Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318203620 Message started by progressiveslol on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:40am

Title: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:40am

Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us (using a 3 scientist panel) - climate change starts with the science.

Just ignore the fact that Gillard speaks to you like you are 2 years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_yMHuQthzeg

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:46am

Well when you continuely show show the mental & emotional level of a two year old how do you expect to be addressed.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:50am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Well when you continuely show show the mental & emotional level of a two year old how do you expect to be addressed.

She was addressing you as well.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by cods on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:53am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Well when you continuely show show the mental & emotional level of a two year old how do you expect to be addressed.

speak for yourself smithy ;).... nothing irritates me more than her condescending way of speaking give Obama his due he knows how to orate.. maybe she should do a bit of study...nup too late I am afraid.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by cods on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

so what was the cause say a million years ago when all the ice melted and the world flooded..

what was the cause of the dinosaur disappearing..

sweet mysteries..

we can argue till forever.. but it isnt a given that man is to blame.. and a TAX will be the cure.. it really isnt..

if the boom does a bust... well it could and it will..

what then with this TAX?.. what then for the planet?

its a circus as far as I am concerned and I believe industry is improving itself..

my god when a govt has to drag up pictures of Power Stations that went out of business years ago... something isnt quite right for me.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:25am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by skippy. on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:26am

Looking at whats happening now and the drastic fall in the IQ's of Australians we are so glad we sent out kids to get a proper education in Europe, and not be educated by backward hillbillies
LOL the same Europe that already has a carbon tax. ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:32am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

So you dont buy food, groceries, machinery, petrol ect?. Well good for you, but most of Australians do.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by skippy. on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:36am

So you dont buy food, groceries, machinery, petrol ect?. Well good for you, but most of Australians do
Most of those Australians will be well compensated for those things,even BEFORE the carbon price is introduced. Starting in May next year people will be compensated for the price on carbon, and then they'll all realise your scare campaign is a load of poo poo, but I bet you'll still be trying to spin the lies and poo.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:40am

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:26am:

Do some personal research into some of those European countries like Sweden; you will find their carbon tax is "nothing" like the one Gillard/greens have proposed. You will also find other European countries who have a carbon tax and individual States within the USA that their carbon tax is nothing like Gillards. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do some research and find out for yourself, this carbon tax is nothing more than a replacement for the failed mining tax and some blind Aussies cannot see past their own nose.

For Pete's sake people just put your valid concerns for the environment aside and look at the structure and meaning of the TAX!! ;) ;)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:41am

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

10 or 20 cents better off. lol worked out by a government that could organise a chook raffle.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by skippy. on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:47am

For Pete's sake people just put your valid concerns for the environment aside and look at the structure and meaning of the TAX!!
I have, the tax is to convince polluters to change to a more friendly form of power and will cost industry not individuals as individuals will be compensated, some will even be over compensated. Now your turn, try to stick to the facts and not the hypocritical rhetoric, you see the coalition's "plan" will cost us double and achieve much less, according to the economic experts, to what Labor want, would you prefer that?
You need to do some reading about the facts instead of just watching the propaganda TV adds, or listening to the propaganda being pushed by the confusionalist earth is flat lobby.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:52am

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

So you dont buy food, groceries, machinery, petrol ect?. Well good for you, but most of Australians do.

What's that supposed to mean?
Of course I do, we aren't talking about purchase of raw materials we are talking about pollution,I pay to throw away all that packaging don't you?
I know what your trying to push that a carbon price will push up prices so no one but the Murdochs & Packers can eat.
It will add virtually nothing & unless an industry decides to act like a cartel(Richard Pratt big Liberal supporter BTW) some will always under cut others so prices will rise bugger all & that's not even going into the compensation package you seem to always forget about, I know I try to as well there should be none, let the poor starve they are just a burden anyway, filthy bludgers GET A JOB >:(
As for the pensioners they are sending the country broke with their medical expenses so culling a few of those parasites off won't hurt & what about those ones that don't even know where they are whats the point of feeding them FFS.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

You cannot blame Gillard or the Government anymore, its the stupid people that agree to being taxed for nothing that are the problem.

Lets see how much of this carbon tax money actually gets spent on renewable sustainable energy; reckon the majority will go to paying back the nations debt.

Aussies really are the stupidest people on the planet right now, Rudd failed to introduce a mining tax and now gillard is just about to introduce a carbon tax that will help NOTHING. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Looking at whats happening now and the drastic fall in the IQ's of Australians we are so glad we sent out kids to get a proper education in Europe, and not be educated by backward hillbillies. :-[ :-[/quote]

Yet you get your information from Andrew Bolt.....Who is an idiot then....Europe deserves you and your self serving parasitic attitude???

