Climate change: Bugger Cate, we must ALL act

Mitchell says:

06:33am | 30/05/11

Nice attempt at ridicule, it’s quite typical of the type of person who either:
  a) outright denies human induced climate change despite ever increasing evidence to the contrary
                  or
  b) inwardly accepts the global scientific consensus yet cares more about the fear of personal wealth loss than the sustainable future of humanity

I find it hard to imagine that you would spout such a childish comment if a doctor said you had cancer. For some reason medical science is to be trusted yet climate science is to be derided and looked down upon by people who would fail a year 10 science exam.
Climate scientists are scrutinized much more than any other field in science, maybe the common person should start to learn a bit of respect and try to add some value to the debate rather than drown it out with inane verbal vomit

Mattress says:

06:41am | 30/05/11

Mitchell: Best. Comment. Eva.

nihonin says:

06:59am | 30/05/11

Oh did I upset you Mitchel, you believe what you want to believe and I’m not going to the platitudes at you, I like you, am also entitled to my opinion.  Don’t like like drink a carbon (Coke) and harden up.  Of course I’d believe the doctor, I’ve been seeing the same one for years. I like this ‘outright denies human induced climate change despite ever increasing evidence to the contrary’ - do you have proof positive of your claims, I’ve never denied the climate changes.  Put your ball down and go play with the Lego.

L. says:

07:11am | 30/05/11

“Climate scientists are scrutinized much more than any other field in science, maybe the common person should start to learn a bit of respect and try to add some value to the debate rather than drown it out with inane verbal vomit “

Ok.. lets put this to the test.

How many of Tim Flannery’s predictions which has come true..?

“In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas”“

Fail.

nihonin says:

07:34am | 30/05/11

Sorry bout the mish mash reply Mitchell, was typing too quickly and not proof reading.  ‘Don’t like my opinions, have a drink of ‘Carbon’ (Coke) and harden up, is what I meant to say.

Joan says:

07:49am | 30/05/11

Yep… Hooray for Hollywood, smart pants 16 year old with her smart mouth can’t face the future, the sky is falling cos Carbon Cate said so. Carbon Cate standing on a Hollywood set of London`s defunct Basedow power house doing what she does best -faking it . Message to smarty pants 16 year old, don’t listen to diamond draped movie stars who jet about and expect you to payup and clean up after their mess, and don’t read sop such as what is served up by Anna Rose. Smarty pants their are kids around the world suffering today, worry about them,  ..... its real ..unlike the overexaggerated phoney set and imaginations of Carbon Cate . The climate changes- it always has the same way day becomes night, and night becomes day.

Barry says:

07:55am | 30/05/11

@L
Exactly.  Yet, who do we see getting propped up as someone actually worth listening too?  Tim Flannery.  Anna talks about old men, looking after their own business aspirations.  Look no further than Tim Flannery, who has many fingers in the renewable energy sector.

L. says:

08:06am | 30/05/11

“Nice attempt at ridicule”

Mitchell, the article deserves riducle because it attempts to lay the blame Murray River salinity and the fate of ALL endangered species at the feet of climate change. It is factually incorrect.

Mitchell says:

08:13am | 30/05/11

L. - Tim Flannery is a palaeontologist, not a climate scientist (Good luck getting brain surgery from your podiatrist). Even if he were one, you’d be hard pressed to find a “real” skeptic who takes the word of one scientist as the gospel truth.
  The closest to reality always seems to come from the average of scientific opinion, which is exactly what the IPCC does.
Though I’m quite doubtful i’ll ever change your opinion, so I wish you all the best in believing there is some sort of new world order global government conspiracy involving tens of 1000’s of scientists who “seem” to compete on accuracy in forecasting while really just conspiring to tax the masses in order to appease their shapeshifting lizard men world bank masters.

Mitchell says:

08:16am | 30/05/11

Nihonin- Ahh, my friend, nothing much better to add again (whether well typed or not)  though I’m always partial to a bit of ageism and sh*tslinging so here goes: Get your mobility scooter off the sidewalk, go listen to some Alan Jones and shut up already so the rest of the world can get on with the job of creating economies that are sustainable for many generations to come, because the current model that relies on externalising costs to the environment is not going to last much longer.

La Triola says:

08:23am | 30/05/11

Quote Julia Gillard “There will be no Carbon Tax”,the woman is obviously a liar,so convince the carbon lobby are not liars

mel says:

08:26am | 30/05/11

Sky is falling!  “I Believe -  Others Must”

No 1 Rosie says:

08:30am | 30/05/11

nihonin

One question for you, ‘who is negative now?’ I thought it was Tony Abbott who is fighting for the majority of Australians to clean up and keep the planet clean with the Liberal Party’s direct action plan devised by the Shadow Minister the Honourable Gregg Hunt.

Alana, life is too short and at 14 have no fear, something will be done about climate change by the rest of the world and us if it is real. All we know so far is that human beings are polluting the planet and if dooms day is arriving because of this, the drastic move will be to shut down all coal power stations, smelting works etc etc. Problem fixed and we can all live like the Greenies would like us to live for the sake of a clean planet for us now and future generations. We will have no choice but to make that drastic move.

When we make that drastic move Cate & Michael won’t have an audience to watch them act because we won’t be able to go to the pictures. It might be a good thing because we can all live frugally all for the sake of the planet. Cate’s $10 million mansion can house asylum seekers and she can move into Michael’s 2 bedroom unit. We can fix it Alana with a lot of changes. I have only mentioned some of it.

Go forth Alana and enjoy as much as you can while you are young and fancy free and let the adults take care of the planet because by the time you reach our age it will be fixed. But please like Cate & Michael, the carbon tax is not going to fix it but increase the basic cost of living and leave those that can’t afford to tighten their belts anymore in the cold.

