Quote:

Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11 PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters. http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm

If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year.

Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce.

If there are any religious people out there please say a prayer for Australia.

Its obvious you know FA about the carbon tax if you are stupid enough to write what you have, back to kindy for you.I cant even be bothered explaining it to you, you are obviously beyond comprehension stage.

skippy. wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:06pm:

Its obvious you know FA about the carbon tax if you are stupid enough to write what you have, back to kindy for you.I cant even be bothered explaining it to you, you are obviously beyond comprehension stage.

but i note you are unable to make a factual demolition of the claims. you just respond hysterically like a clown.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:18pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:06pm: Its obvious you know FA about the carbon tax if you are stupid enough to write what you have, back to kindy for you.I cant even be bothered explaining it to you, you are obviously beyond comprehension stage. but i note you are unable to make a factual demolition of the claims. you just respond hysterically like a clown.

I would never dream of removing the crown of forum clown from you old man.

All ill say is anyone who hasn't been dead for the past couple of months would know that the carbon tax is not an individual tax, oh that's dead or plain stupid liars, we all know which one you are old man.

PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay.


what on earth is she talking about ????


If people don't pay it, who does ?  

Oh, silly me !!!    BUSINESS ie the BIG POLLUTERS are going to pay it -  


and then pass it on to US -  that means all of us skippy,  if we are going to drive, eat, drink,  turn the light on or turn the tap on.  

Savvy ??????

Households will be compensated in full through tax cuts, while industry will get a great, big, new price signal to begin investing in emissions reduction and clean energy technology.

Despite what the alarmists would have you believe, pricing carbon will cost households significantly less than the $51 billion in GST that they will pay in 2012 - 3.5 times less, according to Treasury:

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1999/PDF/110110_TEM_CPI_%20impact_carbon_pricing.pdf

The Chicken Little scare campaign has very little factual basis, it is by far the cheapest way of reducing emissions and stimulating investment in clean energy. Certainly much cheaper than the oppositions "direct action" plan, which would slug taxpayers to the tune of $7 billion a year and hand it straight to the biggest polluters.

nichy wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

If people don't pay it, who does ?

"The people" will be compensated in full from the proceeds of the tax that come to the government.

nichy wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:24pm:

and then pass it on to US -  that means all of us skippy,  if we are going to drive, eat, drink,  turn the light on or turn the tap on.   Savvy ??????

Wong is going to pass a special law that prevents businesses from passing the tax onto business

This law has never worked anywhere else in the world or in any century that tax has existed

But Wong is confident this law will work based on the film Matrix

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

"The people" will be compensated in full from the proceeds of the tax that come to the government.

Please show us policies from the ALP that propose to compensate all 22 million Australians

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:39pm:

Households will be compensated in full through tax cuts, while industry will get a great, big, new price signal to begin investing in emissions reduction and clean energy technology. Despite what the alarmists would have you believe, pricing carbon will cost households significantly less than the $51 billion in GST that they will pay in 2012 - 3.5 times less, according to Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1999/PDF/110110_TEM_CPI_%20impact_carbon_pricing.pdf The Chicken Little scare campaign has very little factual basis, it is by far the cheapest way of reducing emissions and stimulating investment in clean energy. Certainly much cheaper than the oppositions "direct action" plan, which would slug taxpayers to the tune of $7 billion a year and hand it straight to the biggest polluters.

and pigs will fly. you can bet big time that households will NOT be compensated in full and frankly that woudl defeat the purpose anyhow. carbon schemes are already in place in the EU and they already admit they have changed emissions by 0%.

btw longie

I remember 18 months ago the Federal ALP gave pensioners a $30 rebate

The ALP in SA then increased their housing cost by $30  ;D ;D ;D

So even if Gillard was to compensate people - the State ALP government will strip them of this money anyway

Quote:

you can bet big time that households will NOT be compensated in full and frankly that woudl defeat the purpose anyhow

No it wouldn't.


Quote:

carbon schemes are already in place in the EU and they already admit they have changed emissions by 0%

No they haven't. This sounds like Abbott's 'misunderstanding' all over again.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 6:06pm:

No they haven't. This sounds like Abbott's 'misunderstanding' all over again.

YES THEY HAVE!!

Sorry Maqqa. Given your inability to understand a simple statement from Flannery I am not going to take your word for it.

Quote 'them'.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:54pm:

nichy wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:24pm:   and then pass it on to US -  that means all of us skippy,  if we are going to drive, eat, drink,  turn the light on or turn the tap on.   Savvy ?????? Wong is going to pass a special law that prevents businesses from passing the tax onto business This law has never worked anywhere else in the world or in any century that tax has existed But Wong is confident this law will work based on the film Matrix

good luck on trying to force ANY business not to pass on increased costs!

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

Sorry Maqqa. Given your inability to understand a simple statement from Flannery I am not going to take your word for it. Quote 'them'.

I wonder - who is this Tim Flannery?

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

Professor Tim Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist.



hardly unbiased views

Before we get to his alleged bias, lets first address whether you can comprehend a simple statement he made. If you fail that I don't see much point in debating more subtle concepts like bias with you.

Or we could address the 'admission' that the EU carbon taxes made no difference.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:58pm:

[quote author=astro_surf link=1302418527/0#5 date=1302421171] and pigs will fly. you can bet big time that households will NOT be compensated in full and frankly that woudl defeat the purpose anyhow. carbon schemes are already in place in the EU and they already admit they have changed emissions by 0%.

A. They have reduced emissions in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme#Overall_emission_reductions)

B. The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.

Quote:

The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.

You have that backwards. It is exactly about reducing emissions the cheapest way possible, even if that means simply being less wasteful rather than huge investments.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:58pm: [quote author=astro_surf link=1302418527/0#5 date=1302421171] and pigs will fly. you can bet big time that households will NOT be compensated in full and frankly that woudl defeat the purpose anyhow. carbon schemes are already in place in the EU and they already admit they have changed emissions by 0%. A. They have reduced emissions in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme#Overall_emission_reductions) B. The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy.

your arguments are idiotic.

