Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html

Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics. By 2011, his conversion to the mainstream was complete and he acknowledged both the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for action. On the economics however, Abbott has been moving backwards. He started out being viewed as an intellectual and an economic rationalist. When John Howard went into the 2007 election with a carbon trading scheme as policy, Abbott made sound, rational arguments in favour of putting a price on carbon, and went one step further an argued that a tax made more sense than a trading scheme. He even took the time to explain the conundrum that politicians find themselves in, preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity, but faced with a very difficult political task of selling it to members of the public to whom the economics seems counter-intuitive. Shortly after, he took a curious turn in that he continued to promote a carbon tax as a better mechanism to reduce emissions, but for absurd and non-sensical reasons (though the sound bites may appeal to disinterested or ignorant people, so long as they don't take a second look). He then proceeded to take the coalition down the path of direct action. This is a policy that is rejected by economists as expensive and wasteful, by scientists as unlikely to actually work, and by the farmers who are supposed to do all the heavy lifting. Finally, Tony Abbott has flagged a review of coalition policy (and another likely backflip) as early as 2015. It is little wonder that most of the debate about Abbott rarely gets past the first step of figuring out where he stands and what he really thinks.

Read more, including all the relevant quotes:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html

Videos of the two interviews under "absurd and non-sensical":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QXblcJAr4&feature=youtu.be

Previous discussion on carbon tax, thanks to Maqqa:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1361596373

You blew it with even he.... preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity.

That is not the case.

It would be helpful if you edited your thread to bring it in to context.

using an ozpolitic blog to prove a point is rather pitiful.

It is the case progs. The blog has the quotes from Abbott to prove it.

Yes, well.....







;)

---

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 2:17pm:

It is the case progs. The blog has the quotes from Abbott to prove it.

When he starts with "we will not be doing it" says it all dont you think.

"If this is what you want to do, we dont like it but......."

"if you are going to do ..., why not just"

The point of relevance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QXblcJAr4#t=07m29s

No where does he say "this is what we will do" or "this is what we want to do"

Thanks froggie. I have added the second quote from there, and also another anti-tax statement from the same interview.


Quote:

When he starts with "we will not be doing it" says it all dont you think.

No it doesn't progs. As the article explains, Abbott has changed his stance on both issues, from one extreme to the other. A six word sound bite cannot capture that. You may be right about his current position, but remember that is only his current position and he has flagged another backflip in as little as two years.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 2:50pm:

Thanks froggie. I have added the second quote from there, and also another anti-tax statement from the same interview. Quote: When he starts with "we will not be doing it" says it all dont you think. No it doesn't progs. As the article explains, Abbott has changed his stance on both issues, from one extreme to the other. A six word sound bite cannot capture that. You may be right about his current position, but remember that is only his current position and he has flagged another backflip in as little as two years.

I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled. That is the reality of the situation. Thats why he gets my vote. I dont care what position with wording he plays, as long as it isnt going on the path to perpetual dictatorship in the form of lifestyle control.

Quote:

I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled.

He thinks it is settled enough to commit $10billion to one of the more wasteful and dubious options to combat it. I guess you are assuming all that money isn't going to affect your lifetsyle.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:05pm:

Quote: I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled. He thinks it is settled enough to commit $10billion to one of the more wasteful and dubious options to combat it. I guess you are assuming all that money isn't going to affect your lifetsyle.

Maqqa would probably tell you that he has to because Rudd signed the kyoto protocol.

I think he is right. For the very least, we will have to acquire emission reduction units to meet the target.

They make it very difficult to chop and change through all their documetation. You want to have a go, fine with me.

If we can get through this mess, then I am happy to go past this point.

no matter what abbots policies are on this or any other topic, when he implements then he will have the support and a mandate from the people and THAT gentlemen, is the democracy we all want.

Or should.

OK progs, maybe you are right and Abbott is lying about believing the science. Is that how he goes about getting a democratic mandate?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:49pm:

OK progs, maybe you are right and Abbott is lying about believing the science. Is that how he goes about getting a democratic mandate?

its a bit like promising there will be no carbon tax, isnt it?

[seriously, you didnt see that coming?]

If Gillard had won the election outright, we would not have a carbon tax. Of course I see it coming. I never expected you to get your head around the concept of mandates in coalition government.

Longy do you also believe Abbott is lying about the science?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:55pm:

If Gillard had won the election outright, we would not have a carbon tax. Of course I see it coming. I never expected you to get your head around the concept of mandates in coalition government. Longy do you also believe Abbott is lying about the science?

if gillard had brains she would not have given the Greens a carbon tax. in her perhaps stupidest move in her life, she gave away a key promise to a party that was NEVER under any cirucmstances going to support abbott. and what did the greens give her in return? NOTHING AT ALL. they opposed labors agenda in the senate as vehemently as they would have without a carbon tax.

I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything.

youve goit a real shock coming your way in september when abbott has a 90 seat majority and even the balance of power may move to Mr X instead of the Greens.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:49pm:

OK progs, maybe you are right and Abbott is lying about believing the science. Is that how he goes about getting a democratic mandate?

Well he isnt lying if he sticks to what he says. He may be doing it just to appease the unsure, the insurance takers, but if he sticks by his word to what he promises in an election campaign, he isnt lying.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:26pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 3:05pm: Quote: I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled. He thinks it is settled enough to commit $10billion to one of the more wasteful and dubious options to combat it. I guess you are assuming all that money isn't going to affect your lifetsyle. Maqqa would probably tell you that he has to because Rudd signed the kyoto protocol. I think he is right. For the very least, we will have to acquire emission reduction units to meet the target. They make it very difficult to chop and change through all their documetation. You want to have a go, fine with me. If we can get through this mess, then I am happy to go past this point.

Maqqa would probably tell you that he has to because Rudd signed the kyoto protocol.

