Carbon Tax Rally
And into the inbox comes an email from Simon Sheikh...
"Stuart, did you see the rally against climate action in Canberra this week?
Next Saturday those same shock-jocks and politicians are rallying in Sydney to claim that our town doesn't want real action on Climate Change. But if they think we can be defeated by fear, they're about to see what real grassroots community action looks like.
Let's join together for a few hours next Saturday the 2nd of April -- not to have a louder, angrier rally, but to show the difference in both our numbers and message: the difference between fear and hope. While they're shouting their angry slogans and misinformation, on the other side of Sydney we'll hold a positive, family-friendly gathering to stand up for our vision for clean energy and preserving a safe climate for our kids.'
Read more here...
JH was too unpalatable to be elected too 'eh... I wish and I vote.
Well, I go and do a couple of days work, come back, and sheesh, has this little thread gone off!
Stunet; you use alot of words to describe those who oppose your point of view. Words like "shock jock", Neo liberals, right wingers,Alan Jones spun nonsense. Well I can assure you, I am not a right winger. As I stated earlier, I voted Labor. Exept for one time, I have voted Labor all my life. So please don't pidgeonhole people like me just because I hold a different pov. The tactic labor is currently using, labelling people like myself "deniers" is an outrage. A disgrace. An vile attempt to stymie debate. Problem is, I can't vote libs, cos, they're a bunch of rednecks, and now I can't vote Labor, cos, they have gone to the dogs too, turning on those who helped them to power, people like me. I'll just donkey it next election.
You write; "The main thrust being that the science will never be resolved so we have to MOVE THE DEBATE AWAY FROM THE SCIENTIFIC FIELD and into the field of risk management."
Umm, no. No, we don't move away from science.
You use China as a leading example. You're on really shaky ground when you use a regime veiled in secrecy as an glowing example. I could go on, but I'm tired too, tired of it all. It would take a 20000 word essay, and I don't feel like boring every one to death. But just quickly, China still plans to build a new coal fired power station every TWO WEEKS. And to add insult to injury they plan to build as many as 50 nuclear reactors over the next five years — more than the rest of the world combined. THERE GOES KAKADU!!! MORE CARBON STORING VEGETATION, GONE!!
Link here - http://www.cnbc.com/id/42261898
That's where people have to careful for what they wish for. I honestly believe that the pro nuclear movement have been secretly fanning the fires of this carbon debate since Margaret Thatcher put forward the theory of global warming in the 1980s. Over the past few years, many times have I heard, " we have to consider the clean option of nuclear power to meet our carbon reduction quotas". F*ckn great!!!
Australia was/is being subliminally softened up for Nuclear power. "They" just didn't count on one thing - a disaster like Japan. It has set the pro nuclear lobby back tenfold.
Lastly, here's a list of scientists who oppose Gillard;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen...
These scientists actually have some credentials when it comes to climate/ weather/ meteorology, unlike Tim Flannery, who has no, that's right NO BACKGROUND in this field, yet he is the head of climate change? He's a paleontologist, not meteorologist. And as for Ross Garnaut, up until last year he was the chairman of Lihir Gold, resigning last year when their “Ocean Dumping of Cyanide contaminated mining waste†into the sea off New Guinea became known. Google it if you like. The guy couldn't "lie" straight in bed.
Sorry Stunet, but the whole thing stinks of bullshit
Cheers.
I used China as a leading example?
Really?
Think you better reread my comments, mate. While you're there please point out where I used the term 'neo-liberal' in a pejorative sense and where I used the term 'shock jock' at all (and please don't attribute quotes I've used to words I've said).
You're clearly fixed on your views and reading whatever you want to fit your own agenda. So be it. Close-minded thinking doesn't help the debate, however.
And you're using Andrew Bolt as a source...!!!
Woah, way to get balanced information...
Stunet have a look who has a closed mind.
Secondly don't assume how old I am.I pretty sure I have it all over you.
You weren't at the rally so don't talk about the type of people there.
By the way did you catch what Tim Flannery had to say to Steve Price on MTR Melbourne on Friday. Now if his admission didn't just blew the whole human induced global warming story out of the water then you don't have a logical thinking mind.