In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said

if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years
While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that:

•Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050.
•Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt.
So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling.

That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures.

And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions.

That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears.

This leaves us with two realistic and supporting options: adaptation and research. Because it seems the world is hoping for a miracle cure which will arrest CO2 emissions.  Over the timeframe Flannery posits – 1000 years – I’m pretty confident that human society will find a way of producing zero emission energy cheaply, efficiently and plentifully. Compare the world now to the world in 1011 AD and there have been stark changes that no one in 1011 AD could have predicted (this is well before Nostradamus was born).

Let’s be clear: the carbon ta a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).
[highlight]Let’s be clear
Global emissions trading schemes

The Government also tries to argue that we are following rather than leading the world on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Helpfully the Climate Change Department provides a list of the various schemes around the world. There are 30 countries using the EU scheme, then a Swiss ETS, NZ ETS, Japanese ETS, Korean trial ETS and various ones in the United States that are already falling apart. But treating the EU countries as if they have separate ETSs is disingenuous as the countries of the EU do not have individual country targets for emissions reductions – instead they have a collective target which is hardly challenging compared with what Australia is being asked to achieve. In reality, most schemes are ineffective and have just resulted in windfall gains to some successful rent seekers and traders.

When the government tells us that it has a market system – don’t forget that it is a market that exists only because of Government decree. A carbon trading scheme has never, and will never, exist except by government fiat. Most markets in the world exist despite government regulation – they self form to allow a mutual gain from trade and do not require government regulation to create a market (except for the enforcement of property rights).




Let’s be clear: the carbon tax a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

Sorry Maqqa. Given your inability to understand a simple statement from Flannery I am not going to take your word for it. Quote 'them'.

Tim Flannery..lol.

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

Yo Cods!

To be clear, could you kindly tidy up this post - and include sources, quotation marks, etc., ta!?

Hint: there is a http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Buttons/English/modify.png button to be found at the top right hand corner of your post.


cods wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:34pm:

In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that: •Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050. •China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050. •Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt. So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling. That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures. And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions. That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears. This leaves us with two realistic and supporting options: adaptation and research. Because it seems the world is hoping for a miracle cure which will arrest CO2 emissions.  Over the timeframe Flannery posits – 1000 years – I’m pretty confident that human society will find a way of producing zero emission energy cheaply, efficiently and plentifully. Compare the world now to the world in 1011 AD and there have been stark changes that no one in 1011 AD could have predicted (this is well before Nostradamus was born). Let’s be clear: the carbon ta a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is). [highlight]Let’s be clear Global emissions trading schemes The Government also tries to argue that we are following rather than leading the world on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Helpfully the Climate Change Department provides a list of the various schemes around the world. There are 30 countries using the EU scheme, then a Swiss ETS, NZ ETS, Japanese ETS, Korean trial ETS and various ones in the United States that are already falling apart. But treating the EU countries as if they have separate ETSs is disingenuous as the countries of the EU do not have individual country targets for emissions reductions – instead they have a collective target which is hardly challenging compared with what Australia is being asked to achieve. In reality, most schemes are ineffective and have just resulted in windfall gains to some successful rent seekers and traders. When the government tells us that it has a market system – don’t forget that it is a market that exists only because of Government decree. A carbon trading scheme has never, and will never, exist except by government fiat. Most markets in the world exist despite government regulation – they self form to allow a mutual gain from trade and do not require government regulation to create a market (except for the enforcement of property rights). Let’s be clear: the carbon tax a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:25pm:

Quote: The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy. You have that backwards. It is exactly about reducing emissions the cheapest way possible, even if that means simply being less wasteful rather than huge investments.

It's only cheap because it puts more expensive renewable energy sources on a more even playing field with fossil fuels, it is the investment in large scale energy production that will reduce emissions, not punishing households by increasing their costs; hence the plans for household compensation.

salad in wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 4:55pm:

Quote: Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11 PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters. http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year. Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce.

EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce


And Penny Wong is CORRECT !
Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes

They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries
Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs

Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST

And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS

MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers

Who will YOU invest with ?

cods wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:34pm:

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

And if we don't cut emissions then temperatures continue to climb and climb for considerably longer than a thousand years, a subtle nuance in what Flannery was actually saying that went way over the head of the deniers. The point of reducing emissions isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop temperatures from going up.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:47pm:

cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm: if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years And if we don't cut emissions then temperatures continue to climb and climb for considerably longer than a thousand years, a subtle nuance in what Flannery was actually saying that went way over the head of the deniers. The point of reducing emissions isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop temperatures from going up.

tell me astro if we can stop them going UP why cant we bring them down?.


you see usually when something gets hot like a bushfire it takes a long long time for it to cool down long after the flame has gone out that fire is still red hot.

so emmissions all round the world stop tomorrow... how long before the temperature stops rising??

you do have  a guarantee on the timing of course?

the brains behind all this would have all that data I am sure.

cods wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:47pm: cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm: if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years And if we don't cut emissions then temperatures continue to climb and climb for considerably longer than a thousand years, a subtle nuance in what Flannery was actually saying that went way over the head of the deniers. The point of reducing emissions isn't to reduce temperatures but to stop temperatures from going up. Quote: tell me astro if we can stop them going UP why cant we bring them down?. We can... In several hundred to a thousand years, which is exactly the point Flannery was making. [quote]you see usually when something gets hot like a bushfire it takes a long long time for it to cool down long after the flame has gone out that fire is still red hot.

Yeah... OK... You don't get the physics behind AGW at all.


Quote:

so emmissions all round the world stop tomorrow... how long before the temperature stops rising??