L. says:

08:31am | 30/05/11

“Though I’m quite doubtful i’ll ever change your opinion, so I wish you all the best in believing there is some sort of new world order global government conspiracy…”

And therein ladies and gentlemen lays the typical argument of an AGW warmist when one points out the hysterical nature of the AGW lobby… name calling.

persephone says:

08:35am | 30/05/11

L

fail yourself. Flannery did not say that. There have been numerous links to the article which ‘proves’ he did, which simply ‘proves’ that he didn’t.’

Try a bit of independent research sometime, instead of endlessly churning out information someone else has given you.

nihonin says:

08:52am | 30/05/11

@Mitchell, ‘Get your mobility scooter off the sidewalk, go listen to some Alan Jones’ man, ball…........bounce, geez if only I could, I am already adding to the economy of Australia (have been for about 30 yrs) so unfortunately the scooter and Jonsey will have to wait for another odd years, unless the government increases the retirement age.

‘so the rest of the world can get on with the job of creating economies that are sustainable for many generations to come, because the current model that relies on externalising costs to the environment is not going to last much longer’. Stop it you made me spit coffee all over the keyboard at work, no mind I’ll go get a tissue to wipe it clean and one for you as well so you shed a tear for the crap.

Neil Innes says:

08:52am | 30/05/11

Funny how the media lampooned & ridiculed the USA preacher who said ‘Jesus will return in May, 2011’ - a joke, yes, sad yes, ridicules, yes - just like Anna Rose’s diatribe. Please Anna, trying to scare all the kiddies with the end of the world ‘immanent’ - at least be brave like the preacher and name a date…....how about 2012, Christmas day, and sea levels WILL rise 128 metres and all the Bangladeshi people will be washed away! At least the preacher had the balls to put a date on it. The problem with you Anna, is that this is a pseudo science scam to impose a TAX - you are worse than the Christian fundamentalist preacher!

Geoff - Brisbane says:

08:59am | 30/05/11

@ Mitchell

Nice attempt at ridiculing Nihonin, it’s quite typical of the type of person who either:
  a) Discovered they were wrong and can not admit it
            or
  b) Is arguing a point, with which the only arguments for it, are shaming names like denier or non-believer

TimB says:

09:02am | 30/05/11

Mitchell -“Tim Flannery is a palaeontologist, not a climate scientist “

Yet we’re paying this bone man what…$180,000 a year to head up the climate commission?

Quick Mitchell! Let Julia know that she has been conned! This man is not a climate scientist at all! I mean surely she wouldn’t have appointed him if she knew, right? She wouldn’t be stupid enough to appoint a palaeontologist to a comission on climate change, and then expect us all to accept the report that they produce. Right?

Oh.

Alright plan B then. Let’s get a bunch of rich actors to tell us why we should all pay a tax in the name of Julia’s new religion. That’ll go down even better!

nihonin says:

09:23am | 30/05/11

@ No 1 Rosie, how is that negative, until there is actually a debate by both sides, who really knows, good for the Alarmists to try and change the world I agree, there are problems man creates, but I just can’t seem to agree with the changing of the title to suit.  Also good for the Deniers, most of them aren’t denying Climate Change happens, it does everyday.  I’d just like a bit of perspective, an actual debate, the pros and the cons.  I also pretty much don’t believe a tax will do 1 iota, costs will just be passed on, hence the ‘compensation package’.

Phil says:

09:31am | 30/05/11

I think its funny that the Author works at strategy and communications consultancy “Make Believe”

Regardless of your views on climate change and ways to tackle the issue, this has got to be the worst name for an outfit whose employees are out there spruiking the carbon tax, reduction in carbon output and mitigating climate change.

Personally, for a 14 year old to break down at the birth of her brother she must have been brainwashed at school or at your organisation. No future, PURLEASE. I trust you set them straight that hard work should ensure your future, you will get and keep a job, have money to buy necessities in life.

You like most pro carbon tax and ALP stooge bloggers here ask for action, but do not state how to go about this, a tad like the police being upset about the road toll but being unwilling to increase patrols on the roads. Surely a carbon tax is as efficient as speed cameras, whereas other ways work better like increased road presence and a blitz on illegal activity.

I can afford a carbon tax, many others I know cant. Government and the author blame heavy carbon emitting industries, yet if those nasty power stations were to simply shut the plants right this second and stop producing the author, Cate Blanchett, Michael Caton et all and many others would be up in arms at a cold shower and a cold dark home.

We as a nation can reduce our carbon footprint by some say 50% with the introduction of nuclear power. To not at least debate this issue do a cost benefit analysis against all other options is really head in the sand stuff.

When the greens, environmentalists and labor objected to a new gas drilling plant of Newcastles beaches which could have been fed directly to the worst polluting power stations in the Hunter Valley to make them cleaner, you have to wonder if its really about the planet or just some giant ponzi scheme to redress the wealth balance in this country.

Personally I think any carbon tax/ETS should be at a much lower unit cost without compensation to anyone. That way it would modify habits and make change rather than just make things even more expensive without offerring the option for people to change. See if its user pays then someone with a $ 300 1/4 bill for power will only pay on their amount, yet a home with a $10,000 a 1.4 bill will be slugged accordingly. However if you make dramatic changes, like by a low polluting car then you dont have to pay, if you install solar that generates greater than 50% of your own power again you dont pay. This will better drive investment than a great big tax that slows industry, possibly places Australia in a recession and kills jobs of many. We are already the white trash of Asia, this tax alone will simply speed up our ultimate decline.

In regard to Carbon Cate, I wonder what her actual carbon footprint is. I mean she would fly the world over many times, no doubt in first class which she is entitled to do. I also wonder what her home electricity bills are probably more a do as I say not do as I do case.

L. says:

09:52am | 30/05/11

Fair enough Pers, I can’t find where he made that quote…(if at all). I’m happy to stand corrected at this point.