The carbon tax and mining tax are designed to create revenue to support our lavish lifestyle......Pay for infrastructure.....Provide revenue for investment in renewable energy....Boost superannuation payments.....And provide investment in the future fund.....All worthwhile investments in our nations future!!!

Tony Abbott will pay for his environment policy from the budget....He will cut $70 billion in spending....He will put a levy on business to pay for his maternity scheme but offset the cost by giving business tax cuts payed for from the budget....He will give tax cuts to everyone payed for from the budget....He will not allow Australia to buy carbon credits from overseas so he must pay for all Australia's emissions paying top dollar in the process.....As he has capped the amount available to fund his direct action policy their is no way we will achieve our targets....Storing carbon in soil accounts for 60% of Abbott's reductions......A technology that is not proven and at present is not counted towards targets.....So 60% of Abbott's climate policy is not even counted towards our targets and Abbott claims he has a policy....Only an idiot would accept the Coalitions climate policy as anything but a smoke screen for doing nothing.....We will be paying for nothing if Abbott wins Government.....Australia will go backwards!!!

The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past.
Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960

:)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:08am

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:47am:

The coalition said they would not introduce a carbon tax. You have still failed to acknowledge the massive difference between carbon taxes in Europe and State within the USA and the carbon tax Gillard want to implement. Why is that, when you green environmentalists are the first ones to advocate that Australia is NOT the only country to have a carbon tax - well how about showing us the difference between the taxes?

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by Doctor Jolly on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:16am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:47am:

Has the anti-carbon tax argument now come down to picking petty differences between our carbon price and ones in other countries ?

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by Doctor Jolly on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:17am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

Abbott WONT allow CC purchased overseas. I suggest you read.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:18am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

No Dav, Abbotts stated policy is to only allow Australian Carbon Credits, a policy that industry has said is unfeasiable and will add billions to their costs & therefore consumers costs as well.

[quote]Opposition leader Tony Abbott says the coalition won't be supporting the purchase of carbon offsets from overseas, despite calls from business and industry.

The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network's membership includes the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Coal Association, and companies such as BlueScope Steel, Woodside, Rio Tinto, ExxonMobil and BP Australia.

The network says without purchasing permits from overseas, the cost of abatement might double.

Treasury modelling has found that domestic-only cuts would cost an average of $69 a tonne of carbon between now and 2020, compared with $29 under the government's Clean Energy Future plan, which allows some overseas permits.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Business-want-more-overseas-carbon-permits-LPS59?OpenDocument

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:25am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:47am:

Has the anti-carbon tax argument now come down to picking petty differences between our carbon price and ones in other countries ?

Because they are carbon taxes surely there is nothing wrong with looking at the differences in modeling, or does Gillard have something to hide? Yes she does, because NOT ONE carbon tax in any other country or State in the USA looks anything like the one Gillard is trying to impose on Australia. >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:31am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Business-want-more-overseas-carbon-permits-LPS59?OpenDocument

Could it also not be argued that Abbotts $69 per ton is more incentive for big businesses to change over quicker to renewable energy sources than Gillards $29 per ton considering Abbott will not let them buy credits overseas at a poorer countries expense?

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:33am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

Not also....Only......Abbott will not allow Australian companies to purchase carbon credits from overseas.....Meaning every tonne of carbon reduced under the direct action policy will cost much more under Abbott's policy.....Abbott supporters also fail to debate the 60% emissions Abbott intends to obtain from storing carbon in soil......Any reductions achieved by doing this are not currently recognized towards reaching agreed targets.....60% of Abbotts plan is at present not achievable unless the standards for counting emissions is changed to include storing carbon in soil.....So lets not delude ourselves into thinking Abbott's direct action policy will work....It will not work....Under an Abbott government Australia will either pull out of International commitments or fail to achieve its targets.....Doing nothing about climate change is all Abbott can offer the Australian people with his no action policy....I suggest you try to understand what you are debating instead of making such a fool of yourself!!!

>:(

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:34am

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:33am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

Excuse me I got that wrong :-[ :-[

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:39am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Business-want-more-overseas-carbon-permits-LPS59?OpenDocument

It could be argued that $69 a tonne is more incentive for big businesses to change over quicker to renewable energy sources but it will cost 3 x as much to achieve the same targets!