As long as it takes for the planet to absorb the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, a geological process that can take up to a thousand years to complete.


Quote:

you do have  a guarantee on the timing of course? the brains behind all this would have all that data I am sure.

Yes, the data on the timescale that the carbon cycle works is widely available, try picking up a first year geology textbook for starters, or an encyclopedia even:

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

Quote:

In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years

Cods are you really still this confused about what Flannery said?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301394442


Quote:

It's only cheap because it puts more expensive renewable energy sources on a more even playing field with fossil fuels

Not true. It is cheap because it puts all options on a level playing field. This means that the options that are actually cheaper will be implimented first. That is, people will reduce consumption of energy intensive products. Renewable energy is a long way down the track because it is one of the more expensive options.


Quote:

tell me astro if we can stop them going UP why cant we bring them down?.

We can, but given all the whinging from the denialist camp about merely slowing the rate of increase, why would we want to take it even further?

So,  Is Penny wight or is she WONG ????  






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69KoyIYWSGs&feature=player_detailpage#t=6s

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:25pm: Quote: The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy. You have that backwards. It is exactly about reducing emissions the cheapest way possible, even if that means simply being less wasteful rather than huge investments. It's only cheap because it puts more expensive renewable energy sources on a more even playing field with fossil fuels, it is the investment in large scale energy production that will reduce emissions, not punishing households by increasing their costs; hence the plans for household compensation.

pure drivel. the carbon tx is nowhere near enough to bridge the gap between fossil and R/E. and given that it only makes energy more expensive it is hardly an attractive solution.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

salad in wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 4:55pm: Quote: Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11 PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters. http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year. Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce. EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce And Penny Wong is CORRECT ! Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers Who will YOU invest with ?

if you believe industry will not pass on these imposts then contact me. I have a bridge to sell you.

Cods are you really still this confused about what Flannery said?

x



sure am FD sure am...






you see where is the proof in 100 or maybe even 50 years from now what he is saying IS TRUE....

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MAN IS SPOUTING WILL IN FACT COME TRUE...I mean he goes from  100 years to 1000 years is that a bet eachway????

in my book it is!!...

no different from saying it might rain on Sunday then again it may not...

sorry mate but maybe you think Flannery is the new Nostradamus..

but I sure as hell dont and just because I am not a scientist doesnt put me in the confused basket..I am not confused at all I think you guys are..


fancy believing what some prophecies for the next 1000 years will be!

what does your horoscope tell you will happen to you next week FD...

mine says I will meet a tall handsome rich man who will throw diamonds at me..

sorry mate I dont believe in fairytails... maybe Flannery can tell us when they will find a cure for cancer especially the child ones..I am interested in that.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:46pm: salad in wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 4:55pm: Quote: Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11 PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters. http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year. Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce. EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce And Penny Wong is CORRECT ! Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers Who will YOU invest with ? if you believe industry will not pass on these imposts then contact me. I have a bridge to sell you.

dont you love the Penny Wongs in this govt always having a bet each way...now it isnt a silver bullet... and the CARBON TAX that gillard keeps spouting about isnt a TAX after all..lol..its painful to listen to them. talk about dodge city they put the wildwest to shame they really do..

and I for one am sick to death of being treated like I am braindead like their followers... bring on an election its the FAIR way



what about the compensation why would they compensate us if we were not getting this passed on.... will some one tell her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cods wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:29am:

Cods are you really still this confused about what Flannery said? x sure am FD sure am... you see where is the proof in 100 or maybe even 50 years from now what he is saying IS TRUE.... HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MAN IS SPOUTING WILL IN FACT COME TRUE...I mean he goes from  100 years to 1000 years is that a bet eachway???? in my book it is!!... no different from saying it might rain on Sunday then again it may not... sorry mate but maybe you think Flannery is the new Nostradamus.. but I sure as hell dont and just because I am not a scientist doesnt put me in the confused basket..I am not confused at all I think you guys are.. fancy believing what some prophecies for the next 1000 years will be! what does your horoscope tell you will happen to you next week FD... mine says I will meet a tall handsome rich man who will throw diamonds at me.. sorry mate I dont believe in fairytails... maybe Flannery can tell us when they will find a cure for cancer especially the child ones..I am interested in that.

Yeah, like those other stoopid scientists who think that they can predict where uranus will be in 200 years, or where the earths elliptical orbit will be and whether there will an ice age in 15,000 years, or even worse, thinking they can predict where light will be in in a million years! Those stoopid soothsaying scientists, who do they think they are making predictions!!!!!!

Quote:

you see where is the proof in 100 or maybe even 50 years from now what he is saying IS TRUE....

Cods how about we start with understanding what his claim is before worrying about whether it is true?

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce And Penny Wong is CORRECT ! Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers Who will YOU invest with ?

Now Alan Kohler is saying that the carbon tax could be as high as $1000.


Quote:

Enemies on all sides in the carbon price war By Alan Kohler In 2006, nine years after the Kyoto Protocols were signed, six corporate CEOs created the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change to advocate "early action" on global warming, including a "carbon price signal". They commissioned research from the CSIRO and Allen Consulting that showed Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change and that significant reductions could be achieved in Australia at an affordable cost. So there's no longer enough money to do that without raising taxes - it has to be a carbon price. That will cost every household at least $1,000 a year if it's to be effective and put important manufacturers out of business, not to mention retailers, transport companies you name it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/11/3187543.htm

Want to offer a guess as to what the tax will be?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:

Quote: you see where is the proof in 100 or maybe even 50 years from now what he is saying IS TRUE.... Cods how about we start with understanding what his claim is before worrying about whether it is true?