I think he is right. For the very least, we will have to acquire emission reduction units to meet the target.


I would think that if this was the reason then to use an option which is pretty much guaranteed to be ineffective will only mean that we pay the 10Billion on direct action and then have to pay the fines associated with it being ineffective on the top.

The reality is that Abbott has gone for direct action for only 1 reason and that is because he ruled every other option out for reasons of political expediency - it was the only option he had left and it is a stinker.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 3:51pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 3:49pm: OK progs, maybe you are right and Abbott is lying about believing the science. Is that how he goes about getting a democratic mandate? its a bit like promising there will be no carbon tax, isnt it? [seriously, you didnt see that coming?]

Well there is that too, but im pretty sure you dont want gillard to have been the start to the downfall of our politics. Lets hope she is the start and finish of the outright dishonesty and selling out of the people.

But with that said, it is a perfectly valid point you make.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:10pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 3:26pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 3:05pm: Quote: I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled. He thinks it is settled enough to commit $10billion to one of the more wasteful and dubious options to combat it. I guess you are assuming all that money isn't going to affect your lifetsyle. Maqqa would probably tell you that he has to because Rudd signed the kyoto protocol. I think he is right. For the very least, we will have to acquire emission reduction units to meet the target. They make it very difficult to chop and change through all their documetation. You want to have a go, fine with me. If we can get through this mess, then I am happy to go past this point. Maqqa would probably tell you that he has to because Rudd signed the kyoto protocol. I think he is right. For the very least, we will have to acquire emission reduction units to meet the target. I would think that if this was the reason then to use an option which is pretty much guaranteed to be ineffective will only mean that we pay the 10Billion on direct action and then have to pay the fines associated with it being ineffective on the top. The reality is that Abbott has gone for direct action for only 1 reason and that is because he ruled every other option out for reasons of political expediency - it was the only option he had left and it is a stinker.

That may be debatable for us and im pretty sure it is going to be debatable to the committee who hands out the consequences of not complying.

There would have to be plenty of head room. Looking up the paperwork was a nightmare and it all seemed to fall back on a committee. That committee is going to have no legs.

We will have to see.

Quote:

if gillard had brains she would not have given the Greens a carbon tax

Not just the Greens. Abbott too. He was all for the tax until it became Labor policy. Now she has forced him (the economist) to adopt the worst possible policy from an economic perspective and perform an equally impressive backflip. Silly Julia.


Quote:

I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything.

So what does that mean in practice? They close parliament for 3 years?


Quote:

Well he isnt lying if he sticks to what he says.

You haven't read those quotes yet have you? He has backflipped on both the science and economics already, and has scheduled another backflip for 2015.


Quote:

but if he sticks by his word to what he promises in an election campaign, he isnt lying

Do you agree with his recent stance on the science?


Quote:

youve goit a real shock coming your way in september when abbott has a 90 seat majority

You may also have a rude shock when he keeps the carbon tax.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:37pm:

Quote: if gillard had brains she would not have given the Greens a carbon tax Not just the Greens. Abbott too. He was all for the tax until it became Labor policy. Now she has forced him (the economist) to adopt the worst possible policy from an economic perspective and perform an equally impressive backflip. Silly Julia. [quote]I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything.

So what does that mean in practice? They close parliament for 3 years?


Quote:

Well he isnt lying if he sticks to what he says.

You haven't read those quotes yet have you? He has backflipped on both the science and economics already, and has scheduled another backflip for 2015.


Quote:

but if he sticks by his word to what he promises in an election campaign, he isnt lying

Do you agree with his recent stance on the science?


Quote:

youve goit a real shock coming your way in september when abbott has a 90 seat majority

You may also have a rude shock when he keeps the carbon tax.[/quote]

do you have any concept of what MANDATE means other than a party agreeing with you? the highlighted bit shows you are rapidly becoming a hysterical moron. NOBODY got a mandate for their policies form the 2010 election. only a crazy person would think so.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:37pm:

Quote: if gillard had brains she would not have given the Greens a carbon tax Not just the Greens. Abbott too. He was all for the tax until it became Labor policy. Now she has forced him (the economist) to adopt the worst possible policy from an economic perspective and perform an equally impressive backflip. Silly Julia. [quote]I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything.

So what does that mean in practice? They close parliament for 3 years?


Quote:

Well he isnt lying if he sticks to what he says.

You haven't read those quotes yet have you? He has backflipped on both the science and economics already, and has scheduled another backflip for 2015.


Quote:

but if he sticks by his word to what he promises in an election campaign, he isnt lying

Do you agree with his recent stance on the science?


Quote:

youve goit a real shock coming your way in september when abbott has a 90 seat majority

You may also have a rude shock when he keeps the carbon tax.[/quote]

it wil only because that most undemocratic of parties - the Greens - once again decides that the mandated will of the people is of no consequence to them. an election fought over the carbon tax and comprehensively one places a moral obligation on labor and the greens to vote fro repeal. however one would not normally think in terms of moral obligations in regards to the greens. they do not value the wishes of other people above their own.

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science?


Quote:

do you have any concept of what MANDATE means other than a party agreeing with you? the highlighted bit shows you are rapidly becoming a hysterical moron. NOBODY got a mandate for their policies form the 2010 election. only a crazy person would think so.

It was a question Longy. A very simple one.

So what does that mean in practice? They close parliament for 3 years?


Quote:

it wil only because that most undemocratic of parties - the Greens - once again decides that the mandated will of the people is of no consequence to them.

;D

So if Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, you would blame the Greens and not Abbott?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:53pm:

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Quote: do you have any concept of what MANDATE means other than a party agreeing with you? the highlighted bit shows you are rapidly becoming a hysterical moron. NOBODY got a mandate for their policies form the 2010 election. only a crazy person would think so. It was a question Longy. A very simple one. So what does that mean in practice? They close parliament for 3 years? [quote]it wil only because that most undemocratic of parties - the Greens - once again decides that the mandated will of the people is of no consequence to them.