Whe he did say however…

The Professor Tim Flannery that said in 2008 “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” (Adelaide’s Dams are almost full)

Fail…

http://www.jetstarmag.com/story/10-minutes-with-tim-flannery/290/1/

The Tim Flannery who said in 2007 that “Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”. No desal plant is being used anywhere, because all the three cities have too much water in their Dams.

Fail…

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm

The Tim Flannery who said in 2004 that “I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis” . Ten years into the 21st Century, Perth is still there.

Massive fail…

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/18/1084783517732.html

So Pers, I’ll ask again… Give me some of his predicitions which have been correct.

persephone says:

10:16am | 30/05/11

:L

look at your own quotes - the Adelaide one says ‘may’. It is clearly present tense.

In other words ‘should present conditions continue, Adelaide MAY run out of water….”

Scarcely a definitive statement.

So not a fail, a valid statement in the context in which he was speaking.

Your second link is the source of the claim that Flannery said it was never going to rain again. The fact you didn’t recognise it when you saw it demonstrates how distorted his statement has been!

Again he makes use of words like ‘possibly’ rather than the blanket statements you report.

As for your third: well, we’ve got ninety years to go, so it’s a little early to call that a ‘fail’ really.

I’m actually not very interested in Flannery, and the obsession with him by members of the Right is really quite intriguing.

And it’s really easy to make it look as if someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about if you take their words out of context - I could easily do the same to you.

RyaN says:

10:22am | 30/05/11

@Mitchell: do post that evidence please, I can’t wait to see that difinitive evidence of a human marker in global warming. Just one and you can have 10 grand, there is a standing prize available.
If you cannot post the evidence then I call you and outright liar and a fraud.

Joel B1 says:

10:56am | 30/05/11

@persephone

“In other words ‘should present conditions continue, Adelaide MAY run out of water….”

Scarcely a definitive statement.”

Yeah, just like “sea levels MAY rise” etc etc.

Hardly an overwhelming argument to destroy Australia’s economy is it?

Jane says:

10:57am | 30/05/11

Remember your science lessons in high school? Humans breathe in air, absorb the oxygen and expel CO2 and then plant life use CO2 and sunlight for energy and expel oxygen.

Carbon is an essential part of our ecosystem, and the biggest source of C02 in the world is the Ocean. Everyone needs to wake up to the fact that governments around the world are using CO2 to scare the population into paying more taxes.

L. says:

11:08am | 30/05/11

@Pers..
“In other words ‘should present conditions continue, Adelaide MAY run out of water….”

Yet he didn’t say that. No, he went down the alarmist route in order to make his point. He has been consistently inaccurate, as have all the other alarmists which say the Euro / Australian ski industry is dead. As I said, Flannery is keen to tell us what “may” happen in the dire sense, yet isn’t so keen to tell us what may happen in the less sensational sense. Why do you think that is..?? The answer is pretty obvious, the “politics of fear”.

“As for your third: well, we’ve got ninety years to go, so it’s a little early to call that a ‘fail’ really”

Really? that’s the straw you’re grasping?

“I’m actually not very interested in Flannery, and the obsession with him by members of the Right is really quite intriguing.”

Umm, you don’t think it’s because of the position he holds, his access to the PM and the weight she gives everything he says..??

Tracker says:

11:08am | 30/05/11

I am so glad my daughter who is 15 (soon to be 16) isn’t brainwashed like this young girl is.

persephone says:

11:18am | 30/05/11

L

so you’re posting articles without reading them?

In that case, it’s very easy to portray Flannery - or anyone else - as alarmist.

Tracker

is that because she agrees with everything you say?

AAAdam says:

11:25am | 30/05/11

@ Mitchell - “Nice attempt at ridicule, it’s quite typical of the type of person who either:  A or   B”

Ahh, the old “only two options” logical fallacy. I’d suggest there could be numerous other reasons than just the two you propose.

Personally, I don’t ascribe to either A (outright denial of AGW) or B (accept AGW it and just don’t care). I actually go for option C. To me, option C is called being a cautiously sceptical man of science. I care about the environment; however, I also care about the economy plus my standard of living and as yet there is no empirical evidence to support the notion of human induced climate change. So why risk the economy (and future generations prosperity) to take a gamble on some unproven science (especially when, if AGW were true, Australia’s net reduction in global CO2 emissions under a carbon tax would be 0 so long as we keep exporting coal)? So yeah, sure, I’ll happily concede climate change exists, however, I won’t buy into AGW until science backs it up empirically and I won’t support a carbon tax when it doesn’t even address the cause science currently hypothesises.

P.S. If you have proof of AGW from carbon dioxide then why not go claim the $10k prize?

Dash says:

12:06pm | 30/05/11

@Mitchell - please tell us by how much this carbon tax will reduce global average temperatures. Please also confirm how much taxpayers money the ALP is paying Tim Flannery to tell us what they want us to hear.

@Persephone - please tell us by how much this carbon tax will reduce global average temperatures. Please also confirm how much taxpayers money the ALP is paying Tim Flannery to tell us what they want us to hear.

Anne71 says:

12:32pm | 30/05/11

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. When Angry Anderson ran his anti-Carbon Tax advert, that was perfectly okay with the LNP and their sheeple. But when Cate Blanchett appears in a pro-CT advert, she gets slammed for it.  What sheer, breathtaking hypocrisy!

WayneT says:

12:46pm | 30/05/11

Isn’t it surprising that the science is so settled that people like this commission & Flannery couch every statement with ‘may’, ‘likely and ‘possibly’.  If we are so certain of the science then we must know what ‘will’ happen in the future.  Is it maybe because there is not one single scientific paper (peer reviewed & supported by real world measurable data) that can show a direct link between the 3% of human produced CO2 as opposed to the remaining 97% of CO2 produced by nature?  And please show where in the world CO2 has been classed as a pollutant.  And if it is, what do we do with the remaining CO2 pollution produced by nature, why wasn’t it a pollutant before now?