FD I dont care what he claims in the year 2100 plus... do you???.. if you do good luck to you I trust you will around to prove him right.. I wont be.. I prefer the real truth the facts... not predictions...he is claiming the tempreature will fall.. lol.. well tell him it did just now its going to be 15 tomorrow in Canberra a couple of days ago it was 24... tell me how bloody hard is it to predict temperatures will go UP and then they will go DOWN

salad in wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:45pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:46pm: EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce And Penny Wong is CORRECT ! Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers Who will YOU invest with ? Now Alan Kohler is saying that the carbon tax could be as high as $1000. Quote: Enemies on all sides in the carbon price war By Alan Kohler In 2006, nine years after the Kyoto Protocols were signed, six corporate CEOs created the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change to advocate "early action" on global warming, including a "carbon price signal". They commissioned research from the CSIRO and Allen Consulting that showed Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change and that significant reductions could be achieved in Australia at an affordable cost. So there's no longer enough money to do that without raising taxes - it has to be a carbon price. That will cost every household at least $1,000 a year if it's to be effective and put important manufacturers out of business, not to mention retailers, transport companies you name it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/11/3187543.htm Want to offer a guess as to what the tax will be?

not you as well with this childish colour attention grab salad give it away will you. thank you

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:25pm: Quote: The point of pricing carbon isn't as much about reducing emissions as it is about stimulating investment in the sort of things that will significantly reduce emissions, rendering this asinine line of attack a straw man fallacy. You have that backwards. It is exactly about reducing emissions the cheapest way possible, even if that means simply being less wasteful rather than huge investments. It's only cheap because it puts more expensive renewable energy sources on a more even playing field with fossil fuels, it is the investment in large scale energy production that will reduce emissions, not punishing households by increasing their costs; hence the plans for household compensation. pure drivel. the carbon tx is nowhere near enough to bridge the gap between fossil and R/E. and given that it only makes energy more expensive it is hardly an attractive solution.

Depends how you count the cost really, doesn't it?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=639

Cods:


Quote:

FD I dont care what he claims in the year 2100 plus... do you???

Sort of. What does interest me a lot more is the ability of the opposition leader to understand plain english.


Quote:

I prefer the real truth the facts... not predictions...

You don't show a great deal of regard for the truth about what Flannery said. Do you think that misrepresenting the words of scientists is a path to the truth?

cods wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 7:38pm: Quote: you see where is the proof in 100 or maybe even 50 years from now what he is saying IS TRUE.... Cods how about we start with understanding what his claim is before worrying about whether it is true? FD I dont care what he claims in the year 2100 plus... do you???.. if you do good luck to you I trust you will around to prove him right.. I wont be.. I prefer the real truth the facts... not predictions...he is claiming the tempreature will fall.. lol.. well tell him it did just now its going to be 15 tomorrow in Canberra a couple of days ago it was 24... tell me how bloody hard is it to predict temperatures will go UP and then they will go DOWN

You need to familarise yourself with some basic concepts. Start with these two:
'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

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

Predicting climate is not the same as predicting weather. Climate deals with, at a minimum, 30 year averages. You can flip a coin 100 times and, while you can't say how the coin will fall on any given toss, you can calculate the probability of it landing either heads or tails.

Or, a better example, you know that in summer you are likely to have a higher average temperature and in winter a lower average temperature without knowing exactly what temperature it will be on any given day.

Same thing, dude.

Quote:

Yeah, like those other stoopid scientists who think that they can predict where uranus will be in 200 years, or where the earths elliptical orbit will be and whether there will an ice age in 15,000 years, or even worse, thinking they can predict where light will be in in a million years! Those stoopid soothsaying scientists, who do they think they are making predictions!!!!!!

Astro, predicting the orbit of a planet (either Uranus OR Earth) is entirely different to predicting what the temperature will be in 30, 50 or 100 years time...

The solar system is a gigantic 'clock'......We know where Uranus will be in 200 years because Uranus orbits the Sun in the same way, and at the same speed ALL the time, so predicting it's position is simply arithmetic....you can work it out by counting on your fingers..


But since there has never been any 'human caused' warming before this time, there's no historical data to indicate the increase rate, a maximum temperature or a duration....it's ALL guess work...

The scientists THINK the warming will continue at 'X' rate, for 'X' years and reach 'X' temperature by year 'Y'....but there's no hard data to back it up, the only way to prove it is in hindsight...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 10:01pm:

Astro, predicting the orbit of a planet (either Uranus OR Earth) is entirely different to predicting what the temperature will be in 30, 50 or 100 years time... The solar system is a gigantic 'clock'......We know where Uranus will be in 200 years because Uranus orbits the Sun in the same way, and at the same speed ALL the time, so predicting it's position is simply arithmetic....you can work it out by counting on your fingers..

And calculating the radiative forcing of a gas is relatively simple too, Svente Arrenhius did it with an abacus 120 years ago.


Quote:

But since there has never been any 'human caused' warming before this time, there's no historical data to indicate the increase rate, a maximum temperature or a duration....it's ALL guess work...

Actually, there has, there is good evidence now suggesting that domesticating animals led to a marked increase in methane that prevented the planet slipping into another glacial period...

But that aside, whether a climatic change is caused by humans or not is irrelevant, the climate responds to a small number of forcings, change the value of one or more and the climate will change correspondingly.

We have very good data on the role CO2 has played in numerous climate changes, we know for instance that the changes in solar radiation that triggered the last interglacial was nowhere near enough to warm the planet to the degree that we enjoyed throughout the Holocene. The only way to explain the degree that the planet 'recovers' from ice ages in the way that it does is if the maths used to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2 is about right.


Quote:

The scientists THINK the warming will continue at 'X' rate, for 'X' years and reach 'X' temperature by year 'Y'....but there's no hard data to back it up, the only way to prove it is in hindsight...