;D

So if Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, you would blame the Greens and not Abbott?[/quote]

seriously FD, sometimes it is hard to work out what passes for thinking with you. A mandate or lack thereof doesn't eliminate govt. it does however - at least in a genuine democracy - mean that a govt cannot bring in major changes and then - as gillard does - claim a mandate for something she promised the opposite of.

a mandate is an IRREFUTABLE right to introduce a policy by virtue of voter support.  Im really not interested in debate what a mandate is with you because it wil no doubt involve the minor parties having mandates to overrule majority opinion or such other nonsense. You seem to have massive difficulty with the concept of majority rule. you seem to stil think in special olympics terms.

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott?

If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?


Quote:

A mandate or lack thereof doesn't eliminate govt. it does however - at least in a genuine democracy - mean that a govt cannot bring in major changes

No it doesn't. Our government had a mandate to act on climate change for a decade before it happened. The public rejected labor's plan. They did not reject action on climate change. All 3 parties had "major change" policies on climate change.


Quote:

Im really not interested in debate what a mandate is with you

Run along then.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott? If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott? Quote: A mandate or lack thereof doesn't eliminate govt. it does however - at least in a genuine democracy - mean that a govt cannot bring in major changes No it doesn't. Our government had a mandate to act on climate change for a decade before it happened. The public rejected labor's plan. They did not reject action on climate change. All 3 parties had "major change" policies on climate change. [quote]Im really not interested in debate what a mandate is with you

Run along then.[/quote]

but they did it anyhow and yet claim a mandate for what they expressly promised not to do. Even in the special olympics they understand what a promise means.

Progs, if the public rejects you at the ballot box, what do you think that means? That they want you to do exactly what you said you would?

Thanks for discussing the concept of a mandate with me. I won't hold it against you that you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Progs, if the public rejects you at the ballot box, what do you think that means? That they want you to do exactly what you said you would? Thanks for discussing the concept of a mandate with me. I won't hold it against you that you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't.

Who what was rejected at the bollot box?

Im in the now time line. The after the last election timeline.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Progs, if the public rejects you at the ballot box, what do you think that means? That they want you to do exactly what you said you would? Thanks for discussing the concept of a mandate with me. I won't hold it against you that you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't.

that is certainly the most original excuse for breaking an election promise. it is actually a pretty good defense. I think you should email to to Gillard. maybe it will comfort her on election night when 50 of her colleagues are politically executed because of it.

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott?

If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

Progs:


Quote:

Who what was rejected at the bollot box?

Libor. And Laberal.


Quote:

Im in the now time line. The after the last election timeline.

I'm glad you have figured that out.

september 2013: the return of honour and democracy. assuming Gillard doesnt stage a coup. Could you really categorically rule that out?

and how many of you would support it?

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott?

If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Longy do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott? If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

Abbotts policy hasnt changed has it?

Sure it has.

Do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott?

If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:07pm:

Sure it has. Do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott? If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

Direct action is still direct action. Where is the change in policy?

Before direct action. And after it.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Before direct action. And after it.

Abbotts policy before or after direct action were/are what?

I get he has changed his stance on the science and think I know why, but his policy has not changed.

Quote:

Abbotts policy before or after direct action were/are what?

If you read the quotes it would be fairly obvious what it was before. As for after, I think we'll have to wait until 2015 for that. My guess is a tax.


Quote:

I get he has changed his stance on the science and think I know why

Please enlighten us....

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Quote: Abbotts policy before or after direct action were/are what? If you read the quotes it would be fairly obvious what it was before. As for after, I think we'll have to wait until 2015 for that. My guess is a tax. [quote]I get he has changed his stance on the science and think I know why

Please enlighten us....[/quote]
Abbotts policy as opposition leader has always been direct action. Is still direct action.

I know where you are going, but be dammed if I thought you were that cheap and frankly a little on the lame side.

Quote:

Abbotts policy as opposition leader has always been direct action.

Well done. You have found yet another way to restate the time frame.


Quote:

I know where you are going

Feel free to jump ahead.

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Quote: Abbotts policy as opposition leader has always been direct action. Well done. You have found yet another way to restate the time frame. [quote]I know where you are going

Feel free to jump ahead.[/quote]
Answering my questions without riddles would be better. Ill leave this hread to you and jump in occasionally to fix it.

If the coalition gets elected they have no mandate to implement Maoist Policies on us no matter what Longweekend or Maqqa think...

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 1:52pm:

Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics.

In my other thread - I continue to tell FD to listen to the interview.

FD tells us time and time again that FD has listened to the interview

This thread is further evidence that FD not only didn't listen to the interview but failed to understand the overall context. FD is deliberately pushing misinformation

The first 2 sentence is evidence of this

Sentence 1
Moving in the opposite direction of the science and economics. Facts are the science is not settled. Abbott specifically said in the interview that the science is not settled. If the science is not settled then how can economic modelling be done? So if economic modelling cannot be done accurately then how can you accurately make a statement that Abbott's moving away in the opposite direct if you are not even sure where you have started


Sentence 2
Note how FD is using the word "extreme climate sceptic". The climate have been changing for 4.6 billion years. No one is disputing this. So FD's usage of the words "climate sceptic" is deliberately trying to say Abbott does not think the weather changes everyday.


So even in the first two sentences of FD's opening post he/she has lied, spread misinformation and contradict the references he/she posted then what is the value of the rest of the post??


over to you FD

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 7:32pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: Abbotts policy as opposition leader has always been direct action. Well done. You have found yet another way to restate the time frame. [quote]I know where you are going Feel free to jump ahead.

