. He's right: our carbon emissions won't kill the planet. But human-caused climate change will alter the world we depend on for survival. (It's worth remembering that the so-called "climate-change controversy" is in the press, not the academic journals.) On the opposite side, sustainable living is painted as a duty that's "good for the planet". No, the planet's fine. It's good for us. It's not a moral issue, but a survival issue, and that should galvanise us." ".....talking about the world not the planet changes how we see our role here. In "saving the planet", humanity gives itself the role of custodian. It implies that the planet is ours to use. And that's exactly the attitude that got us into this mess. If we want to save our world, then we need to remember that it is many communities, not just of human beings, but of plants and animals (ecosystems). Instead of behaving like citizens, we've behaved like consumers. Even the projects to change our behaviour still frame us as consumers. This is unsurprising, since we've reframed the whole idea of citizenship as a commercial relationship. There's a crucial difference between being a "taxpayer" (a consumer) and a citizen, a member of society, contributing. Governments referring to its citizens as "clients" is equally wrong: a government is not a service provider in the same sense. This consumer approach to democracy encourages passive citizenship" http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45632.html\ We won't kill the planet, just our world

oh how strange .. one minute its all about the planet.. it cant sustain this carbon .. then the next its only humans that willl suffer..


why didnt you say so in the first place?.

changes the whole thing for me at any rate.

heres me thinking oh gawd the sun is going to start fires that we cant put out..not only that the ice is melting at such a rate it will swallow us up in leaps and bounds we will all be heading for the Himalayas. in wheelbarrows.

but no its not the planet that is doomed its just the people.. well thats a relief.


well somethings going right looks like the monsters running NSW have been got rid of, only took 16 years but never mind at last the greedy monster is dead. god save NSW even if it is only for a little while...lol.

wasnt there a song about Beds burning.

There is a familiar smell about agenda 21, the Greens, Bob Brown, Juliar and the carbon economy - its the smell of death.  How can people claim to be pacifists, against violence and war out of one side of their mouth and out of the other call for assassinations, illegal invasions based on lies to steal energy resources?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_49Bcbuc6ngM/SwlIE31_4iI/AAAAAAAAAio/NjME75Z_Zto/s1600/Holodomor+14.jpg 8-)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

Prevailing wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 3:21pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:33pm: In a scientific dictatorship, the regime becomes a legitimate target being outlaw murderous gagsters as per NAZI Germans and Stalinist Russia. 8-) I condemn all outlaws and murderers of the innocent. :P Were you at the rally???? Quote: One placard held directly behind Abbott's head read: ''UN IMF global government. Agenda 21 Genocide''. That, if you are wondering, is the cry of the fruit loops who believe the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have hatched a fiendish scheme to abolish democratic nation states, and that the UN's Agenda 21 for sustainable world development is, yes, a plot to kill us all. Agenda 21 is a blue print for scientific dictatorship and genocide - these people are dangerous extremist maniacs. http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/Certifiably_Insane___Blank_by_Mearu.jpg

smithy it has long been my belief that to be a little mad is the only way to be on this planet to be honest...

its the completely insane that have the best of this world.

you know if ever I end up in a home for whatever I hope i am out of my mind..otherwise to be in there would be hell on earth. how I feel for those that have their minds but not their energy

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 1:06pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 12:49pm: Mate, I would walk straight out of Harvey norman if I got you!  ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) You're a joke! Make a nice change to being thrown out for shop-lifting though won't it?

lol good one andrei..

Monday, February 14, 2011 at 03:35pm

If you’re trying to sell a new tax that even its paid supporters admit will hurt ordinary families, should your number one salesman be someone who is already rich – and who will receive $720,000 in taxes to spread a pro-tax message?

A couple of months ago, author and dinosaur bone specialist Tim Flannery told a Sydney audience that “within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest … this planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism.”

Evidently this declaration of faith pleased the great earth spirit, for last week Flannery was rewarded by being named as the head of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s climate change commission.

The commission – its full title is an anagram of “A Climactic Immense Hogs-On”, which seems about right, seeing as it will chew through $5.6 million of your taxes over the next four years – aims to convince a dubious public that we’ll all be better off with a carbon tax.

To that end, Flannery and his team of Gillardian carboneers will travel Australia like old-timey evangelists, preaching of climate terrors to come unless we sacrifice our economy. All male members of this tax-funded hogs-on are bearded academics, by the way, which gives you some idea of the sheer electrifying charisma we can expect to light up town halls across the nation.

“I’m delighted to take up this challenge. I think it’s a very timely one,” Flannery, a paleontologist, said at the announcement of Gillard’s Gaiathon. “I will be trying to lead discussion on what climate science has to offer us.”

Let’s start with a discussion on what climate science offers Flannery. Plenty, as it turns out. Flannery will pull down a $180,000 annual salary (paid by you) over four years for his leadership of the climate change commission; not bad considering that his main task is to tell people that they should pay more taxes. Thanks for the advice, rich guy.

The really cute part is that Flannery will only work three days per week for his $180,000, allowing him to continue his roles with Macquarie University, the Siemens Sustainability Advisory Board and the Prince of Monaco’s Foundation. And he’ll probably write another book or two. His $1153 per working day in Labor carbon cash comes on top of that.

(Incidentally, during the launch Flannery had this to say about the government’s Queensland flood tax: “From a personal perspective could I just say I’m happy to pay my levy.” Right decent of him. Let’s hope he can afford it.)

Flannery interrupted the filming of his third publicly-funded ABC documentary series (Two Men Spend Your Money, I think it’s called) to attend last week’s announcement. That’s yet more of Australia’s collective earnings headed Flannery’s way. No wonder this bloke likes taxes. He’s received so much of them.

The Tweed Daily News happened upon Flannery and his documentary partner John Doyle earlier this month during filming at Point Danger on the Gold Coast. For a pair of dedicated anti-carbonists, they’re leaving a decent-sized carbon footprint. “They have been drag racing [and] ridden in a helicopter over the Snowy Mountains,” said assistant producer James West.

Then the whole crew flew out for further tax-funded antics. The series airs in September and will be worth watching for those Flannery drag-racing scenes alone. Presumably Flannery competed in a hybrid Toyota Prius, such as the shiny new one given to him by the car company two years ago in return for some public speaking engagements and the world’s most embarrassing YouTube ad: “I’m always in and out of airports and in and out of planes. It’s just one of the things you have to do these days if you want to be effective in the environmental movement.”

It’s also something that the environmental movement wants to stop you and I doing, because air travel is so bad for the environment (but not for environmentalists). Anyway, Toyota got a good deal. Flannery previously boasted of charging American corporations $US50,000 for a single speech, back in the days when US corporations had that kind of dough to toss about.

So this is the guy Labor is sending around the country to tell people who don’t earn $50,000 in a whole year that they should happily cop a carbon tax. The millionaire appeared on the ABC’s Lateline last Thursday – where he was billed as “chief climate commissioner” – to open his tax sales pitch.

There was a bunch of cuddly $180,000-per-year hog talk about “greater understanding in the community” and “socially beneficial action”, but this exchange is all most people needed to hear:

TIM FLANNERY: “Any price on carbon will come with a cost.”

TONY JONES: “The cost being increased electricity prices for ordinary folk.”

TIM FLANNERY: “That’s right.”

Remember Julia Gillard’s words during the election campaign: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” Not only is a carbon tax now imminent, but she’s handing over millions to Team Flannery so they can flog it. Still, at least it’s only going to hurt “ordinary folk”. Meanwhile, rich Labor luvvies like Flannery will become vastly wealthier.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:16am:

Quote: you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next. Cods, you misunderstood it to. He is not changing his mind. Try reading again what he actually said, rather than letting your imagination go wild with what you think he said. [quote]Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke.