Yes there is, reams of it, from the historical data referred to above, to the satellite data that confirms there is more energy entering the climate system than is coming out of it, to the experimental data that confirms the rate at which CO2 reemits infra-red etc etc etc

And no climate scientist says that it will be X temperature, they say there is a very high chance that if emissions continue at X rate then average temperatures will increase between a range of Y and Z.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

salad in wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 4:55pm: Quote: Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11 PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters. http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year. Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce. EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce And Penny Wong is CORRECT ! Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers Who will YOU invest with ?

How clearer can you PUT it ?

Sit down
Mute the telly
Turn up the sound on the PC


And have a GOOD LOOK at who tells you how to think



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSgcw5tLenI&feature=relmfu

cods wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 8:58pm:

Want to offer a guess as to what the tax will be? not you as well with this childish colour attention grab salad give it away will you. thank you

C'mon cods, no room for a little humour in your life? Can't you recognise burlesque when you see it?

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 12:28am:

Sit down Mute the telly Turn up the sound on the PC And have a GOOD LOOK at who tells you how to think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSgcw5tLenI&feature=relmfu

I thought it was shock jocks who were DRIVING AND FINANCING the debate. Please make up your mind or stick to the script.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 10:01pm: Astro, predicting the orbit of a planet (either Uranus OR Earth) is entirely different to predicting what the temperature will be in 30, 50 or 100 years time... The solar system is a gigantic 'clock'......We know where Uranus will be in 200 years because Uranus orbits the Sun in the same way, and at the same speed ALL the time, so predicting it's position is simply arithmetic....you can work it out by counting on your fingers.. And calculating the radiative forcing of a gas is relatively simple too, Svente Arrenhius did it with an abacus 120 years ago. Quote: But since there has never been any 'human caused' warming before this time, there's no historical data to indicate the increase rate, a maximum temperature or a duration....it's ALL guess work... Actually, there has, there is good evidence now suggesting that domesticating animals led to a marked increase in methane that prevented the planet slipping into another glacial period... But that aside, whether a climatic change is caused by humans or not is irrelevant, the climate responds to a small number of forcings, change the value of one or more and the climate will change correspondingly. We have very good data on the role CO2 has played in numerous climate changes, we know for instance that the changes in solar radiation that triggered the last interglacial was nowhere near enough to warm the planet to the degree that we enjoyed throughout the Holocene. The only way to explain the degree that the planet 'recovers' from ice ages in the way that it does is if the maths used to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2 is about right. [quote]The scientists THINK the warming will continue at 'X' rate, for 'X' years and reach 'X' temperature by year 'Y'....but there's no hard data to back it up, the only way to prove it is in hindsight...

Yes there is, reams of it, from the historical data referred to above, to the satellite data that confirms there is more energy entering the climate system than is coming out of it, to the experimental data that confirms the rate at which CO2 reemits infra-red etc etc etc

And no climate scientist says that it will be X temperature, they say there is a very high chance that if emissions continue at X rate then average temperatures will increase between a range of Y and Z.[/quote]

Your missing my point about historical data.....I meant previous completed cycles, not just measurements made within a cycle...

Using the Uranus example, we know where it will be in it's orbit because it's almost 3/4 of the way through it's third orbit, since it's discovery.....

But how many 'complete' ACC cycles have there been in history?? How many times has the climate cycle moved from cold to hot and back to cold through human action????

If climate change is Crap why is Tony Abbott wasting billions of dollars on a policy that will not work......Perhaps Coalition supporters would like to answer this question???

;)

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:35am:

If climate change is Crap why is Tony Abbott wasting billions of dollars on a policy that will not work......Perhaps Coalition supporters would like to answer this question??? ;)

It's unusual for a politician to make policy about something half the voters believe in?????

Julia Gillard is an atheist, but her stance on abortion and same-sex marriage is in line with the various religions... That's a similar thing..

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:35am:

If climate change is Crap why is Tony Abbott wasting billions of dollars on a policy that will not work......Perhaps Coalition supporters would like to answer this question??? ;)

Abbott's a politician, and as such he is simply hedging his bets.

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:35am:

If climate change is Crap why is Tony Abbott wasting billions of dollars on a policy that will not work......Perhaps Coalition supporters would like to answer this question??? ;)

I'm no coalition supporter (I regard all Australian politicians as filth) but it's a bit late to be worrying about money isn't it. The guy who turned O'Possum Bay into the capital of Tasmania and claimed about $43,000 from the taxpayers' purse should have been eating prison food. Instead he's in our federal parliament. The same goes for that NP twit who helped himself to taxpayers' dosh.

Don't insult me by turning up now and saying your concerned about the waste of dosh.

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:35am:

If climate change is Crap why is Tony Abbott wasting billions of dollars on a policy that will not work......Perhaps Coalition supporters would like to answer this question??? ;)

phil how many times do you ask this question...


for one stupid signed an agreement that Australia would lower its emmissions... it was called Kyoto from memory...........

for another it seems to be paramount to many that  this is accomplished...call it political call it what you like..

but the Greens have set a PANIC or tsunami in motion and like it or not all countries are caught up in it.....

Australia it seems more than others... well to me anyway...

havent seen any other countries have rallies defending CARBON TAXes have you???

in the mean time heaps out there believe we are the BIGGEST polluters on the planet..so where does that leave anyone???????????????????????..

the fact is the planet is getting warmer we know that..

some like yourself think if we throw money at it it will go away...

we humans have so much power I find it incredible to be honest that we can cure temperature rises.....yet we cant grow another arm or leg......

or cure cancer or aids..or well as the budget will show us they are not important in the scheme of things anyway..


at least phil if Tony has his way we will have lots of trees and we already know that they create oxygen and are food and habitat... what will we have from this BIG NEW TAX.. do you think.??