Answering my questions without riddles would be better. Ill leave this hread to you and jump in occasionally to fix it.[/quote]

Longy if you are confused about something just ask. I cannot answer a question if you don't post it.

Where do you think I am going with this? Do you think I have some kind of secret agenda?

Do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott?

If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

Quote:

So if economic modelling cannot be done accurately then how can you accurately make a statement that Abbott's moving away in the opposite direct if you are not even sure where you have started

Can you elaborate please Maqqa? Are you suggesting that Abbott's two backflips were in the same direction? Or are you arguing that because he made two backflips in opposite directions, they cancel each other out? Or are you just not sure which way is up?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 7:36pm:

Quote: So if economic modelling cannot be done accurately then how can you accurately make a statement that Abbott's moving away in the opposite direct if you are not even sure where you have started Can you elaborate please Maqqa? Are you suggesting that Abbott's two backflips were in the same direction? Or are you arguing that because he made two backflips in opposite directions, they cancel each other out? Or are you just not sure which way is up?

Rather than addressing the faults I've found in your first 2 sentences - you've now want to focus on Abbott's "2 backflips"

When you've addressed the falsehood of your first two sentence - then you can highlight these 2 backflips with full interviews and context rather than sound bytes

maqqa

Quote:

So if economic modelling cannot be done accurately then how can you accurately make a statement that Abbott's moving away in the opposite direct if you are not even sure where you have started

That is a perfect example of how progressive logic works.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 7:32pm: freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 6:25pm: Quote: Abbotts policy as opposition leader has always been direct action. Well done. You have found yet another way to restate the time frame. [quote]I know where you are going Feel free to jump ahead. Answering my questions without riddles would be better. Ill leave this hread to you and jump in occasionally to fix it.

Longy if you are confused about something just ask. I cannot answer a question if you don't post it.

Where do you think I am going with this? Do you think I have some kind of secret agenda?

Do you agree with Abbott's recent stance on the science? Which Abbott do you believe? 2009 Abbott, 2011 Abbott, or the yet to be determined 2015 Abbott?

If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott? [/quote]
That has been the problem all along. No proof of what 2009 11 or 15 is.

You tried to define what the proof was with sound bytes that were out of context. Is there some proof I am not seeing?

Ok so looking at your page on Abbott changing his mind or opinion.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html

Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership.

Couple that view with his direct action. The man is a genius.

;)

@ progs

All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled"

Labor took that and smeared it into "Abbott is a climate change denier"

Lefties accuse me of being bias

But they allow Labor to convert:

"The science is not settled" ==>> "Abbott is a climate change denier"

Maqqa wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 10:25pm:

@ progs All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled" Labor took that and smeared it into "Abbott is a climate change denier" Lefties accuse me of being bias But they allow Labor to convert: "The science is not settled" ==>> "Abbott is a climate change denier"

All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled"

Is that really all he has said ?????

I think that its all BS was one of his other pearls.

Or how about his statments about the political need to support climate change.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 10:16pm:

Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership.

So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version?

climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it

I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 7:36pm:

Quote: So if economic modelling cannot be done accurately then how can you accurately make a statement that Abbott's moving away in the opposite direct if you are not even sure where you have started Can you elaborate please Maqqa? Are you suggesting that Abbott's two backflips were in the same direction? Or are you arguing that because he made two backflips in opposite directions, they cancel each other out? Or are you just not sure which way is up?

Backflip is the wrong term to use.

Whenever one makes a backlip, one ends up facing in the same direction as before.

I've never understood why people continue to use this incorrect term.

"About face" is more apt.

Good point. Perhaps that is what Maqqa was on about. He did seem highly focused on directions. Normally he would have brought up the Kyoto protocol by now.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 2:57pm:

I dont doubt that Abbott still believes the science isnt settled. That is the reality of the situation. Thats why he gets my vote. I dont care what position with wording he plays, as long as it isnt going on the path to perpetual dictatorship in the form of lifestyle control.

But Mr Abbott now tells us:
I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate.

Are you saying he is a liar?

His party has a policy to reduce emissions.  Exactly the same level of emission reduction as the government.

Are you saying he is an idiot?

And what does that make you?  Someone who now tells us he will vote for a party that has a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions!  When all along - you believe nothing except what Andre Bolt and Alan Jones tell you!  Or what you read in Daily Mail opinion pieces!!!

What a clever little chappy you are!!

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 9:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats

I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2.

I am not convinced of Abbotts ability to submit to and obey the authority of God so how can we be sure he has the character for leadership.  And what does hid daughters public statements and his lsisters lesbianism tell us of his character as a father and the morals he has instilled in them?  I am far from convinced that Abbott is a godly man or fit to lead the country....

Freediver wrote.....

****Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change.



Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics. By 2011, his conversion to the mainstream was complete and he acknowledged both the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for action. On the economics however, Abbott has been moving backwards. He started out being viewed as an intellectual and an economic rationalist. When John Howard went into the 2007 election with a carbon trading scheme as policy, Abbott made sound, rational arguments in favour of putting a price on carbon, and went one step further an argued that a tax made more sense than a trading scheme. He even took the time to explain the conundrum that politicians find themselves in, preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity, but faced with a very difficult political task of selling it to members of the public to whom the economics seems counter-intuitive. Shortly after, he took a curious turn in that he continued to promote a carbon tax as a better mechanism to reduce emissions, but for absurd and non-sensical reasons (though the sound bites may appeal to disinterested or ignorant people, so long as they don't take a second look). He then proceeded to take the coalition down the path of direct action. This is a policy that is rejected by economists as expensive and wasteful, by scientists as unlikely to actually work, and by the farmers who are supposed to do all the heavy lifting. Finally, Tony Abbott has flagged a review of coalition policy (and another likely backflip) as early as 2015. It is little wonder that most of the debate about Abbott rarely gets past the first step of figuring out where he stands and what he really thinks.