Fortunately our economists stick to reality. A tax will have an impact on our emissions, and it will do less harm to our economy than any other mechanism.[/quote]

It must be a big disappointment therefore discover that the ETS inEurope operating at around $22/tonne has had ZERO effect on emissions. our carbon tax will probably be at $10 a tonne.

expecting big things from our carbon tax then????

Prevailing wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

There is a familiar smell about agenda 21, the Greens, Bob Brown, Juliar and the carbon economy - its the smell of death.  How can people claim to be pacifists, against violence and war out of one side of their mouth and out of the other call for assassinations, illegal invasions based on lies to steal energy resources? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_49Bcbuc6ngM/SwlIE31_4iI/AAAAAAAAAio/NjME75Z_Zto/s1600/Holodomor+14.jpg 8-)

prevail I hate to do this but if I have too I will report you these pictures are bad in fact they are horrible and an invasion of I would think are human rights..

you have no right to publish these pictures on a forum like this it is very very disrespectful.

if you cant help yourself go to another forum your mind needs looking at seriously it does. if I see anything like this again I will report it.

Labor has a bizarre preference for playing people out of position. We currently have economist Ross Garnaut advising the government on climate. Catherine Deveny, who previously mocked “spastics” and “brainless retards” in her Melbourne Age columns, is now a federally-appointed disabilities ambassador. And ex-PM Kevin Rudd, whose diplomatic skills are so advanced that his own party fired him, is Australia’s most senior diplomat.

You’d think Labor might have learned its lesson after putting spaz dancer (to use a Deveny-approved phrase) Peter Garrett in charge of home insulation. If Australia’s World Cup cricket campaign were run by Labor, Cate Blanchett would open the batting and wickets would be kept by a people smuggler.

But Gillard’s appointment of Tim Flannery as our cashed-up countrywide carbon tax conversationalist tops the lot. The next time this government needs someone to promote an immense tax-enlarging hogs-on, try finding someone who doesn’t seem quite so hoggish.



NOW WE KNOW WHO WE WILL BE PAYING THE CARBON TAX TO !!!!!!!

cods wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:13pm:

Prevailing wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 4:05pm: There is a familiar smell about agenda 21, the Greens, Bob Brown, Juliar and the carbon economy - its the smell of death.  How can people claim to be pacifists, against violence and war out of one side of their mouth and out of the other call for assassinations, illegal invasions based on lies to steal energy resources? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_49Bcbuc6ngM/SwlIE31_4iI/AAAAAAAAAio/NjME75Z_Zto/s1600/Holodomor+14.jpg 8-) prevail I hate to do this but if I have too I will report you these pictures are bad in fact they are horrible and an invasion of I would think are human rights.. you have no right to publish these pictures on a forum like this it is very very disrespectful. if you cant help yourself go to another forum your mind needs looking at seriously it does. if I see anything like this again I will report it.

Cods, I agree with you -  I believe prevailing is an Extremist too and is doing more harm than good.  

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:28am: I see the right attack the man and not the science.....Flannery was honest and did a great job in conveying the need to act on climate change....I see no argument from the right that contradicts the science!!! Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832) and it doesnt concern you that almost every word he sprouts is proved wrong? every prediction he has made for the near future has failed miserably.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:16am: Quote: you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next. Cods, you misunderstood it to. He is not changing his mind. Try reading again what he actually said, rather than letting your imagination go wild with what you think he said. [quote]Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke. Fortunately our economists stick to reality. A tax will have an impact on our emissions, and it will do less harm to our economy than any other mechanism.

It must be a big disappointment therefore discover that the ETS inEurope operating at around $22/tonne has had ZERO effect on emissions. our carbon tax will probably be at $10 a tonne.

expecting big things from our carbon tax then????[/quote]



nope your wrong longy it will be more like $40 per tonne we are WORLD LEADERS REMEMBER.

and by golly if it means shutting the whole country down we will to prove IT WORKS.. might take a 1000 years but who cares..

the mentality of this crowd is a bit of a worry  

.
Prevailing wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

There is a familiar smell about agenda 21, the Greens, Bob Brown, Juliar and the carbon economy - its the smell of death.  How can people claim to be pacifists, against violence and war out of one side of their mouth and out of the other call for assassinations, illegal invasions based on lies to steal energy resources? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_49Bcbuc6ngM/SwlIE31_4iI/AAAAAAAAAio/NjME75Z_Zto/s1600/Holodomor+14.jpg 8-)

The leaders of the Carbon economy agenda are psychotic - JuLIAR, Bob Brown and Christine Milne have no grip on reality or consistency in what they say - its all about words and semantics with them - never substance or detail, thats the clearest evidence they are maniacs as are their hardened support crew 8-)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:16am: Quote: you cant have human caused climategate one day.. and no it isnt human casued the next. Cods, you misunderstood it to. He is not changing his mind. Try reading again what he actually said, rather than letting your imagination go wild with what you think he said. [quote]Of course humans have some sort of impact on climate, but taxing the living daylights out of people and then compensating others will not change anything except to send the country broke. Fortunately our economists stick to reality. A tax will have an impact on our emissions, and it will do less harm to our economy than any other mechanism.

Good luck FD
100's have tried in all sorts of ways but until Tony is PM and says he wants a carbon tax it will not be so.
Of course if that ever came about they would then critise labor for not doing enough on such an important issue ;)[/quote]




so you admit then that this TAX will have a mighty affect upon everyone.. regardless of compensation the idea is to get all cars off the road...gawd does that go for the trucks/ambulances as well?.. well whats the point otherwise..

fortunately our economists...  now we are told this is an economic problem and not scientific.. oh well.. we know gillard changes her mind with her undies..but really ..

as for doing less harm...how will we know????..its like waiting for the second shoe to drop...


how can you tell if one way works. when you dont try both ways...

its all very well telling me to stop driving my car. what if I am in an electric wheelchair is that out as well.. because the bill will kill me with a heart attack anyway


smithy this for me isnt about telling labor they are not doing enough..

its about them not being honest and giving us the right to say what we want.. if its all wonderful and we will all becomes richer and better off as they call it.. well what have they got to lose?.

is that really to much to ask for?


when someone in business is rich anyway..

and then along comes someone and says hey your gonna have to pay a lot more for that.. what do you think that business man is going to do..

will he stop producing said product that will cost a lot more.

will he say oh I have enough money I will obsorb that extra cost.

or will he just pass on that extra cost to the next level.. who will in turn pass it on again.

its a toughy but you guys know everything you know that this TAX WILL stop emmissions.. and clean up the our world and we will all live happily ever after............

how long will we have to wait to find out how right you are?

Just wondering, when the ETS was Liberal policy, did the same groups agree & disagree?

BTW  what sort of a carbon footprint do the Grand Prix,  Bathurst and the Gold Coast Indy  leave ?

What has sun caused climate change got to do with introducing world communism under the guise of a carbon tax?  Nothing - it is a lie and whenever scientific dictatorship is implemented, the regime is a legitimate target for self defense - Doctors, scientists, business and economic leaders, bureaucrats and politicians are all fair game when NAZI scientific dictatorship occurs.  They can be legitimately and ethically hunted down and liquidated like they were in WW2 Germany after the war.  I condemn the state murdering the innocent. 8-)

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:36am:

freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:25am: Quote: Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account. I made the original post with the 6,910,000,000 reference to show that Labor DID NOT take the global situation in hand You seem to deliberately left out this 6,910,000,000 so you can convince us the ALP gave it considerations

You accuse me of leaving things out, yet you pretend that the government's policies that do address the global situation don't exist. The government has a very effective policy for handling international negotiations on GHG emissions. Your argument against the government relies entirely on dumbing things down to the extent of ignoring what the government is actually doing.