does anyone know???????? or are we still in the Flannery guess work dept????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 7:18am:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 10:24pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 10:01pm: Astro, predicting the orbit of a planet (either Uranus OR Earth) is entirely different to predicting what the temperature will be in 30, 50 or 100 years time... The solar system is a gigantic 'clock'......We know where Uranus will be in 200 years because Uranus orbits the Sun in the same way, and at the same speed ALL the time, so predicting it's position is simply arithmetic....you can work it out by counting on your fingers.. And calculating the radiative forcing of a gas is relatively simple too, Svente Arrenhius did it with an abacus 120 years ago. Quote: But since there has never been any 'human caused' warming before this time, there's no historical data to indicate the increase rate, a maximum temperature or a duration....it's ALL guess work... Actually, there has, there is good evidence now suggesting that domesticating animals led to a marked increase in methane that prevented the planet slipping into another glacial period... But that aside, whether a climatic change is caused by humans or not is irrelevant, the climate responds to a small number of forcings, change the value of one or more and the climate will change correspondingly. We have very good data on the role CO2 has played in numerous climate changes, we know for instance that the changes in solar radiation that triggered the last interglacial was nowhere near enough to warm the planet to the degree that we enjoyed throughout the Holocene. The only way to explain the degree that the planet 'recovers' from ice ages in the way that it does is if the maths used to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2 is about right. [quote]The scientists THINK the warming will continue at 'X' rate, for 'X' years and reach 'X' temperature by year 'Y'....but there's no hard data to back it up, the only way to prove it is in hindsight... Yes there is, reams of it, from the historical data referred to above, to the satellite data that confirms there is more energy entering the climate system than is coming out of it, to the experimental data that confirms the rate at which CO2 reemits infra-red etc etc etc And no climate scientist says that it will be X temperature, they say there is a very high chance that if emissions continue at X rate then average temperatures will increase between a range of Y and Z.

Your missing my point about historical data.....I meant previous completed cycles, not just measurements made within a cycle...

Using the Uranus example, we know where it will be in it's orbit because it's almost 3/4 of the way through it's third orbit, since it's discovery.....

But how many 'complete' ACC cycles have there been in history?? How many times has the climate cycle moved from cold to hot and back to cold through human action????[/quote]


Behold, the Milankovitch Cycle!

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

At least five that have happened over the last 800,000 years. And you're still repeating that red herring about being human induced, it doesn't matter what triggers a rise in CO2, the effects are still the same. I'm pretty sure you guys aresthe only ones missing points when it comes to understanding the earths climate system.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 8:14am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 7:18am: astro_surf wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 10:24pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 11th, 2011 at 10:01pm: Astro, predicting the orbit of a planet (either Uranus OR Earth) is entirely different to predicting what the temperature will be in 30, 50 or 100 years time... The solar system is a gigantic 'clock'......We know where Uranus will be in 200 years because Uranus orbits the Sun in the same way, and at the same speed ALL the time, so predicting it's position is simply arithmetic....you can work it out by counting on your fingers.. And calculating the radiative forcing of a gas is relatively simple too, Svente Arrenhius did it with an abacus 120 years ago. Quote: But since there has never been any 'human caused' warming before this time, there's no historical data to indicate the increase rate, a maximum temperature or a duration....it's ALL guess work... Actually, there has, there is good evidence now suggesting that domesticating animals led to a marked increase in methane that prevented the planet slipping into another glacial period... But that aside, whether a climatic change is caused by humans or not is irrelevant, the climate responds to a small number of forcings, change the value of one or more and the climate will change correspondingly. We have very good data on the role CO2 has played in numerous climate changes, we know for instance that the changes in solar radiation that triggered the last interglacial was nowhere near enough to warm the planet to the degree that we enjoyed throughout the Holocene. The only way to explain the degree that the planet 'recovers' from ice ages in the way that it does is if the maths used to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2 is about right. [quote]The scientists THINK the warming will continue at 'X' rate, for 'X' years and reach 'X' temperature by year 'Y'....but there's no hard data to back it up, the only way to prove it is in hindsight... Yes there is, reams of it, from the historical data referred to above, to the satellite data that confirms there is more energy entering the climate system than is coming out of it, to the experimental data that confirms the rate at which CO2 reemits infra-red etc etc etc And no climate scientist says that it will be X temperature, they say there is a very high chance that if emissions continue at X rate then average temperatures will increase between a range of Y and Z. Your missing my point about historical data.....I meant previous completed cycles, not just measurements made within a cycle... Using the Uranus example, we know where it will be in it's orbit because it's almost 3/4 of the way through it's third orbit, since it's discovery..... But how many 'complete' ACC cycles have there been in history?? How many times has the climate cycle moved from cold to hot and back to cold through human action????

Behold, the Milankovitch Cycle!

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

At least five that have happened over the last 800,000 years. And you're still repeating that red herring about being human induced, it doesn't matter what triggers a rise in CO2, the effects are still the same. I'm pretty sure you guys aresthe only ones missing points when it comes to understanding the earths climate system.[/quote]

Yes, and NONE have been human caused....THAT'S my point....it probably is't this either...

I think we're arguing from the same point....i.e Climate Change = Natural....

It doesn't have to be caused byhumans to make a comparison. The role CO2 has played in part climate charges is clear, in this case, the only difference is in how the CO2 entered the atmosphere. And that doesn't change the impact of the CO2, not one iota. We have a very god idea, based on multiple streams of everyone including historical science, of what a doubling of co2 will do to the climate.

Do you think the is any difference between, say, contacting lung cancer from smoking or from natural causes? Of course not, lung cancer is still lung cancer no mater what caused it.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

It doesn't have to be caused byhumans to make a comparison. The role CO2 has played in part climate charges is clear, in this case, the only difference is in how the CO2 entered the atmosphere. And that doesn't change the impact of the CO2, not one iota. We have a very god idea, based on multiple streams of everyone including historical science, of what a doubling of co2 will do to the climate. Do you think the is any difference between, say, contacting lung cancer from smoking or from natural causes? Of course not, lung cancer is still lung cancer no mater what caused it.