Read more, including all the relevant quotes:******  by Freediver


Thats because deep down, like the majority of rational thinking adults, this opposed to stoned hippies.. he knows there's a need for policy review...in the absence of  credible science to back it up before reaching a consensus either way.  It's one thing to come up with a policy, it's another thing again to sell it to an increasingly skeptical community.  A leader must be flexible...must gauge the public's willingness to accept policy before unleashing it.  ...and in light of the recent droves of climatologists and scientists now coming forward and admitting they either got it wrong or were instructed to falsify data to conceal information from trusting unsuspecting tax-payers, I think it's understandable that Tony Abbott might want to re-think his policy ...particularly when it's based on less than credible findings from scientists who readily admit to having cooked the books in order to keep the government funding coming in order to keep their jobs.

I know 2 people who work in 2 separate departments at the CSIRO, and both don't believe carbon is whats causing the climatic cyclic trends our planet has been enduring since the beginning of time.

We cool down, we warm back up again. We have a decade of higher than usual summers, then we endure a period of cooling  ....Eventually, we will endure another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years, and well before man inhabited the earth.

Carbon Tax is a communist UN tax..designed to get nations purchasing Green technology.....  Israel will be stoked.

Israel is a greentech super-power afterall, this and stand to cash in on the global demand for Green technology as more and more nations buckle under the mounting pressure to pay their electricity bills so sort Greener, more energy efficient alternatives.

And before you rant and rave ....this and go off half cocked...  ask yourself, why are scientists coming forward in droves changing their position on Climate Change?

What percentage of Australians do you suppose believe Climate Change can be harnessed, prevented, even reversed with a Carbon Tax?



8-)

A)  80% +
B)  60% +
C)  40%+
D)  20%+
E)  10% +

Dnarever wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 8:28am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: @ progs All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled" Labor took that and smeared it into "Abbott is a climate change denier" Lefties accuse me of being bias But they allow Labor to convert: "The science is not settled" ==>> "Abbott is a climate change denier" All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled" Is that really all he has said ????? I think that its all BS was one of his other pearls. Or how about his statments about the political need to support climate change.

If you have proof other other direct quotes then bring it up

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52pm:

Good point. Perhaps that is what Maqqa was on about. He did seem highly focused on directions. Normally he would have brought up the Kyoto protocol by now.

I've hit you guys so much with it that you actually like it now

And still no comment about the errors in your first 2 statements

freediver wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 1:52pm:

Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics. By 2011, his conversion to the mainstream was complete and he acknowledged both the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for action. On the economics however, Abbott has been moving backwards. He started out being viewed as an intellectual and an economic rationalist. When John Howard went into the 2007 election with a carbon trading scheme as policy, Abbott made sound, rational arguments in favour of putting a price on carbon, and went one step further an argued that a tax made more sense than a trading scheme. He even took the time to explain the conundrum that politicians find themselves in, preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity, but faced with a very difficult political task of selling it to members of the public to whom the economics seems counter-intuitive. Shortly after, he took a curious turn in that he continued to promote a carbon tax as a better mechanism to reduce emissions, but for absurd and non-sensical reasons (though the sound bites may appeal to disinterested or ignorant people, so long as they don't take a second look). He then proceeded to take the coalition down the path of direct action. This is a policy that is rejected by economists as expensive and wasteful, by scientists as unlikely to actually work, and by the farmers who are supposed to do all the heavy lifting. Finally, Tony Abbott has flagged a review of coalition policy (and another likely backflip) as early as 2015. It is little wonder that most of the debate about Abbott rarely gets past the first step of figuring out where he stands and what he really thinks. Read more, including all the relevant quotes: http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html

Climates have always changed and only criminals get on this theoretical bandwagon. It is the way leftists operate.

They have no talent, little skill so they have to tax those who are no better eqipped with brains.

That is why Labor is in government.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 1:52pm: Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics. By 2011, his conversion to the mainstream was complete and he acknowledged both the scientific consensus on climate change and the need for action. On the economics however, Abbott has been moving backwards. He started out being viewed as an intellectual and an economic rationalist. When John Howard went into the 2007 election with a carbon trading scheme as policy, Abbott made sound, rational arguments in favour of putting a price on carbon, and went one step further an argued that a tax made more sense than a trading scheme. He even took the time to explain the conundrum that politicians find themselves in, preferring a carbon tax for it's effectiveness and simplicity, but faced with a very difficult political task of selling it to members of the public to whom the economics seems counter-intuitive. Shortly after, he took a curious turn in that he continued to promote a carbon tax as a better mechanism to reduce emissions, but for absurd and non-sensical reasons (though the sound bites may appeal to disinterested or ignorant people, so long as they don't take a second look). He then proceeded to take the coalition down the path of direct action. This is a policy that is rejected by economists as expensive and wasteful, by scientists as unlikely to actually work, and by the farmers who are supposed to do all the heavy lifting. Finally, Tony Abbott has flagged a review of coalition policy (and another likely backflip) as early as 2015. It is little wonder that most of the debate about Abbott rarely gets past the first step of figuring out where he stands and what he really thinks. Read more, including all the relevant quotes: http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html Climates have always changed and only criminals get on this theoretical bandwagon. It is the way leftists operate. They have no talent, little skill so they have to tax those who are no better eqipped with brains. That is why Labor is in government.

"eqipped " ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope Abbott does something soon. Look what happens to places like the gold coast when you have warm water creating more sea ice.


Gold Coast after its warm waters created Sea Ice
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenhunter_13-apr-03-19-48.jpg

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:34pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:24pm: Progs, if the public rejects you at the ballot box, what do you think that means? That they want you to do exactly what you said you would? Thanks for discussing the concept of a mandate with me. I won't hold it against you that you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't. that is certainly the most original excuse for breaking an election promise. it is actually a pretty good defense. I think you should email to to Gillard. maybe it will comfort her on election night when 50 of her colleagues are politically executed because of it.