Stunet most intellects such as yourself don't have any commensense.
By the way I am sick on tired of non-contributing members of society such as welfare dependants,dole bludgers,non working students who sit at home sponging off there parents having a say about thing's such as a carbon tax or any other thing that affects the prosperity of this country. So go back in your worthless hole and stay there till you contribute to this society that support's you.
Stu makesure you have your rally away from the carbon tax rally as there will be lot's of family's there so we don't need a bunch silly uni student,tree hugging idiot's carrying on as they always do.
For all those who didn't catch what Tim Flannery had to say to Steve Price
When first pushed about how much affect a carbon tax in Australia would have on global temperature he wouldn't say. When pushed further he come out and said if the whole world stopped it's carbon admission it would PROBABLY take a 1000 years before we would see a slight change in temperature.
Now let's see we have only been pumping out large amounts(supposably to the detriment to the global temperature) for say 50 years tops. Now the temperature hasn't changed dramatically,but it would take a 1000 years after the whole world stopped it's CO2 admission's to PROBABLY see a SLIGHT change in temperature.
If that is not admitting that we human's have very,very,very little affect on the global temperature and that it is more a natural occurance then nothing will.
Remember this is from a bloke that is pro carbon tax,pro global warming not a so called misfit denier.
Stu please stop assuming that people against a carbon tax don't believe in the climate changing as a whole the earth has been a warmer planet than it is now. We are probably going back to a more reallistic temperature. Whether that is good only time will tell.
Don't know how much truth is in this, but this is an email I recieved the other day.
ETS tax for dummies – regardless of your political persuasion.
Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!
ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.
Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.
Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.
Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.
20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour.
10 metres left.
9 metres are argon.
Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.
Its natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
Thats the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.
It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliamen
I recently heard Captain Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd say words to the effect of " We are all on a spaceship. On this spaceship we have crew and passengers. The natural world is the crew and humans are the passengers. If the passengers kill the crew the spaceship crashes and humans die". A rather simple but, in my eyes, effective analogy on why we must care for the plant. I guess the Easter Island experience is worth noting here also.
Neil Young in his 1970 After the Gold Rush sang about having mother nature on the run and it all just continues 4 decades on.
&feature=relatedI really don't care for politicians mel-anoma, I stopped voting mainstream years ago. My only hope is that more independents get voted in and like the current crop (god bless them all) force both sides of politics to be more accountable.
I really don't care what you have to say nick3. Your most recent comments show a real lack of compassion and common decency towards your fellow man.
Sorry I forgot to mention the best bit. When Tim Flannery was asked why it would PROBABLY take a 1000 years before we MIGHT see a change in temperature. He said it is very complex.
Now correct me if I'am wrong but prior to his comment it was very simple. Man was to blame for global warming from our carbon admission's and if we stop it would stop.
Now he say's it could take a 1000 years if we stopped all our co2 admissions to see change because it is a complex thing this global warming.
So complex we really don't have any way to show what affect man has on the temperature changing so we can't say how long it would take if we stopped all our carbon admissions to see change.
Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.
20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour.
10 metres left.
9 metres are argon.
Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.
Its natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
Thats the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
By: "fitzroy-21"
Yeah that's a chain letter that I've received a few times, Fitzy. I traced it back once, and although I'd have to re-check it I think Chris Smith (talkback host) or his Brisbane equivalent (cant remember his name) first produced it. It's a ridiculous analogy because it conflates distance with chemical action. Two completely disparate measurements.
If you need further proof ask yourself why ozone isn't mentioned in that mix.
The reason it's not there is because it exists in even smaller quantities than CO2. Vastly smaller quantities. Using the above analogy it's probably at the atomic level - the Gateway Bridge would be polluted by an atom. And yet if we play around with those 'atoms' we have the potential to radically alter human life. Surely you remember the hole in the zone layer scare?
I understand the need to know and question, but really, talkback radio isnt the place for answers.
Floyd the complete opposite. I care very much for people going out every day trying hard to make a living for themselves or there children. I would do anything to give my family a great future.
A carbon tax doesn't have anything to do with us living in a cleaner planet.It's just a tax being brought in on a huge lie.
Floyd you must be one of those bludgers I am talking about and supporting so be nice to me.