It's down to cause and effect......If the Co2 concentration is an effect of climate change, then reducing Co2 isn't going to affect climate change...It'll still warm, and release more Co2 from the oceans and biosphere..

In the natural world, there are complex interrelationships and tipping points, beyond which potentially-catastrophic multiplier effects can reverberate far and wide...

Farmers ought to know this only too well - upset the balance in the soil structure, temperature, pH, nutrient content and/or moisture content and crops will fail to thrive or die - and yields will suffer...

Similarly, if you plant a crop at the wrong time, altitude, longitude and/or latitude and you risk losing your investment...

Equitist wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 1:04pm:

In the natural world, there are complex interrelationships and tipping points, beyond which potentially-catastrophic multiplier effects can reverberate far and wide... Farmers ought to know this only too well - upset the balance in the soil structure, temperature, pH, nutrient content and/or moisture content and crops will fail to thrive or die - and yields will suffer... Similarly, if you plant a crop at the wrong time, altitude, longitude and/or latitude and you risk losing your investment...

And farmers probably understand the climate and weather patterns far better than a scientist in a lab, playing with compter models and 'test-tube' experiments..

Australia will donate 10% of the carbon tax to the United Nations, so at best only 90% can be given to consumers to aid cost of living increases.
Some of the money will be used by the govt to pay for the expense of administering a complicated new tax. Some will be spent on more wasteful initiatives such as pink batts. Some will be used to hide their wasteful spending and balance the budget so they can pretend their economic credentials are impressive.
Not all consumers will receive aid, only those judged to be poor by the govt.
Qantas has already announced that they will increase airfares to pay for the tax.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 10:36am: It doesn't have to be caused byhumans to make a comparison. The role CO2 has played in part climate charges is clear, in this case, the only difference is in how the CO2 entered the atmosphere. And that doesn't change the impact of the CO2, not one iota. We have a very god idea, based on multiple streams of everyone including historical science, of what a doubling of co2 will do to the climate. Do you think the is any difference between, say, contacting lung cancer from smoking or from natural causes? Of course not, lung cancer is still lung cancer no mater what caused it. It's down to cause and effect......If the Co2 concentration is an effect of climate change, then reducing Co2 isn't going to affect climate change...It'll still warm, and release more Co2 from the oceans and biosphere..

Yes it is. Reducing human emissions will slow the rate of warmth and slow the release of any further co2 and/or methane.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 5:18pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 5:06pm: Its obvious you know FA about the carbon tax if you are stupid enough to write what you have, back to kindy for you.I cant even be bothered explaining it to you, you are obviously beyond comprehension stage. but i note you are unable to make a factual demolition of the claims. you just respond hysterically like a clown.

Hysteria is skippy`s forte.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

Equitist wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 1:04pm: In the natural world, there are complex interrelationships and tipping points, beyond which potentially-catastrophic multiplier effects can reverberate far and wide... Farmers ought to know this only too well - upset the balance in the soil structure, temperature, pH, nutrient content and/or moisture content and crops will fail to thrive or die - and yields will suffer... Similarly, if you plant a crop at the wrong time, altitude, longitude and/or latitude and you risk losing your investment... And farmers probably understand the climate and weather patterns far better than a scientist in a lab, playing with compter models and 'test-tube' experiments..

Now that's what I like to see. Climate change deniers getting down to the crux of their argument - a rejection of science in favour of a farmer's opinion.


Quote:

Australia will donate 10% of the carbon tax to the United Nations

Link please?

Google "10% of Australia's Carbon Tax given to the United Nations" and watch a youtube video uploaded by wearechange brisbane.

It's a video of question time - Julie Bishop challenging the PM about her unequivocal statement that every cent raised from carbon tax revenue will go towards assisting households, when the govt entered into an agreement last year that requires them to give 10% of the carbon tax to the UN.
The PM respone is that "every cent raised from pricing carbon will be used to assit households, helping businesses manage the transition and FUNDING CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS."
Presumably the PM used the latter to justify the 10% to the UN.
(sorry, new membe so can't put up links)
watch?v=xv3OLKsQ83k

Equitist wrote on Apr 10^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

Yo Cods! To be clear, could you kindly tidy up this post - and include sources, quotation marks, etc., ta!? Hint: there is a http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Buttons/English/modify.png button to be found at the top right hand corner of your post. cods wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:34pm: In their own ways, both Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut have issued a stern warning to the Government to not proceed with a carbon tax. Flannery said if we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years While Garnaut in his recent review update paper Global Emissions Trends was erudite in his denunciation of a carbon tax. He has kindly provided us with a table (page 40) on projected average annual growth in carbon dioxide emissions to 2030. If you take Garnaut’s projections and combine it with the current emissions by country (table 1 in the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from fuel Combustion, 2010, we find that: •Australia’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) fall from around 1.3 per cent of global emissions to 0.7 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 0.4 per cent of global emissions in 2050. •China’s emissions (on a business as usual basis) increase from 22.8 per cent of global emissions to 37 per cent of global emissions in 2030 and to 58.6 per cent of global emissions in 2050. •Global CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected to be 57512 Mt, of which Australia would contribute 415 Mt. So the economic and environmental case against Australia imposing a carbon tax before taking it to the people at a Federal election is compelling. That is, whether at a modest level or a prohibitive extreme green level, a carbon tax in Australia will make no significant difference to global emissions and hence no significant difference to global temperatures. And the current ”agreement” with China and other developing countries that allow them to continue to increase their emissions massively, will not assist in reducing the pressure from global emissions. That leaves only one possible argument for a carbon tax: that by unilaterally imposing a tax on itself, Australia would persuade other countries to do the same. Well, as can be seen, that is not the case. Unless China (India …) make dramatic absolute cuts in their emissions – which they can’t, won’t and shouldn’t – Australia’s persuasive powers will fall on deaf ears. This leaves us with two realistic and supporting options: adaptation and research. Because it seems the world is hoping for a miracle cure which will arrest CO2 emissions.  Over the timeframe Flannery posits – 1000 years – I’m pretty confident that human society will find a way of producing zero emission energy cheaply, efficiently and plentifully. Compare the world now to the world in 1011 AD and there have been stark changes that no one in 1011 AD could have predicted (this is well before Nostradamus was born). Let’s be clear: the carbon ta a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is). [highlight]Let’s be clear Global emissions trading schemes The Government also tries to argue that we are following rather than leading the world on emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Helpfully the Climate Change Department provides a list of the various schemes around the world. There are 30 countries using the EU scheme, then a Swiss ETS, NZ ETS, Japanese ETS, Korean trial ETS and various ones in the United States that are already falling apart. But treating the EU countries as if they have separate ETSs is disingenuous as the countries of the EU do not have individual country targets for emissions reductions – instead they have a collective target which is hardly challenging compared with what Australia is being asked to achieve. In reality, most schemes are ineffective and have just resulted in windfall gains to some successful rent seekers and traders. When the government tells us that it has a market system – don’t forget that it is a market that exists only because of Government decree. A carbon trading scheme has never, and will never, exist except by government fiat. Most markets in the world exist despite government regulation – they self form to allow a mutual gain from trade and do not require government regulation to create a market (except for the enforcement of property rights). Let’s be clear: the carbon tax a placebo (but a very costly placebox is not a miracle cure – at best it is).

