Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Send Topic Print
Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change (Read 34069 times)
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #15 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:05pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #16 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:08pm
 
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?

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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #17 - Mar 31st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #18 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:12pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #19 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:18pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Mar 31st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #20 - 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #21 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:43pm
 
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.


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #22 - Mar 31st, 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.


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #23 - Mar 31st, 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.


Grin

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

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #24 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:07pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 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.


Grin

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


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #25 - Mar 31st, 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #26 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:19pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 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.


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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #27 - 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #28 - Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:33pm
 
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.

Who what was rejected at the bollot box?

Im in the now time line. The after the last election timeline.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Abbott's Science and Economics of Climate Change
Reply #29 - Mar 31st, 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.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Send Topic Print