Michael Smith, that's the fella I was thinking of.
Regardless of who first created the chain letter the information in it was distributed by radio hosts of a certain political bent. I believe it's a perfect example of how said radio hosts and their ilk are deliberately spreading misinformation and muddying the waters. After all, it's their job to create emotional responses in people (read: stir up trouble).
Stu you a unbelievable.You oviously have your own political bent but have a go when someone is different.
When someone doesn't agree with man-made global warming they are spreeding misinformation.
I would say just another side to the debate.
The media is so pro global warming it make's me sick. When is the last time any mainstream media outlet has give anti man-made global warming a fair go on television?
So you get upset when 1 or 2 radio stations give the other side a fair go.
Stu what do you actually do for a living? Do you work for,or in a govermant funded department.
Just remember Stu I represent the majority when it comes to a carbon tax. We aren't all mindless,non-logical thinking idiots that get feed all the one-sided crap from the mainstream media.
So Stu stop trying to make other people on this forum feel stupid who represent another side to the debate with regurgitated crap that you have been feed and don't question.
I make rope for a living, Nick.
Want some...?
Stu please when you have your get up rally tell me where it is.
I will be more than happy to meet you there.
There is no more passion than some one fighting for the rights of hard working Australians and there kids future.
It will be a irony when you get hanged by your own rope.
nick,
i am glad you care for some people in our community and no doubt you do work very very hard for your family. but this is nothing special really, there isn't a corner of the globe that this story isn't repeated everyday. we live in a very rich country and we are all lucky for doing so. some more so than others. even fathers and mothers on the dole wake up each morning wanting to do the best for their families and do the best they can with the limited resources and opportunties they have or have been given in life. poverty is not a lifestyle choice that many actively seek.
again, its interesting your statement about doing anything for your family is exactly the statement a refugee would make on the way here in a leaky boat. wouldn't you agree?
for the record i'm no bludger but someone who has worked with the disadvantaged in our community so i know they also share your dream of a better future for themselves and their families.
lastly, check this out nick, its truely inspirational ....
Listen here mate! I'am sick an tired of people who say they are having a go but live on welfare.I tell you now if I could not be qualified for a job that payed big dollars I would take what ever I could to look after my family.
You say you work for the disadvantaged. It will be the average hard working family that will be disadvantaged by a carbon tax.
Imagine a 1 kilometer slice atmosphere,we want to walk along it & look at it in terms of the roll these gases play in capturing infrared radiation & warming the planet.
So come for a walk with the village idiot & we will see what we can find.
The first 720 meters is water vapor.
The next 260 meters is Carbon Dioxide.
The last 20 meters are Methane,Ozone & a sprinkling of other rare short lived gases.
But where is the Oxygen & Nitrogen that was such a feature of our last walk?
Is it that red pubic hair on the ground near the 1000 meter mark?
No it is nowhere to be seen,it is microscopic.Why because Oxygen & Nitrogen do not absorb infrared radiation.
They are not greenhouse gases & play no roll in warming the planet.
Water vapor & Carbon Dioxide are the two major drivers of warming.
One point is as we warm the planet the percentage of water vapor will increase in a feed back loop with Co2 & increase the warming effect of Co2.
But all is not lost as we are now well past the solar maximum.It is quite possible that within the next few years the Earth will enter a decades long cooling phase.
Quite normal & the question will be is the phase as cool as it would normally be with the extra Co2?
Will the next warming phase be even warmer?
The business as usual people will have a field day if it happens & global temperatures start to fall.
Look at the success the world had with the ozone layer by baning CFCs,lucky for us it was a short lived gas & nature has repaired the damage.
Shows what can be done if the world signs on & we change the way we do things.
Climate Change is naturally occurring long term cycles of of climate.Calling Global Warming,Climate Change was designed to confuse the issue.
Global warming is the man made warming trend imposed upon these natural cycles of climate.
And weather is just weather,short term.
Now Spongenuts needs coffee & to find something more inane to do with his time.
Stu please when you have your get up rally tell me where it is.
I will be more than happy to meet you there.
There is no more passion than some one fighting for the rights of hard working Australians and there kids future.