Neil Innes says:

01:39pm | 30/05/11

Anne71 - big difference between Cate & Angry - Angry could drink several bottles of bourbon, spew, pass out, but still complete his gig. What can Cate do? Ah, play a Queen, a lover and is worth $50 million and then tell us we need a tax that will not effect her in anyway, shape or form. The CT tax will affect Angry and the majority of Australian’s. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Reggie says:

02:07pm | 30/05/11

L: ” Mitchell, the article deserves riducle because it attempts to lay the blame Murray River salinity and the fate of ALL endangered species at the feet of climate change. It is factually incorrect.”

L are you saying that diversion of water from the Murray is NOT man-made and an influence on salination that has had such far-reaching effects? On the contrary, you only have to look at the Murray to see the dramatic effects that a tiny man-made alteration can cause. What of the others we cannot see. Effects such as are likely to impact the Deep Ocean Conveyor with its one thousand year Global cycle.

Dash says:

02:41pm | 30/05/11

@Persephone, Gee the Australian tax payer is forking out a lot of money for a guy who wont make a definitive statement about anything! Not to mention a bloke whos non-committal rantings have been proven wrong in the past. Just how much is it that the Australian taxpayer is paying the ALPs panel of experts to tell us what the ALP want us to believe??

Bruce says:

02:47pm | 30/05/11

Nihonin. Its the ‘Henny Penny’ theory. I am not sure what we really have to fear from the climate change alarmists. The PM said, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.” I believe the PM, she would not lie. Anyone out there prepared to call the PM a liar ?

L. says:

02:49pm | 30/05/11

“L are you saying that diversion of water from the Murray is NOT man-made and an influence on salination that has had such far-reaching effects?”

Poor ag practices and climate chamge are not the same thing.

AAAdam says:

02:55pm | 30/05/11

Without empirical evidence supporting it, I fail to see how manmade climate change (as a theory) is any different from the other unproven doomsday predictions the various crazies out there spout. Sure, AGW might have a few followers, but without empirical evidence it is nothing more than an unproven doomsday prediction (and we’ve had our fair share of them in recent times!). The only major difference I see is that this time the government has jumped in on the action and is using it to legally rob people with a carbon tax.

I wonder how far I’d get if I started wandering around telling pensioners that they had to give me their money to avoid the impending apocalypse in 2012, without a shred of empirical evidence to back up what I was saying? And if they didn’t want to hand over their hard earned money I resorted to some high pressure sales techniques such as telling them “they had to act now” and “that the science was settled” and then bombarded them with celebrity endorsements of my claims. Hmmmmm, surely there would be a law against that?

persephone says:

03:36pm | 30/05/11

AAAdam

just as well the evidence is so overwhelming, then, isn’t it?

dovif says:

03:43pm | 30/05/11

I think if Kate drives around in a hybrid and do not fly because of the high amount pollution and minimise her house and electricity use, then I am happy for her to tell us what to do and show us her example

It would be much better then the Fake PM, driving her free taxpayer paid for, non hybrid/electric cars, telling us we should help her lie better

Paulb says:

03:48pm | 30/05/11

The Persephone PR team.  Always on hand when Gillard and the Globalist club agenda needs a push forward.  Nothing much to say on any other kind of thread.  Interesting.

RyaN says:

03:57pm | 30/05/11

@persephone: what evidence? There isn’t any. Beyond your computer models and a theory there is zero evidence.

luke says:

04:26pm | 30/05/11

Australia emits about 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, a tax on Australians isn’t going to have any useful effect to altering climate change. The way the irrational carbon tax believers are carrying on in this country, you would think Australia emits more carbon than anyone else in the entire world from here all the way to the Milky Way.

Dash says:

04:59pm | 30/05/11

@Persephone - Your silence is deafening!

It’s speaking loud and clear to the fact this whole policy is a deceitful fraud on the people of Australia.

Anne71 says:

05:06pm | 30/05/11

Neil Innes, you’re welcome to your bourbon-vomiting bogan hero. I’d much prefer watching a Cate Blanchett film than listen to Angry Anderson’s music any day.

Mitchell says:

05:21pm | 30/05/11

Ahhh, nothing like getting the same old LNP hacks all worked up on a monday morning.  As for name calling I thought the lizard men conspiracy theorist title was quite apt, I in no way meant to offend you all.
Sadly people nowdays tend to agree or disagree with manmade climate changed based on political allegiences rather than any informed debate. (I’m not just talking about the conservatives)
  Regardless, both sides of politics agree on a 5% emmissions reduction.
  Both parties took an ETS to the 2007 election.
  If people don’t like the carbon tax they should propose a better mechanism or admit that they completely disagree with the politcal parties who represent 90% of democratic Australia.
Personally, I can easily afford a carbon tax working full time on my min wage ($35,000), nearly half the average income ($66,000 in NSW). I don’t own a heater, airconditioner or car. My electricity bill is tiny
I also study science part time (textbooks are not cheap), live 2km from the CBD of Australia’s most expensive city, buy from local farmers markets, cook my own food, brew my own beer, walk to work and still have money left over every week to invest in shares.
People who complain about not being able to afford a carbon tax are either straight up lying or very wasteful people who won’t ever change their ways without financial incentive.

AAAdam says:

05:39pm | 30/05/11

@ Pers - “just as well the evidence is so overwhelming, then, isn’t it?”

That’s just the problem; there is no empirical evidence. If you had some, you’d have claimed the $10k prize for proving manmade climate change from CO2. The theory of AGW is no different to the other doomsday predictions out there that lack empirical evidence (i.e. world ending in 2012, etc), except for maybe the part where the government wants to tax us to “save us” from the fictional doomsday scenario of manmade climate change.

luke says:

06:31pm | 30/05/11

Mitchell, not everyone can live 2ks from the cbd, what about the millions of people who travel a minimum 60ks a day for employment.

Let the big business in the green industry fund their own commercial enterprises instead of using taxpayers money to make themselves rich.