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:44am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Business-want-more-overseas-carbon-permits-LPS59?OpenDocument

Oh C'mon, yours and the liberals party whole argument against the Carbon Tax is the flow on costs to consumers.
Talk about cake & eating it

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:48am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:33am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:11am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

[quote author=cods link=1318203620/0#5 date=1318204994][quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

Gillard also allows carbon credits to be purchased overseas, so Abbott is not the only one. I suggest you read the small print ;D

Excuse me I got that wrong :-[ :-[/quote]

We all make errors when debating such complex issues.....It is this lack of understanding that Abbott and the Coalition are using to their advantage.....Abbott is refusing to do interviews where he must explain his policy....Hunt tried on Lateline but made a complete balls up and looked like an idiot.....Since then the opposition has avoided scrutiny of their direct action policy.....I am not surprised as it is a policy in climate failure....Designed to minimize cost not reduce emissions.....As it is capped there is no way we can achieve our required targets with Tony Abbott as PM!!!!

>:(

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:48am

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:40am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:26am:

The British PM stated recently that to meet the non binding 2050 targets that were previously agreed to, would effectively mean turning out the lights in England to meet the stated target.
He also stated that wrecking Englands economy to meet those targets isn't going to happen, as the UK's Co2 input into the atmosphere is only 2% of the total.
I took from that the reality check of what they readily agreed to has kicked in.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:50am

But Smithy, has not your argument always been that the sooner businesses change over to renewable sustainable sources the better for the planet? Wouldn't Abbott's option fundamentally work better that Gillards in achieving what YOU want?

Maybe its you who wants his cake and eat it too?

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:51am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:52am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

So you dont buy food, groceries, machinery, petrol ect?. Well good for you, but most of Australians do.

I know what your trying to push that a carbon price will push up prices so no one but the Murdochs & Packers can eat.
It will add virtually nothing & unless an industry decides to act like a cartel(Richard Pratt big Liberal supporter BTW) some will always under cut others so prices will rise bugger all & that's not even going into the compensation package you seem to always forget about, I know I try to as well there should be none, let the poor starve they are just a burden anyway, filthy bludgers GET A JOB >:(
As for the pensioners they are sending the country broke with their medical expenses so culling a few of those parasites off won't hurt & what about those ones that don't even know where they are whats the point of feeding them FFS.

Your a hard man smithy. :)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:59am

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:40am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:26am:

I think anyone with half a brain can tell that Conservative Governments all over the world are not interested in protecting the environment......When it comes to profit over conservation the all mighty dollar wins every time.....If the 100 odd countries that produce carbon reduced their emissions the impact would be far less on any individual economy......The way the Tories and Tony Abbott carry on you would think our two countries are the only ones who will be affected.....Doing nothing has never achieved anything...Someone should tap Abbott and Cameron on the shoulder and ask them what they will do not what they won’t do to save out planet from global warming???

Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD - 180 AD), Meditations, 200 A.D.

>:(

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:09pm

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

But Abbott will not achieve his reductions as he has capped the amount to be spent on direct action.....The Coalition has budgeted $15 dollars a tonne for its direct action policy.....Experts have calculated for Abbott's plan to be achievable he would need to spend $69 a tonne.....Abbott will be $54 a tonne short for every tonne of carbon we must reduce......Not to mention 60% of Abbott's reductions will not be counted as it currently stands because storing carbon in soil is not recognized towards targets.....Anyone who thinks Abbott's policy will achieve anything accept enable Australia to keep polluting is an idiot!!!

>:(

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:21pm

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

Hey I'm all for the fast rip of a band aid instead of the slow pull.
Bring it on, but it's Labors genuine concern for middle to lower incomes & the liberals faux concern for lower incomes & genuine concern for company profits that is stopping that.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by FriYAY on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:35pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

.Someone should tap Abbott and Cameron on the shoulder and ask them what they will do not what they won’t do to save out planet from global warming???

Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD - 180 AD), Meditations, 200 A.D.

>:(

LOL, you really think OZ and THE UK can save the planet! That;s as deluded as it get right there.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Carl Sagan

;)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by Armchair_Politician on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:50pm

Lets forget, for a moment, that little (if any) change is likely to happen with regard to the global climate as a result of an Australian carbon tax, one of my greatest concerns is the fact that a very large percentage of the money this tax raises will go offshore, with little of it to be spent here in Australia on helping to reduce pollution. Add to that the increased cost of our electricity and numerous other expenses and the job losses and this is a tax I cannot see usbeing able to afford.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by skippy. on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:00pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

Lets remember for a moment the imediate changing of climate is not the goal, nor has it ever been sold as that, that line is just a furphy from the climate change denial lobby. The goal of the price on carbon is to encourage polluters to use more enviromently friendly options so as to reduce the continued pollution and EVENTUALLY maybe start to halt it, this will take many years, you and I will no doubt be dead, but for the sake of the planets future and our childrens future surly it is worth it. Though, I know many prefer to think of their own hip pocket than that of the planet or childrens future, we will never be able to change the minds of the stupid or the selfish cretins.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by Armchair_Politician on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:05pm

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

It's hard to see how businesses will be able to employ more environmentally friendly technologies when they are being taxed into oblivion, especially given the simple fact that such technology is considerably more expensive and far less reliable...