By: "nick3"
Why do you want to meet me Nick? I don't think we've got too much in common.
As for your 'passionate' argument: spare me. I can assure you there are passionate people on all sides of this debate, but passion doesn't dictate the credibility of your position. Osama bin Laden is passionate and wants the best for his people. Che Guevara too, now there was a passionate bloke!
If anything, passion and emotion cloud judgement.
Imagine a 1 kilometer slice atmosphere,we want to walk along it & look at it in terms of the roll these gases play in capturing infrared radiation & warming the planet.
So come for a walk with the village idiot & we will see what we can find.The first 720 meters is water vapor.
The next 260 meters is Carbon Dioxide.
The last 20 meters are Methane,Ozone & a sprinkling of other rare short lived gases
By: "spongebob"
What's the source for this, Spongebob? Admittedly I don't know much about solar maximum but I typed 'solar maximum + greenhouse effect' into Google and not much come up.
I have to agree with mel-anoma Labor has basically stuffed this whole debate up by focussing on the either/or of believe/dont believe. They have lost a lot of their supporters by, as i mentioned before, basically turning it into a religous like belief debate. There are so many other reasons to try to curb the release of CO2 but they have reduced it to believe/dont believe in a scientific hypothesis, that even someone like me who believed this stuff years ago, when both sides of politics were bagging greenies, can see holes in the hypothesis. The debate should be about
- moving away from fossil fuels
- decreasing reliance on the Middle East for fuels
- trying to avoid reliance on any finite resource (uranium included)
- focussing on efficency, the way lights and machines are let running despite all the talk about efficency shows we are really are not even considering it
- avoiding using massive amounts of embedded energy used in the change over period
- developing renewables
- and probably most importantly finding an alternative to the 19th century economic growth model we are addicted to.
We have a model that encourages any consumption as good consumption regardless of the outcomes of that consumption, for example I have mates with lease cars who need to do a certain amount of kilometres per month to make it economically viable. That might seem good to the small minded surfer who is encouraged to do a trip down the coast to get more tax back (as it does to my mates), but in the big picture it is really stupid!!
Now I know there is some capitalist formula that pigs like john elliot need a certian amount of growth or their investments and assets go backwards, but even rich people like dick smith are questioning this system, as it has us all on a treadmill trying to keep up with inflation to maintain our investments, at a cost to the environment, peoples lifestyles and sanity as we all need to work harder and harder (sound familiar Nik).
Now, while I am totally over Labor (like mel-anoma) I have to agree with Stu regarding the misinformation put out against climate change, that simplistic 1 km of gasses thing is absolute rubbish and the shock jocks keep peddling this crap. I also agree with Nik the mainstream media have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and are quite sickening in their coverage. I personally wouldnt go to Andrew Bolt as a source but some of the scientists on that list seem reputable, so either the media wont give them a voice, or really they dont want to talk about it for whatever reason, so come on trashy channel 7 give them a voice, it is not like you have a reputation to uphold (sorry mr ben and swellnet but channel 7 are trash!)
I can understand the frustration of people like Nik because this climate change thing has so much momentum everybody is jumping onboard including big business, which means a focus on appearing to do the right thing, with negligable outcomes. At the same time the way those against pricing CO2 focus on the "big new tax on everything" is quite pathetic as well, if these people didnt pay tax at all it would still be too much. People in scandinavian countries actually pay more tax than we do, but they dont carry on like ozzies do. And Nik maybe you should go easy on welfare recipients because they are not living of "your" taxes, they are living of mining taxes, just like your right wing mates receiving 'middle class welfare' in the form of child allowances. Also the average Joe earning sixty grand with two kids actually recieves more money from the goverment in services (like putting the two little shits through school)than what they actually pay in tax. That is just the way it is in Oz we are all riding the gravy train.
Roolf.Welfare recipients are living off all taxes.
Do you realise that if it wasn't for the people who go out and work in the mines there wouldn't be a mining tax. As there would be nobody to dig the stuff up. Hence the welfare recipients are living off people's hard work.
If average Joe get's something back from his taxes such as schooling so be it. His two little shit's will one day be supporting your welfare mates.
Everthing we have is off the back of good hard working people.