Check out some examples of Longy's stunning hypocrisy on the concept of mandates:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365047005

Prior to jumping on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon, Longy was arguing against the concept of majority rule in democracy, insisting that in order to be fair to political parties we must grant them full power without requiring majority support. He has also argued that political parties should impose unpopular changes on the voting public against the wishes of the majority.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 1:52pm: Tony Abbott on the Science and Economics of Climate Change http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html Tony Abbott has been moving in opposite directions on the science and economics of climate change. Until as recently as 2009 Abbott was one of our most extreme climate sceptics. In my other thread - I continue to tell FD to listen to the interview. FD tells us time and time again that FD has listened to the interview This thread is further evidence that FD not only didn't listen to the interview but failed to understand the overall context. FD is deliberately pushing misinformation The first 2 sentence is evidence of this Sentence 1 Moving in the opposite direction of the science and economics. Facts are the science is not settled. Abbott specifically said in the interview that the science is not settled. If the science is not settled then how can economic modelling be done? So if economic modelling cannot be done accurately then how can you accurately make a statement that Abbott's moving away in the opposite direct if you are not even sure where you have started Sentence 2 Note how FD is using the word "extreme climate sceptic". The climate have been changing for 4.6 billion years. No one is disputing this. So FD's usage of the words "climate sceptic" is deliberately trying to say Abbott does not think the weather changes everyday. So even in the first two sentences of FD's opening post he/she has lied, spread misinformation and contradict the references he/she posted then what is the value of the rest of the post?? over to you FD

bump for FD

Abbott does have some thoughts on the subject, it's just hard to tell which way he will blow next.

---

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2.

Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time.

Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues.

We all know climate change and the pollution that causes it will cease to exist when Abbott ascends to the throne so lets all just chill out.
It'll be ok...Phony Tony told us so  :D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 8:28am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:25pm: @ progs All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled" Labor took that and smeared it into "Abbott is a climate change denier" Lefties accuse me of being bias But they allow Labor to convert: "The science is not settled" ==>> "Abbott is a climate change denier" All Abbott ever said was "the science is not settled" Is that really all he has said ????? I think that its all BS was one of his other pearls. Or how about his statments about the political need to support climate change. If you have proof other other direct quotes then bring it up

What Tony's word isn't good enough for you????

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues.

Longy can you explain in what ways he is close to what you want, given that he has now jumped on the climate change and CO2 bandwagon?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues. Longy can you explain in what ways he is close to what you want, given that he has now jumped on the climate change and CO2 bandwagon?

He is close to what everyone wants - he simultaniously supports everything and nothing, vote for Tony and you can't lose - you also can't win.

My thought is that his true position is the its all BS one.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:18pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues. Longy can you explain in what ways he is close to what you want, given that he has now jumped on the climate change and CO2 bandwagon? He is close to what everyone wants - he simultaniously supports everything and nothing, vote for Tony and you can't lose - you also can't win. My thought is that his true position is the its all BS one.

Yes. The closest to what everyone wants (because he believes something must be done) ;)  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:24pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:18pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues. Longy can you explain in what ways he is close to what you want, given that he has now jumped on the climate change and CO2 bandwagon? He is close to what everyone wants - he simultaniously supports everything and nothing, vote for Tony and you can't lose - you also can't win. My thought is that his true position is the its all BS one. Yes. The closest to what everyone wants (because he believes something must be done) ;)  ;D

and with 14 words you've just proven you are nothing but a puppet and Abbott is your puppet master.

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:24pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:18pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues. Longy can you explain in what ways he is close to what you want, given that he has now jumped on the climate change and CO2 bandwagon? He is close to what everyone wants - he simultaniously supports everything and nothing, vote for Tony and you can't lose - you also can't win. My thought is that his true position is the its all BS one. Yes. The closest to what everyone wants (because he believes something must be done) ;)  ;D and with 14 words you've just proven you are nothing but a puppet and Abbott is your puppet master.

You have proved for some time that you cry when you realise labor and greens are going to get crushed at the next election.

That is enough for me to fight for Abbott to the end. An added bonus is that his policy direction is pretty close to what I want.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

You have proved for some time that you cry when you realise labor and greens are going to get crushed at the next election.

and then you say


progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

That is enough for me to fight for Abbott to the end

the problem is that if you believed the first statement, you wouldn't have needed to make the second statement ...



as for the third part of your statement

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

An added bonus is that his policy direction is pretty close to what I want.

What policies? what direction? he has lots of ideas but no real policies, and he has at some point or other advocated every possible direction ... maybe you can explain it .

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:27pm: You have proved for some time that you cry when you realise labor and greens are going to get crushed at the next election. and then you say progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:27pm: That is enough for me to fight for Abbott to the end the problem is that if you believed the first statement, you wouldn't have needed to make the second statement ... as for the third part of your statement progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:27pm: An added bonus is that his policy direction is pretty close to what I want. What policies? what direction? he has lots of ideas but no real policies, and he has at some point or other advocated every possible direction ... maybe you can explain it .