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:10pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

You have to separate the outcomes.
Look if my goal was to reduce global temperatures only I'd be with you guys & that intellectual heavy weight Angry Anderson,
"Were doin nuffin until those Chinks in China do"

Fortunately my take on the whole thing is a more positive outlook.
Changing our supply of energy from finite resources with ever increasing costs as supply dwindles to renewable is good.
Changing from finite polluting resources to Clean renewable can only be good.
Stuff what China's doing, Stuff what America's doing if they want to breath dirty air & pay through the nose for ever reducing resources(not to mention most of the resource just makes their enemies in the M/E richer) well more fool them.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by skippy. on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:16pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:05pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

1 business is not being taxed into oblivion, that's a lie.
2- such technology runs much of NSW ever heard of the snowy mountains scheme? its just confusionalist bulllsh it to run that line.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:37pm

This is where Gillards; the Greens and many of their supports arguments for the carbon tax falls apart. Scientists on both sides of the debate have came to a common consensus and that is: no one knows what percentage of carbon dioxide that has been man made is contributing to global environment and what percentage of carbon dioxide is made by nature that contributing to the global environment.

We cannot “stuff” what China, the USA, India or other countries who don’t have a carbon tax. These countries are the biggest polluters on the planet, and if they are NOT ONBOARD in SERIOUSLY reducing pollution, then Australia reducing its little piss-ant amount of 0.00004% over the next 18 will mean absolutely nothing…BECAUSE: each country doesn’t live under its own separate domes with our own individual air supplies, we all breath the same air.

This is my point: Australia introducing a carbon tax on its people is NOT going to shame massive economies like China, emerging India, the USA, and Europe into imposing carbon taxes on its citizens just because one insignificant little pillow-biter like Bob Brown wants it so.

This carbon tax is not a Labor policy - the Labor policy was the emissions trading scheme. This carbon tax is a simplistic Greens Party policy, and that’s why Labor took four months to re-write the thing. Labor is simply being forced to introduce this unconditional tax as a pay back to Brown for his help in Getting Labor elected to Parliament. Nothing more nothing less. Its simplistic in content and simplistic in nature.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by skippy. on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:42pm

Its simplistic in content and simplistic in nature.
True, and to quote a famous Australian politician, " If you want to put a price on carbon the simplest way to do so is a tax" .Tony Abbott 2009. He was right then, I don't know why he has changes his mind now and wants to introduce an option that will cost ALL OF US DOUBLE for MUCH LESS OUTCOME.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:48pm

skippy. wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

You and everyone else knows my thought about the Mad 'monk' Abbott

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:23pm

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

As I said it's how you view the argument and the outcomes you wish to achieve.
Your right their is no consensus between scientists as to the actual effect of the CO2 we emit(there is consensus however that it is effecting)
So I don't bother with that argument.
Your right unless the major polluters are involved nothing will happen.
Again I don't bother with that argument.

The argument I do get involved with is when I started driving in 1987 petrol was approx 49.9 cents p/litre its now $1.49.9 on cheap days which now change instead of being Tuesday as the oil companies wish us to never know & pay top dollar.
Petrol jumps 16 cents p/litre every school & public holidays, no matter the $exchange not matter the geo political situation.
Our power station are 35 to 40+ years old & frankly we've just been lazy the technology got to a point 40 years ago & we as a nation said good enough & thats were we've stayed, governments have then compounded that laziness by not doing regular house keeping on the 40 year old grid & you lot wonder why your cost have doubled even before a carbon tax but you only seem worried about the extra 6% not the 50% that came before.
Why cant we now 50 years on & god knows how many times advanced thru technology are we afraid of doing another Snowy Mountains scheme only with renewables instead of hydro?

No your arguments against are shaped by vested interests & people to timid to dream of a better future.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm

The problem with Abbott supporters is none of them will debate the Coalitions direct action policy.....They carry on about the carbon tax without accepting the Coalition's climate policy is a very bad joke that has no chance of achieving our targets.....Until we start dealing with reality and debate the Coalitions alternative policy we are allowing Tony Abbott to avoid scrutiny....The carbon tax may not be perfect but it is decades ahead of Abbott's no action policy.....Only the very stupid would accept Abbott's policy has any chance of success!!!