Right wing I don't think so.
sorry Nik didnt mean to label you right wing, my point was even middle class right wing people (who complain a lot about how much tax they pay) recieve a lot of expensive services for the taxes they pay.
And your right, my welfare mates get looked after way too well, that is because they live in Oz. And thats why the miner who digs the stuff up gets payed way too well, as does the carpenter, plumber, politician, etc etc.
good hard working people paying too much tax for, among other things, welfare recipients to sit on their backsides. these same good hard working people cannot afford more taxes to pay for floods and carbon abatement.
but tax rebates or government funding for other things like education is okay even if these funds go to the middle classes.
is that it?
why can't good hard working people afford any more taxes? is it that australia is a high taxing country or are other factors at play here like the record levels of personal or household debt that is routinely reported on because of, among other things, the housing market frenzy over the last 10 years.
refer to the attached link ..... while its 2005 data it seems to suggest that in fact australians are doing pretty well compared to most other countries when it comes to personal tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
i hvae no doubt many families are struggling at the moment but to blame taxes is to adopt a simple approach to a complex issue.
U hit the nail on the head there Floyd, regarding houshold debt (some have suggested who facilitated that shift in household debt, best not suggest it here, some peoples ears will close over all together)
Hi stu,I got the percentages for the atmospheric walk from Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.0rg/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
You will see in the table on Wiki there are overlaps in the percentages for each gas.(overlaps in absorption & emission frequences)
I left the overlaps out of the walk to keep it as close as possible to the flavor of the original email.
So percentages are on the conservative side for each gas.The walk was just to show how totaly misleading the email was.
I have to go & rummage around in the Weatherzone forums for the info on the solar maxium & possible cooling trend.It was about 2 or 3 months ago I spotted it while reading back through one of the threads.
It wasnt till later I started thinking of the effects a natural cooling event could have on a fledgling Carbon market.We have been dealing in fractions of a degree of warming per decade,what would a couple of decades of fractions of a degree of cooling do to the public perception of GW & a Carbon credit system?If you where buying into the Carbon market you would probably want to do a risk asseessment on it.I lost track of which thread it was in & made the odd feeble attempt at finding it.Like you I did once google solar maximum & nothing much came up.Going off memorie(not a good thing)I think the SM was in 2004 & there would be a lag of 10 years or so till cooling phase kicked in & something like 0.5c fall in the mean temperature.It had something to do with sunspots moving to a lower output cycle.Solar minimum?Anyway like most of us here Im complete novice & an hour or two over on the WZ climate threads makes my brain sweat.
When the Global warming debate was ramping up there where claims in the media about the sun being the only diving force in GW.That was a couple of years ago now & it seems to have disappeared out of the debate.
I agree changes in solar input must have a small effect on temperature but its the atmospheric gases that rule long term.
Well Ill pull my finger out & go look for it & get back to you in the next couple of days.
Nick3 I'm a small business owner/operator with a young family. I've done plenty of hard graft to keep my family fed including bus driving, toiler cleaning, window washing, dish pigging etc etc etc .
So save your cheap shots if you reply to me.
Your a goose to take aim at people on welfare as any kind of serious problem in this country or even as being remotely relevant to this debate.
If you want to see what a country that doesn't have a decent welfare system looks like go tour around the states. Homeless people everywhere, whole neighbourhoods filled with crime and poverty etc etc .
Believe me, we're much better off giving crew a couple hundred a week so they can eat and keep a roof over their head.
And on that point in this day and age where do you think that welfare money goes. Seriously.
It goes into rent, it goes into food and milk at the local shop. In other words the vast majority of that money goes straight back into the economy at the local level, keeping small business in jobs and people employed.
Compare that with some of the super profits of the overseas mining companies and paydays for the corporate executives; which are siphoned off overseas and never see the light of day in Aus.
Those resources belong to us.
Your taking aim at the wrong targets in other words.
With the strength in the commodities markets and booming Asian economies there's never been a better time to restructure the Aus economy into what inevitably must occur in the future.
For the sake of my kids future's I want this to happen in my lifetime.
freeride76 - a welcome addition to this forum. thanks
Freeride76 you oviously don't understand what I am talking about.