Quote:

There is zero incentive to any producer (like a steel manufacturer or an electricity maunfacturer) to spend millions or billions of dollars to rebuild or modify their infrastructure when they can simply up the price and recover the extra tax from the downstream consumers....

You are completely missing the point gizmo. they don't have to spend millions or billions. The point of the tax is that it provides the incentive to make the cheap changes without forcing the expensive ones. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Tony Abbotts retarded policy would bypass the cheap options and force the waste of millions of dollars. Sure it is direct and will feel good, but it would do far more harm to the economy.


Quote:

It must be a big disappointment therefore discover that the ETS inEurope operating at around $22/tonne has had ZERO effect on emissions.

You are wrong longy.


Quote:

expecting big things from our carbon tax then????

No longy, we expect lots of little things. That is the point.


Quote:

fortunately our economists...  now we are told this is an economic problem and not scientific..

Cods, choosing the mechanism to reduce emissions is and always has been an economic problem.


Quote:

as for doing less harm...how will we know????

A good start would be understanding the economic implications. It is actually quite simple.

JuLIAR and her fanbase throws the word extremist like candy, she is a psychotic as well, probably uses sock puppets to support herself on internet forums like her fan club.  I would have no qualms if a NAZI scientific dictatorship emerges again seeing that regime hunted down and exterminated and no reasonable person would see it any differently - heck I would put a bullet in Hitlers head or anyone like him for free - and thats a fact.  IO condemn NAZI eco fascists. ;D ;D ;D

nichy wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

Let’s start with a discussion on what climate science offers Flannery. Plenty, as it turns out. Flannery will pull down a $180,000 annual salary (paid by you) over four years for his leadership of the climate change commission; not bad considering that his main task is to tell people that they should pay more taxes. Thanks for the advice, rich guy.

$180,000 would be about the entry rate considering that some dragline operators in the coalfields get more than that. You think that's a lot?

muso wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 5:50pm:

nichy wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 4:12pm: Let’s start with a discussion on what climate science offers Flannery. Plenty, as it turns out. Flannery will pull down a $180,000 annual salary (paid by you) over four years for his leadership of the climate change commission; not bad considering that his main task is to tell people that they should pay more taxes. Thanks for the advice, rich guy. $180,000 would be about the entry rate considering that some dragline operators in the coalfields get more than that. You think that's a lot?

I WOULDNT SNEEZE AT IT FOR A 3 DAY WEEK... HOW MANY DO YOU KNOW THAT EARN THAT FOR WORDS WORDS WORDS.. THAT OF COURSE HAVE TO GET PAST THE GOVT FIRSToops.. bloody caps

I would hope anyone in a coal field did better than that to be honest.I bet they would like a 3 day week as well

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. The woman apologized to her and explained,      
“We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”

That’s right, they didn’t have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they returned their milk bottles, Coke bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, using the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But they didn’t have the green thing back her day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she’s right. They didn’t have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because they didn’t have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right, they didn’t have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a pizza dish, not a screen the size of the state of WA. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric machines to do everything for you.


But of course they didn’t have the green thing back her day.


When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used wadded up newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.


But they didn’t have the green thing back her day.

Back then, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn’t need to go to a health club to run on
treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right, they didn’t have the green thing back then.

They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty, instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled pens with ink, instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn’t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the bus, train or tram or walked and kids walked, rode their bikes to school or took the school bus, instead of turning their Mums into a 24-hour taxi service.


But they didn’t have the green thing back her day.


They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But they didn't have the green thing back then!


its interesting when you think they blame the industrial age for all this carbon..

well if you read the above.. it makes you wonder really becaue its right.. we did everything in moderation when I was young..in fact we didnt have garages for our cars because we didnt have cars.

now each member of the family has their own car.their own TV their own computer hookup.DVD. gameboy whatever it take it takes POWER.. stuff we didnt use when I was growing up.. some will think this is even stranger but my mum and dad had to put money in a box to access electricity.. it was called a meter box..it had a padlock on it only the meterman had a key too..

no washing machine in those days gas copper..now this is not all that long ago..so can we hold the babyboomers responsible for all this carbon????

as the world suddenly went raving mad not when industry came about.. but when some got to much too soon.

nichy wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:40pm:

BTW  what sort of a carbon footprint do the Grand Prix,  Bathurst and the Gold Coast Indy  leave ?

shhhhhhhhh thats all money dontcha know and a feather in a premiers hat.. all very important.

they will be able to afford the petrol when this TAX bites.. is us low down folks that they want off the streets.and sitting in the dark.

can you see James Packer turning the lights off on his yacht???
and saying he cant afford the diesel or whatever he uses...I am sure it will still come from the refinery at any rate.

Equitist wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 8:59am:    "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years". So, you will jump on this statement - and yet conscientiously dismiss any and all claims about global warming!?

The Op can't work out that the selected quote cements the science of global warming!

:D :D :D

Tony Abbott would laugh his guts out at him!  :D :D :D :D ;D

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:25am: Quote: Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account. I made the original post with the 6,910,000,000 reference to show that Labor DID NOT take the global situation in hand You seem to deliberately left out this 6,910,000,000 so you can convince us the ALP gave it considerations You accuse me of leaving things out, yet you pretend that the government's policies that do address the global situation don't exist. The government has a very effective policy for handling international negotiations on GHG emissions. Your argument against the government relies entirely on dumbing things down to the extent of ignoring what the government is actually doing. [quote]There is zero incentive to any producer (like a steel manufacturer or an electricity maunfacturer) to spend millions or billions of dollars to rebuild or modify their infrastructure when they can simply up the price and recover the extra tax from the downstream consumers....

You are completely missing the point gizmo. they don't have to spend millions or billions. The point of the tax is that it provides the incentive to make the cheap changes without forcing the expensive ones. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Tony Abbotts retarded policy would bypass the cheap options and force the waste of millions of dollars. Sure it is direct and will feel good, but it would do far more harm to the economy.


Quote:

It must be a big disappointment therefore discover that the ETS inEurope operating at around $22/tonne has had ZERO effect on emissions.

You are wrong longy.


Quote:

expecting big things from our carbon tax then????

No longy, we expect lots of little things. That is the point.


Quote:

fortunately our economists...  now we are told this is an economic problem and not scientific..

Cods, choosing the mechanism to reduce emissions is and always has been an economic problem.


Quote:

as for doing less harm...how will we know????

A good start would be understanding the economic implications. It is actually quite simple.[/quote]
With freediver on our side the deniers are pushing *%& up hill!

All heil the mighty carbon tax!!!

LOLs, bye bye Tony Abbott: freediver has signed your political death warrant and that is a fact!  :D :D :D :'( ;D

nichy wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 4:40pm:

BTW  what sort of a carbon footprint do the Grand Prix,  Bathurst and the Gold Coast Indy  leave ?

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'(

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'(

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'(

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!