>:(

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes.
Henry Kissinger (1923 - )

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:33pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Verge is the only one with the guts to face the truth.
Then again I always found him reasonable & don't consider him part of the cheersquad

Quote:

Re: Carbon Tax will cost Australia $1 TRILLION
Reply #34 - Oct 7th, 2011, 8:44pm

A carbon tax I think is unnecessary as cutting waste in government expenditure could cover such programs.

That said Abbotts plan is just reckless.

If I have to pick between the two, Im gonna take the tax, very very begrudgingly.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:31pm

Any normal Aussies who pays income tax who thinks this carbon tax will be a good thing is secretly masturbating over Labor.

This carbon tax is the mining tax in disguise, and some of you cannot see it, because you are so blinded by your environmental cause.

Two good friends of mine have already transported their manufacturing business to Indonesia to escape to carbon tax charges - loss of Aussies Jobs 290 and all other benefits. They are just going to use one factory in Australia as a distribution centre.

2 Aussie businesses already gone from Australia thanks to greedy Gillard and her Green clowns. Way to go Jules, now run in a buy me another schooner love or I’ll gave ya arse a slap, now that’s a good girl!!

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by FriYAY on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

The problem with Abbott supporters is none of them will debate the Coalitions direct action policy..........Only the very stupid would accept Abbott's policy has any chance of success!!!

>:(

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes.
Henry Kissinger (1923 - )

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:45pm

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

Sorry that sounds like propaganda nothing more.
Your mates moved off shore to avoid a carbon tax of $23 p/tonne "BULLSH!T", your mates are not in the top 500 companies otherwise the job losses would be much higher.
Sorry but the flow on effects are not yet known exposed industry gets compo, punters get compo why would you move when circimstances are not yet known?
Secondly moving a business offshore is not a simple task planning, would have been in the works before the last election, sorry your mates moved to take advantage of low paid workers to increase their bottom line via wage cuts, nothing more, the carbon tax is just an easy out, to tell you so you mightn't think they are miserable arseholes which in fact they are.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:37pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

its not even close to the same thing. your argument, as weka as it is, requires Co2 to be classed as a pollutant which it clearly is not.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by culldav on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:59pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:45pm:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

What many Australians don’t understand including the Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her clown brigade is: many countries welcome and encourage development in their countries, especially when it involves employment for its citizens, and Indonesia is one of these countries who go out of their way to welcome and encourage new business opportunities by reducing “red-tape”.

You might be amazed to know that from start to end the whole process for both these businesses has only taken 10 months to arrange and develop.

Indonesia understand that employment for their people and manufacturing for there country is far more important than trying to impose some “make-believe” carbon tax on your people. My friends are not greedy miserable arseholes trying to take advantage of a lower socio-economic country and its people by moving their businesses over to Indonesia. They have done so because the prime Minister of Australia is a deceitful bloody LIAR, and is trying to implement a tax that will do nothing to help fix global environmental problems.

If want to believe that Gillard pissing on your leg is rain, then that’s your prerogative, but don’t be mad at other people for recognising piss is piss and not rain.

Write to Juliar and ask her what she is going to spend ALL the tax money on - you might just be surprise at the answer.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:09pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

culldav wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

cods wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

[quote author=dsmithy70 link=1318203620/0#4 date=1318204538]how do you know?
I don't need to be told the reasons for a tax on polluters, it's self evident to me.

its not even close to the same thing. your argument, as weka as it is, requires Co2 to be classed as a pollutant which it clearly is not.

No CO2 is not a pollutant if it remains in balance, the point is it now is not.
Seriously do you believe we can just burn all that carbon within coal and it just disappears?
Anyway I think I've covered my POV on the subject an it doesn't require this circular argument.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm

Quote:

No CO2 is not a pollutant if it remains in balance, the point is it now is not.

hat is an assumption not a fact. despite CO2 continueing to increase over the last 10 years, temperatures have not. the supposed correlation of CO2 and temperature simply fails to materialise. ice ages occured with higher concentrations. warm periods had less and so on. CO2 concentration is not a driver of temperature and is more likely to be a result of it.

Im not being a denier. Im sceptical of the science because it keeps changing all the time. the predictions keep changing dramatically and in the meantime, temperatures have not exceeded normal climatic variations. 500 years ago you could sail around the north of Greenland. now you cant. what happened then?

nope. Co 2 is not the pollutant it is claimed to be. for goodness sake... FOOD one of our more pressing needs grows better in a CO2 rich environment.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:58pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

No CO2 is not a pollutant if it remains in balance, the point is it now is not.