Neil Innes says:

06:33pm | 30/05/11

Anne71 - thanks, Angry Anderson anytime. The irony is Anne, that only stuck up snobs watch ‘our Cate’ - she plays powerful women who controlled nations. She is an ordinary actress and she lives in a vacuum where people blow platitudes up her rear. Another irony Anne is that the ALP has lost it’s bogan heroes, they will never be a political force in Australia again after Rudd/Gillard/ Whoever is elected out of power. Blanchet & Anne, a small minded, arts,liberal, cliche, minority that does not make a difference, although they think they have influence! LOL!

Dave says:

07:34pm | 30/05/11

And santa and the easter bunny are alive and well too. This shows as religion does that some people will believe anything, like I think this will be published especially on this site

Martin says:

08:44pm | 30/05/11

The root cause of climate change is greed.  2 cars, 3 computers, new furniture every few years, one person in a car, traveling to work when it can be done at home, wastage reduced can fix this problem.  But wait, the big money men, the corporates dont want that, they want more sales, more waste, and they want you to feel better about it by paying a tax to fix the environment.  It is our attitudes to greed that must change, no carbon tax will fix it !

Robert Smissen of country SA says:

09:43pm | 30/05/11

@Mitchell, a true scientist would exchang & discuss ideas, not try to ram their ideas down everyones throat, as for Anna’s sexist & agist comments, well they’re beneath contempt, yes the climate & tempreture has ben FLUCTUATING since the ice age, SO WHAT? ?

Wombat says:

04:42pm | 01/06/11

If Humans are the cause of all our so called pollution & Climate Change, which I say is all rubbish, Earth has been there thousands of times before.

Simple solution, reduce the Human population by 2 Billionq, I said 2,000,000,000. A good couple of Wars & another SPanish Flue epidemic would be a good start.  I can hear you say start with me ,LOL, that’s OK I have had the best Australia could offer in the past 84 years of my life, not so many odd people around that we are letting in now under some Plan that I was not asked to vote on, or any of us for that matter, let’s have a Refferendum on it, and see what we all want, not what others are telling us what we want.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

06:51am | 30/05/11

@ Acotrel, with Hewsons political prowess and milestones, labour have truly to be thankful, after all he couldn’t explain the GST and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory from the most arrogant out of touch politician in my lifetime, hardly a glowing CV I’d say.

L. says:

07:31am | 30/05/11

Yeah… Another Ferrari owner who can afford the climate tax

dovif says:

09:08am | 30/05/11

Acrotrel

Instead we got a prime minister, who tells us sometimes she is real, and sometimes she is fake. Who occassionally tells the truth and often lies.

Who as Rudd’s people tells us, told Rudd to drop the ETS, who then said there will be no Carbon Tax under my prime ministership, then within 2 months, broke that promise, then said she prefers the ETS.

What is it really Julia?

I think the nose is growing every minute

acotrel says:

06:59am | 30/05/11

@Don Diamonds are not the only things being polished!

Fiona says:

07:48am | 30/05/11

We will when you guys let go of your big petrol guzzling cars, boats, jet skis etc, ok?

Joel B1 says:

08:46am | 30/05/11

@ Fiona,

Around here the successful men drive tiny little sports cars, it’s the women who drive the kids to school in the 3tonne-never-been-on-a-dirt-road petrol guzzling four-wheel drives.

Nathan says:

08:51am | 30/05/11

Don’t forget, thise dimonds are actually Carbon molicules. They are pollution according to the above article.

Shenanigans says:

10:42am | 30/05/11

also don’t forget we are carbon based life forms, therefore we are pollution, we are to be taxed for being alive. HOORAY!

Wombat says:

12:56pm | 02/06/11

Before you all fetching loose bits in a knot, read this factual article on CO2

http://65.55.33.135/att/GetAttachment.aspx?file=38ae0b03-14f8-42b4-9c79-05440c97b9b1.pdf&ct=YXBwbGljYXRpb24vcGRm&name=aG93LW11Y2gtY28yLnBkZg_3d_3d&inline=0&rfc=0?=False&imgsrc;=&hm__login=icrisp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.12.132.8&d=d463&mf=0&hm__ts=Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:39:56 GMT&st=icrisp&hm__ha=01_ef48b5e6cad4ab12f4731371e1bd7eff2cb124e69981643717d3262bd12597e5&oneredir=1

acotrel says:

07:04am | 30/05/11

@Septimus A minute ago we had a viable aircraft industry, and defence manufacturing in Australia.  New industries involving R&D in nenewable energy sorces couldn’t be all bad?

Mitchell says:

07:07am | 30/05/11

The “you first” argument is completely ridiculous and regardless the world is acting, despite calls from tribal minorities such as yourself
Many governments are placing tariffs on imports that don’t have their embedded carbon taxed, so Australian exporters trying to sell products in Europe and around the world have a much harder time because Australia has made no effort to reduce greenhouse emissions.  Wouldn’t you prefer that money be collected in Australia and spent here?

Mitchell says:

07:11am | 30/05/11

PS - It’s not even a taxpayer funded campaign, maybe you should read the article before getting all up on your waste soapbox.

George says:

08:11am | 30/05/11

@Mitchell - How much do you get paid by Get Up! to trawl these boards?

L. says:

08:14am | 30/05/11

That’s right Mitchell.. The world is acting.

Several US states that signed up for carbon trading are openly backing away from it.

The Brits have set their 50% carbon reduction to fail in the fine print…(they reserve the right to back out altogether if other countries fail).

The Europeans are looking into the massive amount of carbon trading fraud.

Any given “market” has only one thing of intrinsic value.. It’s integrity. If no-one trusts it, no-one will trade on it.The huge amount of fraud in the carbon trading market will, IMO, undermine that to the extent that it will fail.

Matt says:

08:21am | 30/05/11

Hi Mitchell, could you please point to any other country that derives most of their wealth from the sale of coal and gas putting in place a $25-$30/tonne carbon tax?