I don't give a shit that people are on welfare.I just don't like people on this web site who oviously are of the groups I have mentioned.Carrying on with ideology saying so what if a carbon tax is going to cost average Joe X amount of dollars. Like that is no big deal.
The fact of the matter,it is a big deal. If your are part of the system,a small business owner,have a mortgage and a family. We are not going to be told bad luck about a another tax that is going to hurt us even more. Just so someone, who's hardest part about his day is lodging his centerlink form,feel all warm and fussy.
Yes we should restructure our tax system but a fairer one that allow's small business to grow so we do have a better future for our kids.
I love a good debate. It brings out what people believe, and what people believe can be considered with logic and rationale.
Unless it is a totally irrational debate, which this long since drifted into (not talking about here, just in general)
I'm with Stu, I've written and talked about this too much to no effect, but here goes anyway.
Re the science, it isn't the case that for every scientist saying there is man-made climate change there is another that says there isn't.
It is more like for every scientist who says there is no man made climate change there are 99 who will disagree with him/her, so let's just get that fact straight. The science is not up for grabs, it is settled. This could change in future, that's how science works. This doesn't mean it is correct, but it does mean that ignoring the advice of the world scientists is a fantastically risky thing to do.
And the carbon tax is not a great big new tax that will mean the end of civilisation. It is a tax that will hit the 1000 biggest businesses in Australia, which means you have to be pretty huge to even have it affect you directly.
Got that?
So the tax will cause a miniscule rise in goods and services, and a higher rise in electricity prices.
Those companies who are affected are huge companies, mostly multi-nationals, mostly foreign owned. This tax will be absorbed into their business planning and they will start to look at renewables as a result. It will mean a small diminution in profits being sent overseas to international shareholders, and a miniscule, nay negligible, impact on the superannuation holdings of the average Australian.
Companies will not run offshore because of this tax. It is a flea-bite on the bottom of an elephant to them. Their rhetoric is taking you for a fool if you believe what they are putting out there at the moment.
Most families and individuals who earn up to and a bit beyond the average wage will almost certainly be better off with the tax cuts.
Families and individuals who don't drive petrol guzzling monsters, run their air conditioning day and night summer and winter, leave their huge screen plasma teles running all day and have 50 other electrical items on standby all the time will be better off.
The biggest carbon polluters will be worse off.
The effect on the average wage earner will be so small, the GST will look like a monstrous intrusion on life in comparison.
So unless you can establish why a tiny change to the tax laws to encourage carbon-free energy shouldn't be implemented, in the face of the best advice of 99% of the scientific community, I really can't see how you have a case.
Nik3's references to welfare recipients is a classic case. It has nothing to do with the debate. Nik3, if he really is the battler he seems to be making himself out to be, will almost certainly be better off as a result of the carbon tax.
I have followed this debate high and low through many forums and media, and I have yet to read a coherent argument against the tax.
But boy, have I read some malarkey. If you are taking your cues from Tony Abbott or worse still, that serial moron Andrew Bolt, you really should acquaint yourself with some reality. You are being played like a sucker by Abbott and Bolt for their career ends.
Wake up and smell the roses.
Appologies for posting the email Saturday evening, but thanks for the info on it's origins.
I think I got side tracked looking for "What you Drinking" !
Hi Stew:re Solar Maximum
Could'nt find the WZ thread where the cooling trend was mentioned.But after some googling I found this.
Quote
Mean Global Temperatures from then on, say from 2010-2011 onwards, until at least 2030, are from the HFTM Forecast expected to stay at levels similar to those experienced in the 1945 to 1978 period, IE. about 0.4 to 0.5C less than the current global temperature levels of around **0.6C above the 1900 to 2000 Mean Values. This drops the Mean Global Temperatures down close to the 1900 to 2000 Mean value from around late 2010-2011 onwards to 2030 at least.
http://www.holtonweather.com/WHAT%20IS%20CONTROLLING%20GLOBAL.pdf
It's got to be the one,but this is the first time Ive seen it fully presented like this.I have not had a chance to sit down & digest it yet.
So not based on Solar Maximum,but a Solar Magnetic cycle.