Like I said my argument that changing from finite polluting resources to renewable non polluting ones must be a good thing.
I fail to see how you cannot accept that other than the monetary reason.
Run the exxon CO2 plant crap all you want, an argument BTW that they themselves have abandoned

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 7:52am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

No CO2 is not a pollutant if it remains in balance, the point is it now is not.

I too think that is a great idea. but that's not the argument, is it? the carbon tax isnt about renewable energy and never was. Thats a sideshow. if we were seriousl about R/E/ we would fund it and support it properly not using some ad hoc tax that maty or may not happen.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 8:00am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 7:52am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

No CO2 is not a pollutant if it remains in balance, the point is it now is not.

That's true, however we might be waiting awhile for a federal government to fund it beyond the occasional grant or two.
I suggest the government would see this ongoing investment in renewables as a private industry function and not part of a governments core business.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 10:06am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 7:52am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

No CO2 is not a pollutant if it remains in balance, the point is it now is not.

It has become a sideshow just as vested interested wished & this continuing argument on how to price Carbon just plays right into their hands.
Frankly it was probably an oil company that 1st suggested CO2 was warming the planet.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

No....not as it is at the moment.....60% of the Coalition's reductions will come from storing carbon in soil......The Coalition have used unproven science to reach this % and cannot guarantee the technology will be accepted towards agreed targets.....So I can tell you that the Coalitions direct action policy cannot work as it stands.....Even if storing carbon in soil is accepted towards agreed targets the science is still unproven!!!

::)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:19pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

What, the climate science is not proven (Well hip hooray, you got a brain) and the models are the only thing showing warming correlating with CO2. Too bad the actual, real (empirical evidence) climate is cooling while CO2 is rising.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:57pm

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

Sorry mate but I am not surprised you got it completely wrong......It is storing carbon in soil that is unproven technology....The science the Coalition are relying on is unproven......read the truth here......

Over the past week some journalists have made Coalition MPs squirm by asking: can you name an economist who backs your direct action climate policy?

Tony Abbott, Andrew Robb and Greg Hunt have each volunteered names, but none of the economists put forward have endorsed the Coalition plan as the most effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/direct-yes-but-not-a-lot-of-action-20110309-1bo0n.html

Federal Treasury analysis shows the Opposition's direct action climate change policy would cost twice as much as a carbon tax for the same reduction in emissions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-02/opposition-climate-plan-costs-twice-carbon-tax/2868852

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/abbotts-direct-action-to-cost-double-that-of-labors-carbon-attack/story-fn99tjf2-1226128448888

As for the earth cooling you have got that wrong as well......at least you are consistant....read the truth here.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/hottest-decade-on-record-official-20100105-lrph.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

Supporting links supplied!!!

;)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:18pm

Scientists question Coalition's climate change policy

JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: We're going to have a system where they can get a new stream of income through carbon credits, through things like soil carbon.

STEVE CANNANE: But the Gillard Government doesn't count soil carbon in its targets because it's not Kyoto compliant.

The Coalition does count soil carbon. They're banking on it to deliver 60 per cent of their targets, up to 85 million tonnes in the year 2020.

In a recent interview on Lateline, Greg Hunt said an even greater figure could be achieved on a relatively small area of land.

GREG HUNT, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN ON CLIMATE ACTION & ENVIRONMENT: We are talking about a land mass, if you are achieving the 150 million tonnes, of an area of roughly 100 square kilometres. Not tens of thousands, but 100 square kilometres of intensive agriculture would make an extraordinary achievement on many of the estimates.

STEVE CANNANE: But Lateline has spoken to experts in the field who dispute the claim.

MICK KEOGH, AUSTRALIAN FARM INSTITUTE: There's no science to indicate that it's achievable.

PETER COSIER, WENTWORTH GROUP OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS: Well, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to suggest that they could achieve that volume of carbon.

STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO would not comment directly on the Coalition's estimates. But its scientists can tell us how much carbon dioxide they believe can be abated per hectare.

JEFF BALDOCK: The best estimates that we've come up with right now, which is based on a fairly serious review of the scientific literature that's been published over the last 20 years or so, we see that on a C02 basis, somewhere between 0.3 tonnes of C02 equivalents per hectare per year, up to an upper limit of around about two tonnes of carbon per hectare per year on average.