WTHell was that  ::) Think you need to rethink and retype.

nooo, you just need to think

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:24pm: freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:18pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:18pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 5:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 9:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Ill take 2009 and even better 2011. Then when he goes to an election, he has given his views for you to vote on. As an added bonus, 2011 is the better view to vote on. The man has an open mind, so shows a good trait for leadership. So you agree with these two statements for example, rather than the earlier (2009) version? climate change is real, humanity does make a contribution to it and we’ve got to take effective action against it I think that climate change is real. I think that mankind makes a contribution and I think that we should put in place reasonable policies to deal with credible threats I agree with Abbotts transition(especially because of the position he came from and then to) and direct action. How far he wants to take "reasonable action" will determine my future vote. I am of the view of keeping the planet clean of particulates and poisons, not concerned with co2. Do you think Abbotts "transition" (love the euphemism) on climate change science is all about particulates and poisons, not C02? You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes. He is the closest to what I want and no, he does not specifically deal with my issues. Longy can you explain in what ways he is close to what you want, given that he has now jumped on the climate change and CO2 bandwagon? He is close to what everyone wants - he simultaniously supports everything and nothing, vote for Tony and you can't lose - you also can't win. My thought is that his true position is the its all BS one. Yes. The closest to what everyone wants (because he believes something must be done) ;)  ;D and with 14 words you've just proven you are nothing but a puppet and Abbott is your puppet master. You have proved for some time that you cry when you realise labor and greens are going to get crushed at the next election. That is enough for me to fight for Abbott to the end. An added bonus is that his policy direction is pretty close to what I want.

Sorry for calling you Longy back there. Don't you think it is a bit naive to fight for someone till the end when they don't even represent your views?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

Sorry for calling you Longy back there. Don't you think it is a bit naive to fight for someone till the end when they don't even represent your views?

Well that all depends how close/far away they are from my views compared to the other mob. Also how bad the other mob are at day to day governing. Also if the other mob have done the extreme no no at election time to gain power at any cost.

Dont worry, its all been weighed up and yes we can all have differing opinions.

NP you call me anything you like.

Would you mind explaining your views on the science?

For the economics, do you think it makes most sense to choose the cheapest way to reduce emissions (provided it works)?

You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature.

What is the economics sense for Australia to make a reduction when it make no difference to GLOBAL temperature because MOST of the Appendix 1 countries are still blowing their emission targets

Makka wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 12:08am:

You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature. What is the economics sense for Australia to make a reduction when it make no difference to GLOBAL temperature because MOST of the Appendix 1 countries are still blowing their emission targets

I think it goes something like this:

If the dumb country does it and keeps doing it, it will force the smart countries to follow, all done through the special powers of empathy. Smart countries dont do things like this by the numbers, but they may feel sorry for us in the end.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Would you mind explaining your views on the science? For the economics, do you think it makes most sense to choose the cheapest way to reduce emissions (provided it works)?

About the science, keeping it short, debatable or worse.

Economics, not always either way.

Progs I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you elaborate please? Are you afraid to offer your own opinion in case you disagree with Abbott?


Quote:

You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature.

Makka there are plenty of things I have actually said that you could respond too rather than making something up. Both major parties have almost identical policies of linking our emissions reduction targets with foreign countries including China and India.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

Makka wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 12:08am: You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature. What is the economics sense for Australia to make a reduction when it make no difference to GLOBAL temperature because MOST of the Appendix 1 countries are still blowing their emission targets I think it goes something like this: If the dumb country does it and keeps doing it, it will force the smart countries to follow, all done through the special powers of empathy. Smart countries dont do things like this by the numbers, but they may feel sorry for us in the end.

I guess you never heard the argument that how to reduce emissions and how much to reduce them by are different questions?

Does it matter? The tax and ETS will be dead come sept and the direct action is capped at $3.2bn and not a penny more.

Imagine how competitive Australia will be in the carbon markets when they manage to reduce the maximum amount of CO2 for the least amount possible. Everyone will want a slice of that $3.2bn with the highest reducers pulling the big bucks. We can sell the technology all over the world.

Are you sure about that? Tony Abbott for example has spent a significant part of his political career promoting a carbon tax and has scheduled another backflip on the issue for 2015 - the same year that Labor has legislated a shift from a tax to an ETS.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

Progs I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you elaborate please? Are you afraid to offer your own opinion in case you disagree with Abbott? Quote: You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature. Makka there are plenty of things I have actually said that you could respond too rather than making something up. Both major parties have almost identical policies of linking our emissions reduction targets with foreign countries including China and India.

Which part of that sentence did I "make up"?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 12:16am: Makka wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 12:08am: You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature. What is the economics sense for Australia to make a reduction when it make no difference to GLOBAL temperature because MOST of the Appendix 1 countries are still blowing their emission targets I think it goes something like this: If the dumb country does it and keeps doing it, it will force the smart countries to follow, all done through the special powers of empathy. Smart countries dont do things like this by the numbers, but they may feel sorry for us in the end. I guess you never heard the argument that how to reduce emissions and how much to reduce them by are different questions?

How much to reduce by
The proposed reason for reducing emissions is to reduce GLOBAL temperature

The science is NOT settled on human's contribution of global temperature

We don't even know in percentage terms how much humans are responsible for


How we reduce
If the science is not settled then cutting emissions would do the following
(1) If humans contribute bugger all to the overall carbon equation then reducing it makes bugger all difference
(2) If humans are the major cause of global temperature change and it's already TOO LATE as some are claiming then reducing emissions would make bugger all difference

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

Are you sure about that? Tony Abbott for example has spent a significant part of his political career promoting a carbon tax and has scheduled another backflip on the issue for 2015 - the same year that Labor has legislated a shift from a tax to an ETS.

please show us

Here you go:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html


Quote:

Which part of that sentence did I "make up"?

All of it. Fortunately, it is not a particularly long or complicated sentence.


Quote:

The science is NOT settled on human's contribution of global temperature

It is according to Abbott. Who are we to question that?


Quote:

(1) If humans contribute bugger all to the overall carbon equation then reducing it makes bugger all difference (2) If humans are the major cause of global temperature change and it's already TOO LATE as some are claiming then reducing emissions would make bugger all difference

No middle ground eh?

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 9:16am:

Are you sure about that? Tony Abbott for example has spent a significant part of his political career promoting a carbon tax and has scheduled another backflip on the issue for 2015 - the same year that Labor has legislated a shift from a tax to an ETS.

Yes, I am sure. Your wishful thinking and hopeful speculation does not have a hope in hell.