Can you name any country with a $25-$30/tonne carbon tax?

Thanks.

KHL says:

08:35am | 30/05/11

Does Australia rely on Europe as a trading partner? That’s a new one.

Septimus says:

08:41am | 30/05/11

Mitchell,

Prove the world won’t adapt and change to new conditions, like it has in the past.

The only one prescribing ‘you first’ is YOU.  I never mentioned me nor it being an issue about me.  Your personality issues generated that thought in your head.

What makes you think big business won’t pass the cost on to the consumer?  So the consumer pays twice.  Great strategy.  Great government!

Anna Rose should also declare her political interests before she writes such an issue.  Appointing YOURSELF as part of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition doesn’t mean you have any expertise nor authority on the subject.

Septimus says:

08:43am | 30/05/11

@ Mitchell

Please forward me your contact details and pay my share of the carbon tax.  That way you can feel twice as good about yourself and the bullshit you espouse.

Phil says:

08:44am | 30/05/11

@Septimus,
Right on the money (no pun intended).
The people tho who think that being taxed further will solve all the worlds ills have something seriously wrong with them.

Any concerns for “future generations” for me has nothing to do with climate change but more about the lack of planning for the future of our cities and regional areas! No housing (nothing affordable anyway), no transport, no schools, hospitals the list goes on.

Mitchell says:

09:02am | 30/05/11

George do you really think anyone with an opinion opposite to your own has to be a get up stooge? Would you say the same about the Tony Abbott word for word recited comments on here or is it just a one way street with you? Do you even think it would be in anyway cost effective for a non profit lobby group to write on opinion pages?

Mitchell says:

09:05am | 30/05/11

L. -  Yes the Brits are going for a 50% reduction, which you so gleefully hope will fail on the basis that other countries won’t implement greenhouse emmission reductions
A recent study by the London school of Economics found the worlds 16 largest economies are all moving towards carbon reduction legislation.
Antecdotally try checking the rhetoric coming out of the US and Chinese govt’s, it’s all about investing in greentech, reducing reliance on volitile foreign oil and creating sustainable economies that are not based on limited resources. The world is getting on with the job. Deal with it.

David C says:

09:42am | 30/05/11

Mitchell you are throwing around the same old arguments as every one else here.
The science is settled on what has happened and indeed on the future ie if you double the c02 you will cause about 1.2 degrees of heating. But that about it. We have had about 0.,7 degrees already so no great issue going forwardf.There is still a huge amount of uncertainty about the future (read the IPCC report and see their certainty about clouds, water vapour etc.)
To claim certainty about the future is just playing polictics through the science. The fact is when it comes down to it any conflict between economic growth and CO2 reductions will be resolved in favour of growth. That is why Copenhagen failed and why the carbon tax will fail it will only mean slower growth as the alterntives arent viable .. yet
This will be resolved when alternate energy becomes cheaper, that will not occur under this proposal, only growth will be hurt. For an example of what I mean look at the use of oil to produce electricity. We now use 10% of what we used to use purely because we came up with a cheaper alternative . coal
If you strip away the “tipping point” , “critical” decade “the time to act is now” you will start getting reasonable intelligent debate and allow the world to come to workable solutions.

L. says:

09:45am | 30/05/11

“L. -  Yes the Brits are going for a 50% reduction, which you so gleefully hope will fail on the basis that other countries won’t implement greenhouse emmission reductions”

I didn’t say that.. I said teh Brits will do a 180 based on the fact that other countries won’t meet their targets..not “won’t implement” anything. And other countries will. It was all weasel words on behalf of the Brits.

“A recent study by the London school of Economics found the worlds 16 largest economies are all moving towards carbon reduction legislation.”

Yeah, and.?? For something that Timmy Flannery himself said will make bugger all difference in 1000 yrs.

“Antecdotally try checking the rhetoric coming out of the US and Chinese govt’s, it’s all about investing in greentech”

Of course they are… because stupid Gov’s have made ecomonically ineffiecnt technologies viable by creating artificial markets, essentially with other peoples money.

Matt says:

09:50am | 30/05/11

“Mitchell says:

09:05am | 30/05/11

L. -  Yes the Brits are going for a 50% reduction, which you so gleefully hope will fail on the basis that other countries won’t implement greenhouse emmission (sic) reductions.”

And yet its fine for lefties to cheer on nuclear catastrophes such as in Japan so that nuclear power can be buried for another couple of decades? If you need evidence of this happening, go check out The Drum’s archives.

L. says:

10:02am | 30/05/11

“And yet its fine for lefties to cheer on nuclear catastrophes such as in Japan so that nuclear power can be buried for another couple of decades?”

Well spotted Matt…

Reggie says:

04:22pm | 30/05/11

No Matt… No L….  ” And yet its fine for lefties to cheer on nuclear catastrophes such as in Japan so that nuclear power can be buried for another couple of decades?”

Nothing of the sort. Quite apart from the FACT that -not- all those you try and disparage are Lefties.  People are merely pointing at the various ways the human race has contributed to mismanagement. Just like the Murray L and your own misguided or unguided attempts here.

It’s an insidious chipping away at the environment that leads to the ultimate catastrophe. History provides millions of examples, some of them quite positive, such as the advances in medical treatment and the transient advantages gained by mining and exporting our coal. A finite resource that we choose to practically give away, denuding the land of any value. The Chinese must be laughing at the way we allow our resources to be carted off shore by some third party to fill their coffers from the pollution it all creates. Maybe we should collect a gigantic tax to pay the exporters to piss off and stop stuffing up our environment and that of the rest of the world? Or perhaps there’s a more moderate path such as pollution minimization.

Mitchell says:

05:42pm | 30/05/11

Matt: thanks for the stereotyping.  I’m actually a huge supporter of nuclear power. (GM too but that’s another fight).
To say that I “cheer on” the nuclear tradgedy that unfolded in Japan, says more about you than it does about me.
  The fact that a 40 year old nuclear plant which endured one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded plus a tsunami, could have ended up much much worse speaks volumes for the safeguards that are actualy in place.
Nuclear power is safe, thousands die mining coal each year yet it doesn’t make gripping news headlines, so it scares no one.