STEVE CANNANE: Mick Keogh says that based on these estimates, Greg Hunt's figures don't add up.

MICK KEOGH: To reach the 150 million tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide equivalence would be 75 million hectares at the upside, that is at the two tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per annum, or about 500 million hectares at 0.3, which is the lower level of the estimate.

STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.

GREG HUNT: When I talk about the 100 squared, that's all about a hundred by a hundred square kilometres or a hundred kilometres by a hundred kilometres, 10,000 square kilometres, a million hectares. You can play a game, respectfully, or we can be serious about what's the calculation here. A million hectares at a 150 tonnes of C02 equivalent per hectare is the figure that we're talking about, but that's the intensive number.

STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres.

Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares.

But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.

But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

Read the full article here.....

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

::)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:25pm

I have put my case forward as to why the Coalition's enviroment policy is a load of crap and will not work.....I challenge any Coalition supporter to prove the Coalition can achieve a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 with there direct action policy.....Supported with facts and verifying links please???

Anyone???

::)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:27pm

Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target.

PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:29pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

No need to prove it. Not even the carbon tax can do 5%. Aren't labor buying the left over ebatement from overseas, thus not saving the plane even 1% CO2 ebatement.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by dsmithy70 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:32pm

Of course they won't, it's easier to tear down the opposition than self reflect on if they are REALLY the better option.
It's like a football match to most here,
Ha Ha we've won the pennant X times you suck cause you've won Y times.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:50pm

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

No need to prove it. Not even the carbon tax can do 5%. Aren't labor buying the left over ebatement from overseas, thus not saving the plane even 1% CO2 ebatement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-02/opposition-climate-plan-costs-twice-carbon-tax/2868852

The answer to your question is in this article I posted earlier....Why am I not surprised you would rather remain ignorant than try to determine the truth....Are you Tony Abbott mate???

::)

Both major parties have committed to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020.

The Treasury analysis says the Coalition's direct action plan would be more expensive because it forgoes opportunities for cheaper, international sources of abatement and would be generally less effective.

The modelling says a carbon price of $62 a tonne in 2010 dollars would be the cost needed to abate 159 million tonnes in 2020 from the direct action plan.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by longweekend58 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:24pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

the worlds expert in soil carbon storage has said it will work. so the science is unproven in this regard but proven inregard of global warming even tho it isnt warming? a tad selective isnt it?

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:53pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

the worlds expert in soil carbon storage has said it will work. so the science is unproven in this regard but proven inregard of global warming even tho it isnt warming? a tad selective isnt it?

I have already supplied links to show how wrong you are about the earth cooling.....Would you care to refute my argument with evidence instead of opinion???

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121170717.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/hottest-decade-on-record-off...

lhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:55pm

But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.

But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

GREG HUNT: Well there is a debate, and what we're seeing is that people such as Christine Jones, probably the pre-eminent soil carbon scientist in Australia and one of the world's leading soil carbon scientists, has a very different view. Her view is that Australia can capture an extraordinary part of its overall emissions, far greater than we've proposed. We've been very conservative in our estimates of what Australia as a whole through incentives to farmers could absorb.

STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO does not take into consideration the field work of Dr Christine Jones because it's yet to be peer reviewed.

Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target.

PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 5:46pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

No need to prove it. Not even the carbon tax can do 5%. Aren't labor buying the left over ebatement from overseas, thus not saving the plane even 1% CO2 ebatement.

So what you are saying is that Tony Abbotts plan is actually better for the planet. Well come on down greens and support the man.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 5:54pm

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 5:46pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

No need to prove it. Not even the carbon tax can do 5%. Aren't labor buying the left over ebatement from overseas, thus not saving the plane even 1% CO2 ebatement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-02/opposition-climate-plan-costs-twice-carbon-tax/2868852

The answer to your question is in this article I posted earlier....Why am I not surprised you would rather remain ignorant than try to determine the truth....Are you Tony Abbott mate???

::)

Both major parties have committed to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020.

The Treasury analysis says the Coalition's direct action plan would be more expensive because it forgoes opportunities for cheaper, international sources of abatement and would be generally less effective.

The modelling says a carbon price of $62 a tonne in 2010 dollars would be the cost needed to abate 159 million tonnes in 2020 from the direct action plan.

So what you are saying is that Tony Abbotts plan is actually better for the planet. Well come on down greens and support the man.

I am not saying anything of the sort.....Read the highlighted section of the article....It condemns the Coalitions direct action policy as more expensive and less effective!!!