Obviously he doesnt see Co2 as playing a major role in warming.So there is something interesting for both sides of the debate in this one.We would not like to appear biased & only present one side.
Not as mainsteam as I first thought when I saw it in the threads & quite a bold forcast.
At least we wont be waiting around for years to see if it plays out.Other stuff on his site makes for interesting reading & is worth having a look at.
As for the Solar Maximum part of my sloppy statment..It looks like my slightly addled brain has confused it with the Modern Maximum.
Quote
Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Solar_cycles
And from a link in wiki to a report in Nature.
Quote
Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades3.
Quote
The result is given in Fig. 4b, which shows
that there is only a probability of 8%(-3%/+4%)
that the current high activity
episode will last another 50 years (and thus reach a total
duration of 115 years), while the probability that it will continue
until the end of the twenty-first century is below 1%.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
So Ive made a bit of a dogs breakfast out of it,mixing up Solar Maximum,Modern Maximum,Solar Magnetic & f@*k knows what else.
Apologies all round for that one.
lll put on my dunce hat & go sit in the corner now.
Where's Nick3?
Gone to ground happy to have gone the job as a liberal party stooge whipping up bullshit about the carbon tax before the NSW state election.
He/she was probably also the "Nicky" that Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW Liberal senator) was quoting as a citizen concerned about the climate change debate on the ABC's Q&A the other night.
Where's Nick3? Good question Floyd
I thought spongebobs little contribution would have given him some firepower.
and Mr.spongebob What r u doing? giving the anti CO2 pricing freaks credible information, just joking, it is a good contribution in the name of debate. But seriously there is a lot of stuff out there that does pose some questions to this debate, i just dont want to point the opposers in the right direction.
The fact that people against the tax (mainly the shockjocks)dont present any sort of credible argument shows they have little understanding of the issues, there are even environmentalists that question this stuff (one with a name like a once famous tennis player springs to mind)but the shockjocks keep pushing the same simplistic arguments,and commercial TV is scared to even give them a voice, even if their audience are V8 driving bogans. these bogan types are the ones who are going to turn on Labor if they are not careful how they run this debate, but Labor have pretty much stuffed everything else up since they got in, so nothing new. I am sure Hawke and king paul were much more competent than the bunch of career politicians they have at the moment (luckily Tony looks like a fool the way he plays both sides at the moment)
the ABC actually gives people challenging climate change a voice occasionally, thankfully right leaning redneck types are to busy resenting the ABC to watch the ABC, they love the trash!
Oh yeah i forgot to mention Nik while my mates may be on welfare, I am not on the dole, I like Fitzroy or Floyd (i forget who)have done just about every shit kicker job known to man like dish-pigging and digging holes, I have also worked in the mining sector, which showed me there is sooo much waste in our current system, thanks to tax incentives encouraging consumption, so to believe the hype from industries that have vested interest in these matters is stupidity, remember how the mining industry was only just profitable and could not survive a mining tax, only to report record profits a few months later.
Being basically a self centered bastard I don't care - though on the other hand being a suspicious bastard I don't trust politicians or self serving eggheads or anyone involved in banking and share trading and I can just see all this leading to an Emissions Trading Scheme and a bunch of New York bankers sitting in their towers looking down at us laughing while they skim the cream off our hard earned...
While I'm at it...
it's a Tax on CO2 ???????
Also remember we have been watching this climate for about 2011 years it has been going for about 4 billion and is still going ? gets hot, cools down pretty sure its been going on for a while now.
What are they going to spend Co2 Tax on ? Fans ??
If Australia and Canada stoped every bit of machinery and car running it would equate to 0.0000000000002% of world poloution emissions......
Fuck it go surfing, enjoy life try and be a good person respect the enviroment because what ever tax they raise or what ever the do ait going to make fuck all differenceand u can argue about it as much as u like this is a fact.....
Nice comparison with the Gateway Bridge bridge Stu...... perfect...
Yes Roolf,Im like the dog that drags the maggoty roo carcass to the back door & stands there wagging his tail thinking you'll be happy with what Ive found.
These cycles have been looked at & taken into account,if they want to run with it again the results will be the same.Best to let them know now that man made Global Warming will still be around after the next election & the next natural cooling cycle.