...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'(

The libs will be dissapointed if the history books write them off over the failure to help achieve the required economic reform over this!  :'( :'( :D ;D :o 8-) :-[ :-X :-/ :-* ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 7:54pm:

nichy wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 4:40pm: BTW  what sort of a carbon footprint do the Grand Prix,  Bathurst and the Gold Coast Indy  leave ? ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER! ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'( ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER! ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'( ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER! ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'( ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER! ...the theme is the same: BIGGEST MARKET FAILURE EVER!  :-* :-* :'( The libs will be dissapointed if the history books write them off over the failure to help achieve the required economic reform over this!  :'( :'( :D ;D :o 8-) :-[ :-X :-/ :-* ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 5:24pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:25am: Quote: Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account. I made the original post with the 6,910,000,000 reference to show that Labor DID NOT take the global situation in hand You seem to deliberately left out this 6,910,000,000 so you can convince us the ALP gave it considerations You accuse me of leaving things out, yet you pretend that the government's policies that do address the global situation don't exist. The government has a very effective policy for handling international negotiations on GHG emissions. Your argument against the government relies entirely on dumbing things down to the extent of ignoring what the government is actually doing. [quote]There is zero incentive to any producer (like a steel manufacturer or an electricity maunfacturer) to spend millions or billions of dollars to rebuild or modify their infrastructure when they can simply up the price and recover the extra tax from the downstream consumers.... You are completely missing the point gizmo. they don't have to spend millions or billions. The point of the tax is that it provides the incentive to make the cheap changes without forcing the expensive ones. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Tony Abbotts retarded policy would bypass the cheap options and force the waste of millions of dollars. Sure it is direct and will feel good, but it would do far more harm to the economy. [quote]It must be a big disappointment therefore discover that the ETS inEurope operating at around $22/tonne has had ZERO effect on emissions.

You are wrong longy.


Quote:

expecting big things from our carbon tax then????

No longy, we expect lots of little things. That is the point.


Quote:

fortunately our economists...  now we are told this is an economic problem and not scientific..

Cods, choosing the mechanism to reduce emissions is and always has been an economic problem.


Quote:

as for doing less harm...how will we know????

A good start would be understanding the economic implications. It is actually quite simple.[/quote]
With freediver on our side the deniers are pushing *%& up hill!

All heil the mighty carbon tax!!!

LOLs, bye bye Tony Abbott: freediver has signed your political death warrant and that is a fact!  :D :D :D :'( ;D[/quote]

Actually I am hoping Labor will loose the next election and the Libs will get in and lower some taxes, but will be too scared to get rid of the carbon tax.

Quote:

fortunately our economists...  now we are told this is an economic problem and not scientific..

Cods, choosing the mechanism to reduce emissions is and always has been an economic problem.

Quote:

as for doing less harm...how will we know????

A good start would be understanding the economic implications. It is actually quite simple.  
Back to top    




understanding the economic implications.. have you had  a word with booby and Juliar...as you are wasting your breath on here..

you are sooooooooooooo concerned for the atmosphere and the economy then you are wasting your time, you should be on your soapbox when GETUP gets its revenge party together I am sure you will be a great hit.??

we understand the economics of a surplus..and having an enormous Tax that they can fiddle with as and when it suits them dont forget right now theres not a thing they the Feds, can do about the GST..lol.. now that really does run the economy.

imagine giving this lot free reign with a Carbon Tax from hell.. to do with as and when they choose.

and theres me thinking this is "the greatest moral challenge of our time"... where did I hear that???


well why dont you call for an election....it would be very interesting I would think.. I havent seen one lefty call for an election on this..

at least an election would put the stamp of approval on it once and for all.

you must be thrilled to have that berk deathrider on your side.. good luck with that

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

Actually I am hoping Labor will loose the next election and the Libs will get in and lower some taxes, but will be too scared to get rid of the carbon tax.

That's fine with me: aslong as you want serious action on climate change I say you're alright!  8-) 8-) ;)

Quote:

[quote]There is zero incentive to any producer (like a steel manufacturer or an electricity maunfacturer) to spend millions or billions of dollars to rebuild or modify their infrastructure when they can simply up the price and recover the extra tax from the downstream consumers....

You are completely missing the point gizmo. they don't have to spend millions or billions. The point of the tax is that it provides the incentive to make the cheap changes without forcing the expensive ones. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Tony Abbotts retarded policy would bypass the cheap options and force the waste of millions of dollars. Sure it is direct and will feel good, but it would do far more harm to the economy.[/quote]


How am I 'missing the point'???
The 'current' manufacturing or power systems are what they are...to change over to 'low carbon' or 'carbon free' production will cost hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars...and would involve a compltete rebuild of the infrastructure.....

So there's NO point to businesses changing over and spending ALL that money, just to reduce a tax that can be 'recovered' by upping the production cost to consumers....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Quote: [quote]There is zero incentive to any producer (like a steel manufacturer or an electricity maunfacturer) to spend millions or billions of dollars to rebuild or modify their infrastructure when they can simply up the price and recover the extra tax from the downstream consumers.... You are completely missing the point gizmo. they don't have to spend millions or billions. The point of the tax is that it provides the incentive to make the cheap changes without forcing the expensive ones. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Tony Abbotts retarded policy would bypass the cheap options and force the waste of millions of dollars. Sure it is direct and will feel good, but it would do far more harm to the economy.

How am I 'missing the point'???
The 'current' manufacturing or power systems are what they are...to change over to 'low carbon' or 'carbon free' production will cost hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars...and would involve a compltete rebuild of the infrastructure.....

So there's NO point to businesses changing over and spending ALL that money, just to reduce a tax that can be 'recovered' by upping the production cost to consumers....[/quote]
...yeh, a bit too simple mate!

...yeh, a bit too simple mate!

...yeh, a bit too simple mate!

...yeh, a bit too simple mate!

Quote:

understanding the economic implications.. have you had  a word with booby and Juliar...as you are wasting your breath on here..

No Cods. I have been promoting a Carbon tax since long before either of them.


Quote:

you are sooooooooooooo concerned for the atmosphere and the economy then you are wasting your time, you should be on your soapbox when GETUP gets its revenge party together I am sure you will be a great hit.??

Well, we got the federal government to impliment a carbon tax. In my book, that is a success, not a waste of time.


Quote:

well why dont you call for an election....

Because we don't need one. Think about what you are saying Cods.


Quote:

I havent seen one lefty call for an election on this..

Duh.


Quote:

How am I 'missing the point'???

By pretending a carbon tax won't create the right incentives.


Quote:

The 'current' manufacturing or power systems are what they are...to change over to 'low carbon' or 'carbon free' production will cost hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars...and would involve a compltete rebuild of the infrastructure.....

I believe I responded directly to this point, in the post you quoted.


Quote:

So there's NO point to businesses changing over and spending ALL that money, just to reduce a tax that can be 'recovered' by upping the production cost to consumers....

No gizmo. Businesses do not stay in business by blindly passing on production costs. If they can reduce GHG emissions for less than the cost of the tax, they will do so, because it will make them more competitive. That is how it works. We live in a capitalist economy, not a communist one as some seem to think.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 11:25am: Quote: Taxing the     21,000,000 in Australia will not reduce global warming Yes it will, and the polkicies of our government take the global situation into account. I made the original post with the 6,910,000,000 reference to show that Labor DID NOT take the global situation in hand You seem to deliberately left out this 6,910,000,000 so you can convince us the ALP gave it considerations You accuse me of leaving things out, yet you pretend that the government's policies that do address the global situation don't exist. The government has a very effective policy for handling international negotiations on GHG emissions. Your argument against the government relies entirely on dumbing things down to the extent of ignoring what the government is actually doing.

Lets examine each of these highlighted points and see why I am ALWAYS right!

Point 1
(a) I've never denied the government of not having a policy - simply that their policy is ineffective and cost Aust money eg Pink Batts.
(b) The government has a policy but it is INEFFECTIVE globally because  the tax is only effect INSIDE Australian hence I highlighted the 21M people being taxed while the other 6 billion aren't. This is not effective


Point 2
As much as Rudd tells you how effectively he was doing - he and Wong were largely ignored at these meetings. Copenhagen achieved nothing and they achieved nothing at subsequent meetings. Australia has no influence otherwise Labor would be screaming from the rooftops as to how they made the US do something.