sorry nem I am a total twat on this thing had no idea what that was for..cant even highlight.. one day I will get my 11 year old grandson to teach me...lol..sorry if I annoy you you are very good at understand computers so you have to bear with me.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 1:47pm: Equitist wrote on Apr 12th, 2011 at 1:04pm: In the natural world, there are complex interrelationships and tipping points, beyond which potentially-catastrophic multiplier effects can reverberate far and wide... Farmers ought to know this only too well - upset the balance in the soil structure, temperature, pH, nutrient content and/or moisture content and crops will fail to thrive or die - and yields will suffer... Similarly, if you plant a crop at the wrong time, altitude, longitude and/or latitude and you risk losing your investment... And farmers probably understand the climate and weather patterns far better than a scientist in a lab, playing with compter models and 'test-tube' experiments.. Now that's what I like to see. Climate change deniers getting down to the crux of their argument - a rejection of science in favour of a farmer's opinion.

Still fairly true FD, You can do all the computer modelling and testing in labs you like, but it's the people who deal with the 'real' thing, that have the best understanding....

Are computer driving simulators actually the same as driving a real car??? NO..

Quote:

Still fairly true FD, You can do all the computer modelling and testing in labs you like, but it's the people who deal with the 'real' thing, that have the best understanding....

Of global climate change over several centuries, or of what happens when it rains heavily in the back paddock?

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 11^th, 2011 at 11:12pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 7:46pm: salad in wrote on Apr 10th, 2011 at 4:55pm: Quote: Penny Wong on The Insiders, ABC, 10/04/11 PENNY WONG: This is not a tax that people pay. This is a tax that polluters pay, probably levied on around 1000 large polluters. http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3187135.htm If that's the case why is there speculation about how much households will have to pay? It's mooted that households will be paying $700, $800 or more extra per year. Penny Wong, our finance minister. And these clowns laugh at Barnaby Joyce. EVERYONE laughs at Barnaby "millions-billions-trillions"Joyce And Penny Wong is CORRECT ! Neither the transitional tax on carbon - or the eventual ETS - are consumption taxes They are penalties on heavy, polluting industries Which MAY, or MAY NOT, be passed on to consumers due to increased production costs Contrary to all the spin,  NO ONE will recieve an energy bill with "inclusive of carbon tax" at the end of the document - as is the case with GST And NOT included ANYWHERE in the spin - are the details of COMPENSATION and REBATES for  PENSIONERS (in many cases, up to 125%) - and LOWER to MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS MY energy supplier (Hepburn Wind) will pay NO carbon tax - and on the introduction of the ETS will SELL it's credits to coal fired electricity producers Who will YOU invest with ? How clearer can you PUT it ?

so if everyone invests with Hepburn Wind... or similar...we will all be getting FREE POWER... is this so? fantastic


which in turn means we wont be compensated for power we dont pay for..

only what we get charged for b y b usiness that dont invest in free POWER.. I presume the govt will know I am not paying for POWER..

I am learning here at least trying too..I mean its all gone off with saving the planet its now all about compensation and getting FREE POWER.. i like it..I have changed my mind I like it..


ok I am now assuming we have all had the cods wake up call and are getting FREE POWER..

that goes for all business lets face it what a mug if you dont do this.. so all power stations are now obsolete  OK we know this wont happen over night but it will happen..and the sooner the better..


so no one pays for POWER anymore...got it.


so we have got rid of the coal burning power stations..think of all that land they will be selling...oooooooo...thats a big footprint we have dusted off... big drop to the govt though in that Carbon Tax.. however that is the point isnt it.

so whats next after the power stations the smelly ones are gone???..

steelworks mmmm do we have any left?..

the mines will be the last  to go

except for the coal we can hardly sell the blasted stuff to other countries can we.. kind of looks tacky I reckon


anyway its looking good for lowering our carbon on schedule...

free power I am so looking forward to that.

and can I make a guess no more power cuts..

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

Quote: Still fairly true FD, You can do all the computer modelling and testing in labs you like, but it's the people who deal with the 'real' thing, that have the best understanding.... Of global climate change over several centuries, or of what happens when it rains heavily in the back paddock?

Depends on how long the families been on the land really....

Look at it this way, how sure are you (and the scientists) that ALL the variables in the global climate system have been included in the computer models????

If there's something they've missed, that can completely change the predictions....