"It's all bullshit it's November & look Im still wearing my Flanny" & only an idiot would argue against evidence like that.
I wonder how our comrades on the other side of the ditch doing under this tax.
They have been having it for a while.
Roy Stewart probably could tell a story. He seems to be a very well educated dude.
Floyd what's the point.Unfortunately some people fancy themselves as intelligent and get caught up with all that scientific bullshit.
It's a shame they don't think logically and question it.As they aren't actually the scientist that are coming up with this information then they are only being guided.
Now the problem is they assume that what they are being told is 100% correct.
Don't believe for one minute that alot of these finding aren't manipulated to suit a certain cause.That is money not the enviroment.
One day you guy's will be kissing my arse when you find out you have been conned or when the earth cools slightly.
So there are two things: The flawed science and the carbon tax that will do bugger all for the enviroment but make other people richer.
The rich will get richer and the poor won't get a fucking thing.....
Nick, whether the Earth cools or heats is irrelevant here.
Carbon Tax = Less pollution, otherwise big industries will start to loose large amounts of money pumping out excess CO2
A much needed move to renewable energies
A more competitve market for renewable energies
A greater choice for us consumers
A better world
Just read some of the insightful comments by Stu, Batfink and K, among others with an open mind and it might finally click!
"...get caught up with all that scientific bullshit"
sigh.
I mean, what do you say to that? You can't argue with someone who has that point of view. Any evidence you might put forward is just "that scientific bullshit".
I have an equally good idea, let's just convict criminals on suspicion and not worry about all that legal bullshit.
Yes it's that ridiculous.
If that's a snapshot of middle Australia or whatever Abbot said, then we're in trouble.
Graig the earth heating is irrelevant? This is there whole argument to bring in a carbon tax.
CO2 is a pollutant? I know what you going to say excessive CO2 make's it a pollutant.
Carbon tax = big industries passing it on all the way down to us bottom feeders so not much will change for them.
Insightful comments, just onesided point a view by people that have a closed mind.
Believe me I don't make an argument with out looking at the fact's.
nick3 (liberal party stooge) says " believe me i don't make an argument with out looking at the fact's"
what sort of parallell universe do actually live in?
spare us the crap nick3, all that bullshit about climate change and welfare payments in your previous posts and you "look at the facts". do you really believe that? do you really expect anyone reading your posts to consider them 1/2 reasonable? it seems you have as much grip on reality as andrew bolte. i see your speedo wearing boss will announce today a policy on cracking down on welfare payments, perhaps he reads these forums and got the idea from you.
Nick I was trying to make a point regarding moving away from fossil fuels, but it's lost on you.
We, humans have caused global warming on a global scale since the industrial revolution, it's as simple as looking at this graph..
You can see the natural variations in CO2 concentration before the industrial revolution, and then after.. well if you can't see the trend then you must be stupider than I thought.
Floyd. It's is a great idea cracking down on welfare.It will be a crack down on people who really don't need to be on the dole.It can only be a good thing to get people back in the work force.
This is the problem Graig.You blindly believe any piece of so called payed to find science.Funny how it started to shoot up well before we really became industrialised.
We have been burning timber & coal for cooking & heating for millenia.
Notice the line returns to the previous level at the begining of the 1800s,then starts to rise sharply around 1850 when steam power kicks in.
Not sure about the drop in Co2 from 1570 to 1780,but I think thats when the Great Plague hit.
With a large percentage of the population wiped out less was being burned & empty farmlands were turning back in to Carbon trapping forests.
At the same time we started burning more coal,we were also cutting down more & more forest enhancing the Co2 level.
But dont blindly believe me on that.
Are you serious.I would think one decent bushfire would make up for all the burning of timber and coal before we became industrialised.
Are you seriously trying to say that a few steam trains running around had a effect on the global co2 in 1850.
I would of thought during the great plaague they would have burnt alot more in the name of killing germs.
Once again you believe this graph is 100% acurate.
Like I said if you manipulate any finding's you will get the result's that suit your cause.
For all those that have not heard there is a rally on Wednesday 23rd at Parliament House to stop the carbon tax.So any one that can get there and support the cause it start's at 12.00pm.