Point 3
I have to dumb things down because if you lefties don't understand or will not admit to the truth when you see it - take an example
>> Carbon Dioxide represents 0.01% to 0.1% of the atmosphere
>> Humans potentially only contributes 1% to the 0.01% = 0.0001%
>> Of the 0.0001% Australia contributes 1.2% = 0.0000012%
>> Reducing Aust 0.0000012% by 5% = 0.00000006%

So instead of coming up with facts to refute my NASA reference - you have idiots like deathrider simply abuse me

Quote:

The government has a policy but it is INEFFECTIVE globally because  the tax is only effect INSIDE Australian

But Maqqa you are ignoring the relevant government policy. That is, the government has a 5% emissions reduction target, increasing to 15% with major first world players matching, and 25% with China and India. Obviously the tax is only part of our policy - it is the domestic mechanism for emissions reduction, nothing more. You are demanding it become something it was never intended to be then criticising it for failing the standard you demand of it. That is, you are creating a strawman argument. Obviously if you only acknowledge half of government policy it is easy to pretend it is not all there, but this is merely a reflection of your ignorance of government policy.


Quote:

As much as Rudd tells you how effectively he was doing - he and Wong were largely ignored at these meetings.

That's what happens when you are a team player. I guarantee you that Howard was not ignored when he was America's only first world ally in refusing to ratify Kyoto.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:52am:

[quote] That's what happens when you are a team player. I guarantee you that Howard was not ignored when he was America's only first world ally in refusing to ratify Kyoto.

Did you know the increase in China's carbon emissions were FIVE TIMES the amount of all the Kyoto reductions added together?

Just to show how absurd the situation of not capping China and India to the same level as the rest of us.

You just don't seem to get it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:52am: [quote] That's what happens when you are a team player. I guarantee you that Howard was not ignored when he was America's only first world ally in refusing to ratify Kyoto. Did you know the increase in China's carbon emissions were FIVE TIMES the amount of all the Kyoto reductions added together? Just to show how absurd the situation of not capping China and India to the same level as the rest of us. You just don't seem to get it.

But India already has a carbon tax. Both china and India are doing more for carbon reduction than we are.

And you don't get it Hicks. It's the western money and greed that has poured into chinese industries so that the likes of Frank Lowey, Gerry Harvey etc can make even more money than before by using third world sweatshop labor in a run down sub standard factory that wouldn't meet EPA requirements in a first world country :(

You would be the first to decommission a factory here and sack all of the workers and setup in china in a factory that doesn't meet our EPA standards and all for financial expediency :(

Quote:

Did you know the increase in China's carbon emissions were FIVE TIMES the amount of all the Kyoto reductions added together?

As far as I know Kyoto hasn't actually achieved any reductions yet.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

Quote: [quote]So there's NO point to businesses changing over and spending ALL that money, just to reduce a tax that can be 'recovered' by upping the production cost to consumers.... No gizmo. Businesses do not stay in business by blindly passing on production costs. If they can reduce GHG emissions for less than the cost of the tax, they will do so, because it will make them more competitive. That is how it works. We live in a capitalist economy, not a communist one as some seem to think.

And if the businesses CAN'T reduce GHG emissions for 'less than the cost of the tax'?????

Do you think a publicly traded company is going to reduce it's profits and therefore it's shareholder dividends rather than increase the wholesale price of it's product???

Quote:

And if the businesses CAN'T reduce GHG emissions for 'less than the cost of the tax'?????

They pass it on and it affects producer and consumer behaviour downstream.


Quote:

Do you think a publicly traded company is going to reduce it's profits and therefore it's shareholder dividends rather than increase the wholesale price of it's product???

No, but that is what you suggested when you said it would all be passed on.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

Quote: And if the businesses CAN'T reduce GHG emissions for 'less than the cost of the tax'????? They pass it on and it affects producer and consumer behaviour downstream. [quote]Do you think a publicly traded company is going to reduce it's profits and therefore it's shareholder dividends rather than increase the wholesale price of it's product???

No, but that is what you suggested when you said it would all be passed on.[/quote]

Exactly.......they'd pass the extra costs along, rather than reduce their profit margin...or expend the capitol to rebuild or replace the equipment..

Exactly what? Passing the costs on is a good thing. It is what makes the downstream purchasers change their buying patterns. This is not a flaw gizmo. It is how the tax is supposed to work.

But again, it only happens where it is cheaper than avoiding the tax.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:

Exactly what? Passing the costs on is a good thing. It is what makes the downstream purchasers change their buying patterns. This is not a flaw gizmo. It is how the tax is supposed to work. But again, it only happens where it is cheaper than avoiding the tax.

There is absolutely no way that there will be any reduction in GHG's, unless the disposal income of the vast majority of the Public takes a massive hit, from whatever avenue!

And, even then, if the Population of Australia actually grows at the rates suggested by both Labor & the Libs, then GHG's will still increase, over today's levels!

If there is to be any decline in GHG's, it will have to be via legislation, with Tax Debits & Credits and Population growth may still be a hurdle too high!

And, none of this will have any actual, positive, Global effect, unless the other biggies come to the party, such as the USA & China!

Quote:

There is absolutely no way that there will be any reduction in GHG's, unless the disposal income of the vast majority of the Public takes a massive hit, from whatever avenue!

Not true PN. This is where it helps to consult economists, so that you don't end up thinking you have to destroy the economy to reduce GHG emissions.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

Quote: There is absolutely no way that there will be any reduction in GHG's, unless the disposal income of the vast majority of the Public takes a massive hit, from whatever avenue! Not true PN. This is where it helps to consult economists, so that you don't end up thinking you have to destroy the economy to reduce GHG emissions.

Absolute rubbish, most of the economists have no idea what is currently happening in the Global Economy!
In fact, the vast majority of what is heard coming out of Economists, Central Bankers & Politicians is pure BS or their wishlist, it certainly isn't any likely reality!

In any event, what difference has the Petrol tax/excise made?
The answer is none!

And, that would continue to be the answer on GHG's in general.

People will continue with the same habits, unless it hurts the hip-pocket nerve hard.

And that is going to happen over the next couple of years, anyhow, due to the Global Economy.

So, a Carbon tax or any of the other Brits Conservative/Australia Libs/ US Republican old style Austerity Budget cuts, will only serve to exacerbate an already bad situation!  But the overall outcome, will affect GHG's, as a side effect.  

So, good luck with the Carbon Tax, but the only major likely effect of it, will be to contribute the Federal Labor losing power!

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:

Exactly what? Passing the costs on is a good thing. It is what makes the downstream purchasers change their buying patterns. This is not a flaw gizmo. It is how the tax is supposed to work. But again, it only happens where it is cheaper than avoiding the tax.

Really??....I suppose passing the costs downstream is 'generally' a good thing...but it's stilll a 'problem' when the costs are a 'pointless tax' which the Government has promised 'won't be passed on'...n'est-ce pas???

What a surprise, economic alarmists misrepresenting science to advance their agenda. I sure didn't see that coming.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 5:13pm: Quote: There is absolutely no way that there will be any reduction in GHG's, unless the disposal income of the vast majority of the Public takes a massive hit, from whatever avenue! Not true PN. This is where it helps to consult economists, so that you don't end up thinking you have to destroy the economy to reduce GHG emissions. Absolute rubbish, most of the economists have no idea what is currently happening in the Global Economy! In fact, the vast majority of what is heard coming out of Economists, Central Bankers & Politicians is pure BS or their wishlist, it certainly isn't any likely reality! In any event, what difference has the Petrol tax/excise made? The answer is none! And, that would continue to be the answer on GHG's in general. People will continue with the same habits, unless it hurts the hip-pocket nerve hard. And that is going to happen over the next couple of years, anyhow, due to the Global Economy. So, a Carbon tax or any of the other Brits Conservative/Australia Libs/ US Republican old style Austerity Budget cuts, will only serve to exacerbate an already bad situation!  But the overall outcome, will affect GHG's, as a side effect.   So, good luck with the Carbon Tax, but the only major likely effect of it, will be to contribute the Federal Labor losing power!