If a country like Japan can get most of it’s power from nuclear, then a huge, seismically inactive, uranium rich country like Australia could get all it’s power from nuclear. Taking us from one of the biggest polluters per person to one of the least and providing us the ammunition to argue for big emission reductions on the world stage.

Matt says:

06:50pm | 30/05/11

Mitchell, I wasn’t stereotyping you, and in fact, I agree 100% with what you wrote about nuclear. But there is a sizeable number of the Left who will not even consider nuclear energy to replace coal. Case in point, our PM. It was more a criticism of that element than you personally.

If you pull them up on the same rhetoric, then fair enough. But you must admit, you were stereotyping L., suggesting he/she was “gleefully” hoping that the UK fails. All L. was doing was stating a fact. So, fair shake of the sauce bottle, as Kevvie would say.

Bloggs says:

06:01pm | 04/06/11

@ Mitchell,  You are so full of sh*t, gella.  Others are not acting.  Not the USA, not Canada, not UK, not Japan, not India…. and certainly not China who is burning more and more coal that we sell them every day.. just a few of the countries not doing anything.  Anything Oz does is wasted.  This is a tax grab conceived in lies and bullsh*t.  ANd people like you are quite blind to the bullsh*t science used to grab it.

Bob says:

08:53am | 30/05/11

Furthermore its a climate tax Julia *promised* not to implement.

Shelldrake says:

09:26am | 30/05/11

so will world “air conditioning day” where everyone in the world turns on their air condiitoners flat out on cool for an hour to bring global temperatures down—it’ll work—trust me

RT says:

01:31pm | 30/05/11

Shelldrake - I don’t have an air conditioner. Can I just leave my fridge door open instead?

I want to be part of the solution!!!

James says:

02:42pm | 30/05/11

And doing nothing will….

Mum@home says:

05:38pm | 30/05/11

Shelldrake, this is best laugh I have had in a very tough day, thankyou!!  And you know what it might just work, ha ha ha, love it!

Fiona says:

07:56am | 30/05/11

Well erick, I don’t see a lot of teenagers running big companies these days. Haven’t got my hand on the names of CEOs of big companies, but Gina Reinhardt is the only female that springs immediately to mind, so she’s just as guilty, considering her company.
It was so predictable that you would nitpick this article, which has a bias, given the authors position, but to make it gender biased? Get off the sauce.

Cry in my Gin says:

07:57am | 30/05/11

Bravo Erick, bravo.

Kevin says:

08:13am | 30/05/11

Oh Erick what ever happened to those carefree days of radicalised youth?  You know, when you’d read Das Kapital in the hope of getting into the pants of that socialist chick with the incredible tits.  When street theatre was still entertaining and leaving crudely painted 44 gallon drums outside the HQ of CRA was a hoot.
Grumpy old manhood may be more righteous but it isn’t as much fun.

Erick says:

08:33am | 30/05/11

@Fiona - I’m not the one who made the article gender biased - that’s the author’s fault.

@Kevin - That was fun then, exposing the hypocrisy and naivety of the same young activists is fun now. :D

Super D says:

08:34am | 30/05/11

Fiona - the reason that teenagers don’t get to run big companies is that people don’t trust their youthful naivety and inexperience with their hard earned money.

You can rest assured that if there was even the slightest hint that it would be more profitable handing the reins to youthful novices it would be done.

grumpy old man says:

09:09am | 30/05/11

Kevin,
Grumpy Old Manhood is hugely fun! trust me, I’m the expert at it!
I get to say and do pretty much anything ( within the bounds of most laws and public decency), and get away with it, because I’m a grumpy old man.

L. says:

09:59am | 30/05/11

@Eric..

I think the author is pharaphrasing Tim Flannery which she says AGW skeptics are men..

“The Tim Flannery that said that most climate skeptics were men over 65.”

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/05/12/2897701.htm?site=darwin

Liam says:

10:24am | 30/05/11

Why don’t you hit all the nails on the head Erick, its the White Christian Male aged 18-30.
White = racists, Christian = intolerant towards muslims, Male = obvious rapist, 18-30 = young/immature.

As for throwing this 16 year old girl into the debate, does she even know what she is talking about???
She will only be the face of their campaign, the sweet inocent young girl cut down in her prime by CO2.

1 question, if the earth never changes temperature and its humans fault for rasing the earth temperature, who do we blame for the global warming that made the earth come out of the last ice age??? neanderthal man?

“Climate change is simply a reality for our generation” - What a joke

Go back to your day job of smoking billies in the rainforest!

Matt says:

10:50am | 30/05/11

I heard a radio advert on the way to work today. It said something to the effect that we need to cut down *deadly* carbon dioxide emissions. Imagine that! Carbon dioxide is DEADLY!

dead·ly
? ?/?d?dli/ Show Spelled [ded-lee] Show IPA adjective, -li·er, -li·est, adverb
–adjective
1. causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal: a deadly poison.
2. aiming to kill or destroy; implacable: a deadly enemy.
3. like death: a deadly pallor.

... and yet those on the Right are the fear-mongers apparently.

Shama says:

11:44am | 30/05/11

While Erick has to focus on the male bit , he’s right. Climate science spokesmen are also largely old, white men so what is the author’s point? Think Gore. And wasn’t there some god awful book one of them wrote about his children blah blah blah (very much along the lines of every red river gum dying in this article - the green movement has a lot ot answer for re its sins against good prose).

I don’t know anything about climate science so I have no opinion about the science. But this is not about the science. What annoys people like me is being lectured to by rich, entitled folk jetting around the globe. The real problem is that no one can be a greenie in the true sense. So the minute anyone jumps on the pulpit and starts hectoring everyone else and being morally superior and calling everyone else an idiot (mitchell, way to prove you are smart) it smacks of hypocrisy.