It is better to confess ignorance than provide it.
Homer Hickam, The Coalwood Way

::)

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 7:54pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 5:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 5:46pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

No need to prove it. Not even the carbon tax can do 5%. Aren't labor buying the left over ebatement from overseas, thus not saving the plane even 1% CO2 ebatement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-02/opposition-climate-plan-costs-twice-carbon-tax/2868852

The answer to your question is in this article I posted earlier....Why am I not surprised you would rather remain ignorant than try to determine the truth....Are you Tony Abbott mate???

::)

Both major parties have committed to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020.

The Treasury analysis says the Coalition's direct action plan would be more expensive because it forgoes opportunities for cheaper, international sources of abatement and would be generally less effective.

The modelling says a carbon price of $62 a tonne in 2010 dollars would be the cost needed to abate 159 million tonnes in 2020 from the direct action plan.

So what you are saying is that Tony Abbotts plan is actually better for the planet. Well come on down greens and support the man.

forgoes opportunities for cheaper, international sources of abatement

What do you think the sentence above means?

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 8:01pm

You would think that the greenies would be falling all over themselves to help Tony Abbott do better for the globe by ebating all of the 5% CO2 within Australia, thereby reducing a net 5% of CO2 for the globe. But noooo, they will stick with labor who will only ebate a true ebatement of less than 1 - 2% by buying ebatement from overseas, so business as usual for Australia.

Just doesn't make sense, the hypocrisy of the greens and their so called environment concerns.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 10:56pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

the worlds expert in soil carbon storage has said it will work. so the science is unproven in this regard but proven inregard of global warming even tho it isnt warming? a tad selective isnt it?

What you are showing is that if AGW were true, the only correlation of temperature to CO2 levels, is that this is as warm as it is going to get, because the temperatures have not grown at all and have gone down slightly, all the while CO2 has continued to go up on the same trend line.

Co2 trend is /, temperature trend is ----.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:00am

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 10:56pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

Why would someone debate something you obviously don't think will work?

Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.
Anthony J. D'Angelo

We could debate the issue so you could prove me wrong and show me up as a person of no substance.....I relish the opportunity....any takers???

:)

will direct action work? dont know. will carbon tax work? definately not.

the worlds expert in soil carbon storage has said it will work. so the science is unproven in this regard but proven inregard of global warming even tho it isnt warming? a tad selective isnt it?

The links I posted shows that the last decade was the hotest on record......If you can support your claims that temperatures have dropped slightly then please post some evidence.....Or are you another Alan Jones that twists the facts to suit his rhetoric???

;)

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.
Daniel J. Boorstin (1914 - )

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:16am

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

Even if temperature have not gone down, they have stayed steady, which means the correlation between CO2 and temperature is dead. Back to CO2 going up after temperatures have already gone up, meaning the correlation is CO2 follows temperatures.

The gragh below shows your BS CO2 is bad. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures going up.

Peer-reviewed - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1480/abstract
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0153923a79fe970b-pi

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/global-sst-update-still-no-sign-of-resumed-warming/

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/argo-era-nodc-ocean-heat-content-data-0-700-meters-through-december-2010/

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:56am

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

The articles you posted links to prove temperatures have risen or are completely irrelevant.....The one link that claims temperatures where higher in Roman times is taken in isolation.....Alan Jones uses the same bullshit to prove how ignorant he really is.....The Global trend is temperatures are rising around the world.....Jones takes the temperature from one area such as central NSW that has an unusual cold snap and uses this to try and discredit the science.....NASA have stated the last decade is the hottest on record.....Nothing you posted refuted that fact!!!

From the article you posted....

But in the conclusion:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 12:02pm

NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record

WASHINGTON -- Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.

The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.13 F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s.

"If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by progressiveslol on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 12:04pm

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

So where is the trend that temperatures are getting warmer. There are none. Where is the correlation between CO2 going up and temperatures staying steady. There is no correlation between going up and staying steady.

Title: Re: Andrew Bolt does what Gillard asks us - start with
Post by philperth2010 on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 12:18pm

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

The average global temperature has warmed by more than 0.7°C over the past century, and the present warming rate is 0.2°C per decade. If continued, this trend will lead to a temperature rise of about 3°C by the end of this century (relative to pre-industrial temperatures). This would be the highest global temperature rise recorded in recent PALAEOCLIMATE history. The instrumental record showing a warming earth is supported by satellite measurements of TROPOSPHERIC warming and by observations in the CRYOSPHERE and BIOSPHERE.

Graphs are supplied by using the link supplied!!!

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/climatechange/theclimate/temperatures.htm

It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it and therefore he that can perceive it hath it not.
Jeremy Taylor (1613 - 1667)