But it WILL mean that Federal Labor will be in Surplus again....Which is the point to the Carbon Tax...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:51pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 5:41pm: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 5:13pm: Quote: There is absolutely no way that there will be any reduction in GHG's, unless the disposal income of the vast majority of the Public takes a massive hit, from whatever avenue! Not true PN. This is where it helps to consult economists, so that you don't end up thinking you have to destroy the economy to reduce GHG emissions. Absolute rubbish, most of the economists have no idea what is currently happening in the Global Economy! In fact, the vast majority of what is heard coming out of Economists, Central Bankers & Politicians is pure BS or their wishlist, it certainly isn't any likely reality! In any event, what difference has the Petrol tax/excise made? The answer is none! And, that would continue to be the answer on GHG's in general. People will continue with the same habits, unless it hurts the hip-pocket nerve hard. And that is going to happen over the next couple of years, anyhow, due to the Global Economy. So, a Carbon tax or any of the other Brits Conservative/Australia Libs/ US Republican old style Austerity Budget cuts, will only serve to exacerbate an already bad situation!  But the overall outcome, will affect GHG's, as a side effect.   So, good luck with the Carbon Tax, but the only major likely effect of it, will be to contribute the Federal Labor losing power! But it WILL mean that Federal Labor will be in Surplus again....Which is the point to the Carbon Tax...

Whilst I agree, the point of the Carbon Tax from Labor's point of view, is to improve their financial outlook, specifically from the Revenue, Debt & Deficit perspectives.

However, there is little to zero chance of this tax putting Labor &/or Liberals &/or Australia back into Surplus, any time short of the next century - NO, I'M NOT JOKING!

Btw, the Liberals will be into tax (whether they call it Carbon tax or whatever name), when they next get into Federal power, which is likely at the next election and they will also be into Austerity budgets, following their past habits.

This will be absloutely the wrong thing, at the wrong time, but they will follow the Brits & the Republicans in the USA!

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 5:51pm:

What a surprise, economic alarmists misrepresenting science to advance their agenda. I sure didn't see that coming.

Gizmo,
I think Astro is talking to you!

PN:


Quote:

Absolute rubbish, most of the economists have no idea what is currently happening in the Global Economy!

So your argument is that economists don't know what theya re talking about and you know better?


Quote:

In any event, what difference has the Petrol tax/excise made? The answer is none!

What makes you think that?

gizmo:


Quote:

which the Government has promised 'won't be passed on'

When did they promise that gizmo?

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

Perceptionsnow Quote: Absolute rubbish, most of the economists have no idea what is currently happening in the Global Economy! So your argument is that economists don't know what theya re talking about and you know better?

That's pretty much correct!

There were very few Economists that Publicly said they saw the current GFC coming, before it started, as we have previously discussed.

Most of them still talk the usual lines about growth, even now. They are talking pure BS &/or what they think used to happen &/or what they want to happen.

A good example of the pure BS part, fits quite well, for a lot of issues relevant to the US government, their Federal Reserve Bank and much of the statistics out of all their relevant authorities.

The US is much like the Piigs of Europe, they are effectively Bankrupt, but you won't find too many of your Economists agreeing with that, either!

And still, the vast majority of them do not even acknowledge, nor do they understand or want to understand, the major (and new) forces that are now in charge of Global Economics!

Those major (and new) factors, include -
Demographics - Baby Boomer Bust & Total Population slowing/decline
Peak Energy
Climate Change
Peak Debt

In short, they are living in a past, that is not coming back, any time soon and I suspect that you may know their boat, formerly known as the Titanic.  

Anyhow, Good luck with your assumptions & watch the Debt!

A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people here have been led to believe it is...

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...

It will also cost households far less than the current policy of the Libs...

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

PN: Quote: In any event, what difference has the Petrol tax/excise made? The answer is none! What makes you think that?

Do you take the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?
Has your use of Petrol gone down?
Do you know of anyone who takes the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?

You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=2001&eyid=2009&unit=TBPD

Now, ALL OF THAT MAY WELL CHANGE, as I suspect that Peak Oil will likely send Petrol to around $3 a litre (even without the Carbon Tax), in the not too distant future and Austerity programs abroad and here, will make people start to change long set habits!

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe...

Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.  

Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.

Equitist wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:14pm:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... It will also cost households far less than the current policy of the Libs...

Much, much less. In fact, I challenge the detractors outline a cheaper mechanism for reducing emissions.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:23pm:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.   Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary.

A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm: astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.   Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary. A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.

So, how are investments going now and how is the move away from petrol going arising from that, in lieu of the additional impost of the Fuel Tax?

You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=2001&eyid=2009&unit=TBPD

Let me provide a tip, there IS NO VIABLE SUBSTITUTION FOR OIL, IN TERMS OF MANY AREAS, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSPORT!

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:56pm:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm: astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.   Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary. A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions. So, how are investments going now and how is the move away from petrol going arising from that, in lieu of the additional impost of the Fuel Tax? You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=2001&eyid=2009&unit=TBPD Let me provide a tip, there IS NO VIABLE SUBSTITUTION FOR OIL, IN TERMS OF MANY AREAS, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSPORT!

This is not a tip - just standard fossil fuel industry propaganda.

You should become a lttle more familiar with the scientific and technological literature available. It is in the public record.

In fact the fossil fuel industry multi national corporations own most of the patents and control a lot of the technology in this area.

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm: astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.   Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary. A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions.

You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective.

Soren wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm: astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.   Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary. A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions. You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective.

If one factors in the billions of taxpayer-funded dollars injected into the coal and coal-fired-power industries to date, then renewables come out way in front in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as environmental responsibility and long-term economic sustainability...

Renewables don't come out in front. They have to be made cost effective..

I am not aware of the billions of tax money invested in coal mines you talk about. If you factor in the tax paid by miners, transporters and users of coal based enrgy, the income is many times more than the outlay.
This is NOT the case with renewables.

Soren wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

Renewables don't come out in front. They have to be made cost effective.. I am not aware of the billions of tax money invested in coal mines you talk about. If you factor in the tax paid by miners, transporters and users of coal based enrgy, the income is many times more than the outlay. This is NOT the case with renewables.

Why? If the proposed renewable energy sector earns as much revenue, which is likely, they would pay as much tax.

I've never understood the argument that an industry is big, so it warrants tax breaks - sounds like porkbarrelling in the US Congress.

Soren wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:33pm: perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm: astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 10:10pm: A carbon tax will cost households less than the GST, 1% according to Treasury, and costs to motorists being less than a few dollars a week. This isn't quite the economic armageddon that more than a few people heyre have been led to believe... Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits and the tax would not achieve its primary stated objective of reducing Carbon emissions, which should not be restricted purely to Carbon btw, as their are other GHG's involved.   Oh and btw, I agree that GHG's NEED TO BE REDUCED, but not by this tax, as it will not actively seek the reductions necessary. A carbon tax is a lot less about reducing emissions by changing habits as it is about sending a strong market signal that will stimulate investment in the sorts of technology that will significantly reduce emissions. You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective.

Do you mean from where it was just after the turn of the century or where it is now?

One way, it's already more than tripled, the other way may take a short wait!


http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=Coal,+Australia+price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||Feb-07|Aug-07|Feb-08|Aug-08|Feb-09|Aug-09|Feb-10|Aug-10|Feb-11|1:||1:|35.2|44.1|78.0|112.0|146.0|180.0&cht=lc&chd=t:26,24,26,28,28,29,31,31,31,34,38,39,38,42,47,51,51,73,66,68,73,89,100,88,83,60,51,44,44,42,34,35,36,40,41,40,38,39,44,46,54,52,52,56,56,55,53,50,53,54,57,66,74,70&chdl=($/mt)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0


Coal, Australian thermal coal Monthly Price
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=120
$25 Per tonne in May, 2003 - over $130 per tonne now.