If you think that Abbott is planning on doing a back flip in his second year of a 3 year term of his inaugural election after campaigning against it an winning office then you understand very little about politics or think that the way the ALP has conducted itself is a sound strategy for gaining government.

Quote:

If you think that Abbott is planning on doing a back flip in his second year of a 3 year term of his inaugural election

It's not just me.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/tony-abbot-science-economics-climate-change.html


Quote:

A carbon price would never be imposed under a Coalition government, Tony Abbott has vowed, apparently toughening the policy he announced last December when he said a price on emissions would be considered when the Coalition reviewed its ''direct action'' climate policy in 2015. The shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, has said he believes a carbon price is ''inevitable'', and the environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, said last December the Coalition would use the direct action policy of government grants to reduce emissions in the ''first instance'' but would ''consider [a carbon price] when we know what the US is going to do''. Most business groups have emerged from briefings with the Coalition believing that the ''direct action'' policy was an interim or transitional policy and the Coalition would consider some form of carbon price in the longer run - probably the baseline and credit scheme it proposed during the failed negotiations with the then-Rudd government last year. But yesterday Mr Abbott said ''we do not believe in artificially imposing a carbon price on consumers. There will be no carbon price on consumers under a Coalition government.'' Mr Abbott appeared to suggest the Coalition's acceptance of a carbon price would be contingent on the big developing countries such as India and China accepting binding targets for absolute reductions in their levels of emissions.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:45pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:37pm: Quote: if gillard had brains she would not have given the Greens a carbon tax Not just the Greens. Abbott too. He was all for the tax until it became Labor policy. Now she has forced him (the economist) to adopt the worst possible policy from an economic perspective and perform an equally impressive backflip. Silly Julia. [quote]I know what a mandate is and in 2010, no one had a mandate for anything. So what does that mean in practice? They close parliament for 3 years? [quote]Well he isnt lying if he sticks to what he says.

You haven't read those quotes yet have you? He has backflipped on both the science and economics already, and has scheduled another backflip for 2015.


Quote:

but if he sticks by his word to what he promises in an election campaign, he isnt lying

Do you agree with his recent stance on the science?


Quote:

youve goit a real shock coming your way in september when abbott has a 90 seat majority

You may also have a rude shock when he keeps the carbon tax.[/quote]

it wil only because that most undemocratic of parties - the Greens - once again decides that the mandated will of the people is of no consequence to them. an election fought over the carbon tax and comprehensively one places a moral obligation on labor and the greens to vote fro repeal. however one would not normally think in terms of moral obligations in regards to the greens. they do not value the wishes of other people above their own.
[/quote]

Longy I don't think you ever responded on this. If Abbott did the exact same thing as Julia for the exact same reasons, would you blame the Greens and not Abbott?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

Makka wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 12:08am: You keep talking about "Australia" reducing emissions as if it will reduce GLOBAL temperature. What is the economics sense for Australia to make a reduction when it make no difference to GLOBAL temperature because MOST of the Appendix 1 countries are still blowing their emission targets I think it goes something like this: If the dumb country does it and keeps doing it, it will force the smart countries to follow, all done through the special powers of empathy. Smart countries dont do things like this by the numbers, but they may feel sorry for us in the end.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 5:27pm:

Thinking is over rated

Abbott stoops even lower - how is a fixed price on carbon creating uncertainty? Out of all the measures to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is the most predictable for businesses.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the carbon price and mining tax are to blame for economic uncertainty in Australia while also responding to the language of asylum and the nature of speech in parliament.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Abbott stoops even lower - how is a fixed price on carbon creating uncertainty? Out of all the measures to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is the most predictable for businesses. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the carbon price and mining tax are to blame for economic uncertainty in Australia while also responding to the language of asylum and the nature of speech in parliament.

Yes.  It is bizarre that he thinks that a fixed price creates "uncertainty".  When he proposes exactly the same emission reductions as the ALP by imposing a Great Big Tax that will arbitrarily pay the polluters that his government chooses to pay.

Surely there is far more "uncertainty" in business as to who an Abbott government will choose to give our tax money to?  Especially for businesses that are not donors to the Liberal Party.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Abbott stoops even lower - how is a fixed price on carbon creating uncertainty? Out of all the measures to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is the most predictable for businesses. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the carbon price and mining tax are to blame for economic uncertainty in Australia while also responding to the language of asylum and the nature of speech in parliament.

seriously??? you dont understand the certainty it is creating?? are you even capable of acknowledging the existence of a counter argument to your point of view? We already know you are incapable of understanding one.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Abbott stoops even lower - how is a fixed price on carbon creating uncertainty? Out of all the measures to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is the most predictable for businesses. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the carbon price and mining tax are to blame for economic uncertainty in Australia while also responding to the language of asylum and the nature of speech in parliament.

You are correct FD

Asking businesses and ultimately consumers to pay $23/MT while the market is paying $4/MT creates certainty that Australians are getting screwed

Typical of the ALP to get on the global warming band wagon just as the wheels are falling off, was a good opportunity to do what they do best though ... waste lots of money  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 7:14pm: Abbott stoops even lower - how is a fixed price on carbon creating uncertainty? Out of all the measures to reduce emissions, a carbon tax is the most predictable for businesses. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3573785.htm Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the carbon price and mining tax are to blame for economic uncertainty in Australia while also responding to the language of asylum and the nature of speech in parliament. seriously??? you dont understand the certainty it is creating?? are you even capable of acknowledging the existence of a counter argument to your point of view? We already know you are incapable of understanding one.

If you are aware of a counter argument, post it. Hinting at the possibility of it's existence doesn't really cut it.

BTW, Abbott claimed it is creating uncertainty, not certainty. For an economist to say this sort of thing is pretty low. It's like a doctor telling you to make yourself a sh1t sandwich.