Btw, if the charts remind you of something else, then look at the Crude Oil charts, around $10 a barrel early in this century and now around $105.

Quote:

There were very few Economists that Publicly said they saw the current GFC coming, before it started, as we have previously discussed.

You mean, as you previously insisted. They pretty much all saw it coming. You just weren't listening or couldn't understand. Or maybe you still confuse politicians with economists. That's what it means when the reserve bank pushes interest rate up artifically high. It means that mainstream economists see problems coming. Not only did they see it coming, but their actions before and after greatly reduced its impact. In any case, that is macroeconomics. A carbon tax is microeconomics at work and is even more well founded.


Quote:

Do you know of anyone who takes the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?

I do, when I buy a car, when I choose where to live etc. I already take expected future price increases into account.


Quote:

Do you take the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations? Has your use of Petrol gone down? You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.

PN, this does not mean the tax has had no effect, as you claim. You need to get past the absurdly simplistic notion that there are only two possible outcomes - consumption goes up, or consumption goes down.


Quote:

Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits

Wrong again PN. Carbon habits and petrol consumption are not the same thing. In fact they are vastly different.

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:42pm:

Quote: There were very few Economists that Publicly said they saw the current GFC coming, before it started, as we have previously discussed. You mean, as you previously insisted. They pretty much all saw it coming. You just weren't listening or couldn't understand. Or maybe you still confuse politicians with economists. That's what it means when the reserve bank pushes interest rate up artifically high. It means that mainstream economists see problems coming. Not only did they see it coming, but their actions before and after greatly reduced its impact. In any case, that is macroeconomics. A carbon tax is microeconomics at work and is even more well founded. [quote]Do you know of anyone who takes the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations?

I do, when I buy a car, when I choose where to live etc. I already take expected future price increases into account.


Quote:

Do you take the Petrol tax/excise into your considerations? Has your use of Petrol gone down? You may want to have a look at the EIA figures for 2001-2009 (latest available), Petroleum Consumption has continued its basic upward trend.

PN, this does not mean the tax has had no effect, as you claim. You need to get past the absurdly simplistic notion that there are only two possible outcomes - consumption goes up, or consumption goes down.


Quote:

Then, all being equal, it will not change the peoples Carbon habits

Wrong again PN. Carbon habits and petrol consumption are not the same thing. In fact they are vastly different.[/quote]

FD,
I could go thru point by point, which would simply be a waste of my time, as your ideas are fixed and no amount of information will change your thoughts.

Suffice to say, you are WRONG!

Quote:

FD, I could go thru point by point, which would simply be a waste of my time, as your ideas are fixed and no amount of information will change your thoughts. Suffice to say, you are WRONG!

So you can't make a rational argument, but still think you are right anyway?

Simply reducing the billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry would make renewables viable. Fat chance of that as long as the Greenhouse Mafia control energy policy in this country  :-/

I always wonder who was the first scientist to spruce this AGW scam before the rest of the scientific world jumped on board......If we are to believe the people who say AWG is a scam we must believe there is a conspiracy between the organizations who support AGW.....I would expect such a conspiracy would be highly improbable....The more plausible conclusion would be there is in fact a need to act on AGW!!!

Probability = Action.

:)

A good reputation is more valuable than money.
Publilius Syrus (~100 BC), Maxims

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Quote: FD, I could go thru point by point, which would simply be a waste of my time, as your ideas are fixed and no amount of information will change your thoughts. Suffice to say, you are WRONG! So you can't make a rational argument, but still think you are right anyway?

Oh, I can make rational arguments, which I have done previously, but if someone has their mind/ideas fixed, then no amount of rational information will change that mind or ideas!

And, my time is very important, to me, so I prefer to use it, to the best advantage.

But, good luck with your ideas, even if they are already incorrect & time will prove them more so!

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

I always wonder who was the first scientist to spruce this AGW scam before the rest of the scientific world jumped on board......If we are to believe the people who say AWG is a scam we must believe there is a conspiracy between the organizations who support AGW.....I would expect such a conspiracy would be highly improbable....The more plausible conclusion would be there is in fact a need to act on AGW!!! Probability = Action. :) A good reputation is more valuable than money. Publilius Syrus (~100 BC), Maxims

You mean Svante Arranheius, way back in the 1890s? But, yeah, I often wonder the same thing about other scientific "scams" like heliocentrism and evolution.

Upon further reflection, I'm starting to suspect that my least reply was a textbook example of Poe; s Law in action!  ;D

yes very good,the con is over with,just about.

many beloved ones are waking up...this is comforting

for humanity is just about to be self realized as the divine

frequencies and ViBrAtIoNs increase in every now moment..

in LOVE and LIGHT

namaste

-:)

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:44pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 6:58pm: Quote: FD, I could go thru point by point, which would simply be a waste of my time, as your ideas are fixed and no amount of information will change your thoughts. Suffice to say, you are WRONG! So you can't make a rational argument, but still think you are right anyway? Oh, I can make rational arguments, which I have done previously, but if someone has their mind/ideas fixed, then no amount of rational information will change that mind or ideas! And, my time is very important, to me, so I prefer to use it, to the best advantage. But, good luck with your ideas, even if they are already incorrect & time will prove them more so!

So you will happily waste your time responding with nonsense, but a rational argument is too much to ask of you?

Equitist wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:46am: You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective. If one factors in the billions of taxpayer-funded dollars injected into the coal and coal-fired-power industries to date, then renewables come out way in front in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as environmental responsibility and long-term economic sustainability...

But interestingly that is not what Gillard is suggesting. SHe just wants to tax carbon.

I am actually in favour of big tax breaks for R&D into alternative energy (not administered by the government, a la pink bats, I hasten to add, but by a body that knows what's what with energy research). I am also in favour of being careful and not wasteful with our existing energy (or food, other resources, soil, water etc). Not to mention that it is plenty expensive already as it is.

But I am against simply slapping a tax on carbon-based energy, especially the way it is proposed by this government. After 4 years, I just can't imgine this mob getting anything right.

Rudd as PM? Gillard as PM? Swan??? Garret??? Bob Brown as a coalition partner???? Costello was stupid to leave in a huff. He would be PM now.

The 150%  R&D tax rebate was reduced to 125% by none other than the wonderful Howard government in the late 1990's

10 years of Howard/Costello corner shop economics, signing a so called free trade agreement with the basket case USA, sellign off all commercial TV networks to private US and Canadian equity gropus, etc (a list too long to go into detail here)

That tag team of Australian imposters has sewn the seeds that is wrecking this nations soverienty and future prosperity.

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 6:44pm:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 5:51pm: What a surprise, economic alarmists misrepresenting science to advance their agenda. I sure didn't see that coming. Gizmo, I think Astro is talking to you!

No PN, astro is talking through his arse...

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:13pm:

The 150%  R&D tax rebate was reduced to 125% by none other than the wonderful Howard government in the late 1990's

Still, a much more effective and competent way to encourage development of alternative energy sources than taxing energy producers to compensate energy users for the increased taxes.
You must also have a BA from UQ, like Swan, to nod that one through as an alternative.

Soren wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 9:13pm: The 150%  R&D tax rebate was reduced to 125% by none other than the wonderful Howard government in the late 1990's Still, a much more effective and competent way to encourage development of alternative energy sources than taxing energy producers to compensate energy users for the increased taxes. You must also have a BA from UQ, like Swan, to nod that one through as an alternative.

Does this offend you Soren?

"Even the best of the Gentiles should be Killed"
(Abodah Zara 26b)

Gee I wonder who still believes in that?

Or are you only offended by extreme Islamic dogma?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:33pm: Foolosophy wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 9:13pm: The 150%  R&D tax rebate was reduced to 125% by none other than the wonderful Howard government in the late 1990's Still, a much more effective and competent way to encourage development of alternative energy sources than taxing energy producers to compensate energy users for the increased taxes. You must also have a BA from UQ, like Swan, to nod that one through as an alternative. Does this offend you Soren? "Even the best of the Gentiles should be Killed" (Abodah Zara 26b) Gee I wonder who still believes in that? Or are you only offended by extreme Islamic dogma?

Hey, loony, you're passing the ball again to people only you can see.

Soren wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Equitist wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:50am: Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:46am: You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective. If one factors in the billions of taxpayer-funded dollars injected into the coal and coal-fired-power industries to date, then renewables come out way in front in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as environmental responsibility and long-term economic sustainability... But interestingly that is not what Gillard is suggesting. SHe just wants to tax carbon. I am actually in favour of big tax breaks for R&D into alternative energy (not administered by the government, a la pink bats, I hasten to add, but by a body that knows what's what with energy research). I am also in favour of being careful and not wasteful with our existing energy (or food, other resources, soil, water etc). Not to mention that it is plenty expensive already as it is. But I am against simply slapping a tax on carbon-based energy, especially the way it is proposed by this government. After 4 years, I just can't imgine this mob getting anything right. Rudd as PM? Gillard as PM? Swan??? Garret??? Bob Brown as a coalition partner???? Costello was stupid to leave in a huff. He would be PM now.

cOSTELLO WOULD BE pm BY NOW???? MATE, WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT!!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D ;)

cOSTELLO WOULD BE pm BY NOW???? MATE, WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT!!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D ;)

:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ::)

Soren wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 10:33pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 9:13pm: The 150%  R&D tax rebate was reduced to 125% by none other than the wonderful Howard government in the late 1990's Still, a much more effective and competent way to encourage development of alternative energy sources than taxing energy producers to compensate energy users for the increased taxes. You must also have a BA from UQ, like Swan, to nod that one through as an alternative.

Abbott has no alternative vision: the public perception is set and he will be gone very soon!

It is very hard to change public perception once they've labelled you as a time-waster!

The Libs are getting called ANTI MARKET FORCES  thanks to Abbott so Julia is just relishing this opportunity to pick him apart(i.e. do him ) slowly as he attempts to dive into, and then out of  :o :o :o :o :o :o , the tail spin he has put himself in.

This is first class comedy!

HE IS FRIED AND YOU KNOW IT!

THIS IS A DOODLE!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 8:12pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 9:02pm: Equitist wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:50am: Soren wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 10:46am: You would have to triple the price of coal-generated energy to make renewables cost-effective. If one factors in the billions of taxpayer-funded dollars injected into the coal and coal-fired-power industries to date, then renewables come out way in front in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as environmental responsibility and long-term economic sustainability... But interestingly that is not what Gillard is suggesting. SHe just wants to tax carbon. I am actually in favour of big tax breaks for R&D into alternative energy (not administered by the government, a la pink bats, I hasten to add, but by a body that knows what's what with energy research). I am also in favour of being careful and not wasteful with our existing energy (or food, other resources, soil, water etc). Not to mention that it is plenty expensive already as it is. But I am against simply slapping a tax on carbon-based energy, especially the way it is proposed by this government. After 4 years, I just can't imgine this mob getting anything right. Rudd as PM? Gillard as PM? Swan??? Garret??? Bob Brown as a coalition partner???? Costello was stupid to leave in a huff. He would be PM now. cOSTELLO WOULD BE pm BY NOW???? MATE, WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT!!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D ;) cOSTELLO WOULD BE pm BY NOW???? MATE, WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT!!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D ;) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ::)

Costello would have beaten Gillard, hands down, too. Abbott did.
SHe would not be PM now if she had said" there will be a carbon tax under the government I lead". Even Christopher Pyne would have beaten her if she had said that before the election.

Considering the original post declares that the AGW scam is revealed, and numerous posters have written posts supporting that statement, would any of them be game to try and flesh that argument out for me?

If they could offer a few snippets of information regarding how they came to believe this was indeed a scam, as I am sure they sincerely believe, then explaining how they arrive at that conclusion may be enlightening for me.

1: Who started it?

2: Why did they start it?

3: What are their objectives?

4: Do they have an End Game, or ultimate objective in mind?

5: How did they enlist so much support from the scientific community that were not a part of the original scam in the early days?

6: How do they maintain such a high degree of secrecy, so that no whistle blowers have emerged yet?

That is just some basic questions, but when you answer those, I am sure I will wish to know more, so here is your chance to share your knowledge about this scam.

I look forward to having someone brave enough to try and respond to any of these points, because you know that I currently do not think it is a scam, and would require answers to at least some of those questions to see me change my mind.

If you cannot answer any of the questions I posed, then alternatively you could just try and put in your own words what made you believe it is a scam, because I am not seeing it.

Mozz, I think of it as a 'scam' like scientific socialism was a scam - one J. Gillard was active in that scam under the umbrella of the Socialist Alliance. Or a scam like Allah told Mo that he's the main man. Hundreds of millions are still not in on that one. Or SCientology (millions?).  A scam like the push for Green Revolution or bottled baby formula in Africa. A scam like the PLO.

This one was actually started by Maggie Thatcher, of all people (or so I hear. Even if it wasn't her, it's a beautiful story).

Soren wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:59pm:

Mozz, I think of it as a 'scam' like scientific socialism was a scam - one J. Gillard was active in that scam under the umbrella of the Socialist Alliance. Or a scam like Allah told Mo that he's the main man. Hundreds of millions are still not in on that one. Or SCientology (millions?).  A scam like the push for Green Revolution or bottled baby formula in Africa. A scam like the PLO. This one was actually started by Maggie Thatcher, of all people (or so I hear. Even if it wasn't her, it's a beautiful story).

So by definition, as well as your own reasoning, AGW DENIERS must be fascists

You do have a habit of stepping in it Soren

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 8:29pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 31st, 2011 at 3:59pm: Mozz, I think of it as a 'scam' like scientific socialism was a scam - one J. Gillard was active in that scam under the umbrella of the Socialist Alliance. Or a scam like Allah told Mo that he's the main man. Hundreds of millions are still not in on that one. Or SCientology (millions?).  A scam like the push for Green Revolution or bottled baby formula in Africa. A scam like the PLO. This one was actually started by Maggie Thatcher, of all people (or so I hear. Even if it wasn't her, it's a beautiful story). So by definition, as well as your own reasoning, AGW DENIERS must be fascists You do have a habit of stepping in it Soren

You never make sense.

... SAYS THE ONE WHO TRIES SO HARD TO GO OVER EVERYBODYS HEAD!!!

SOREN THINKS HE'S A CUT ABOVE  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :D ;)

I think heliocentrism is a scam

Soren would probably get along famously with this lot

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

Victorian desalination plant cost blowout and delays due to - er... too much RAIN!!!!!


Electrical Trades Union Victorian secretary Dean Mighell said that under the desal work schedule, 500 electricians should have been on site by last August. That target was still to be met, with only about 200 working at present. He agreed that heavy rain was the key cause of delays.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/water-issues/desal-plant-debacle-for-builder-20110405-1d2z2.html
;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 5:16pm:

... SAYS THE ONE WHO TRIES SO HARD TO GO OVER EVERYBODYS HEAD!!! SOREN THINKS HE'S A CUT ABOVE  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :D ;)

An oxymoron