Col the Pariah says:

12:09pm | 30/05/11

You know, the author might do better if she cut down on all of the hyperbole and emotive crap and stuck to the facts.  What we are reading are the plaintive cries of a marginally post pubescent idealist with the unglossed naivety of youth before realism actually allows a clearer vision. 

I am thankful to the author that I now know that every species in our ecosystems are under imminent threat of extinction, I thought it was only a minor percentage, all those poor kangaroos must be feeling pretty hopeless.

The sceince suggests we are at the end of an ice age, what did the scientists expect to happen?  We have just had our coldest May in 30 years, is that an extreme weather event, or is it a chink in the argument?

I always loved the expression, let teeneagers run the world before they realise they don’t know everything….

Reggie says:

02:38pm | 30/05/11

Nearly Col; ” I always loved the expression, let teeneagers run the world before they realise they don’t know everything….”

“Let them run the world -while- they know everything.”

I personally love the implication that there is not a doubt in their minds, but it’s quite incorrect you know. Most teens are a bundle of uncertainty, it’s the hot-heads who rise over-quickly to the top and make the decisions based on incomplete information.

That handy Law of Unintended Consequences again.

The slowly maturing savour the points and laugh heartily at the fumblings of the ancient CEOs or the current crop of US presidential candidates. Then there’s Tony Abbott. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

And look at Erick, he’ll probably be quite wise one day. Although he’d better get the finger out, now that he’s passed 50.

Joan says:

10:55am | 30/05/11

What’s stopping you, GFC? All you need are their skills and talent.

Seano says:

11:12am | 30/05/11

I doubt Cate has as much money as Gina Rheinhart, who’s bought a TV station through which she can promote climate change denial via the empty vessel that is A. Bolt.

MarK says:

12:31pm | 30/05/11

”  Seano says:

  11:12am | 30/05/11

  I doubt Cate has as much money as Gina Rheinhart, who’s bought a TV station through which she can promote climate change denial via the empty vessel that is A. Bolt”

ROFLMAO

Best conspiracy theory ever.

By the way it is an awesome show. Rating its socks off.

A must see. Hope you catch it so you can actually comment on the content.

LAWL

Seano says:

01:59pm | 30/05/11

Rolling on the floor giggling insanely seems about the right speed for a loopy right wing troll.

In the meantime the only thing funny is the double standard of conservatives screaming that Blanchette has no right an an opinion they disagree with because she is rich. Whilst Rhinehardt can push an opinion they agree with because she’s uber rich.

Reggie says:

03:06pm | 30/05/11

GFC, obviously another resentful faux-liberal stewing in the juice of his own “prtentious incompetants.”

Will that be all GFC? I’m retired and have a life to lead that does not involve frittering ways my employers paid time.

MarK says:

06:00pm | 30/05/11

“screaming that Blanchette has no right an an opinion”

Bahahahahahahahahaha

Whoever said that you silly boy you.

Learn to read and comprehend. Gosh teachers…..

Seano says:

07:18pm | 30/05/11

MarK Rants:

““screaming that Blanchette has no right an an opinion”

Bahahahahahahahahaha

Whoever said that you silly boy you.”

Govt@FauxCitizen says: “but I doubt that someone with her income has even the slightest concept of the real world”

I’m not sure what’s more embarrassing for you, the AtM quality loopy rants or just plain being wrong again and again and again.

MarK says:

09:19pm | 30/05/11

Oh seano honey.

seano dear….link your proof then sweetheart.

Seriously you are quite different. Ireally really like you. You make me laugh.

Go on link all that proof you have dear..

Seano says:

10:24pm | 30/05/11

I did. You being crazy doesn’t change that.

Against the Man says:

07:37am | 30/05/11

The Gilltard goverment is Bullsh*t Central! They have NFI what they are doing! Cate should be ashamed of herself for associating herself with this corrupt mob. This tax won’t change the climate but it will please Bob Brown our real PM!

Weak As says:

10:48am | 30/05/11

Thanks for your insightful comment AtM
What would the punch be with out your contribution?

Against the Man says:

12:53pm | 30/05/11

You’re welcome Weak As. So who are you really? Seano? TChong? John A Neve? Maybe Pers? You guys just never learn

Phil says:

09:37pm | 30/05/11

Muzz you are so right. I wonder if Perse, Acotrel, Seano et al would be so pro carbon tax if it was $ 40 a ton and no compensation. I doubt it very much.

See why reward in many cases lifes underacheivers with 110% compensation which means they are better off the higher the tax goes. WTF.

If they are going to bring it in use $ 10 a ton and dont compensate anyone. That way if your dont consume much you dont pay much and visa versa.

Seano says:

10:25pm | 30/05/11

@Phil

But it does come with compensation so your whole made up premise is silly.

RyaN says:

11:30pm | 30/05/11

@Seano: well if it really was as bad as the AGW alarmists make out then it should be $200 a ton and zero compensation. I mean we have to act now don’t we, and it is an emergency, we have to act, won’t you think of the children Seano? If you don’t agree with +$200 a ton then clearly you don’t “believe” and hence a denier.

Seano says:

10:17am | 31/05/11

@rYaN - I’m not interested the arguments you make up for me. Shooting down things I haven’t said isn’t debate, it’s childish. Grow up.

The carbon tax is a first step in a move to carbon trading. Big polluters should pay to pollute and be pushed towards clear energy. The carbon tax will be a non-event in the same the GST was and where will your scare mongering be then?

PS. I see your still copying the capitalisation of an established troll, how embarrassing for you.

RyaN says:

02:18pm | 01/06/11

@Seano: I had to, some Labor troll decided that it was a great idea to start trolling with my nick.. Not embarrassing at all, MarK is my idol, he is far from a troll but rather a voice of reason, unlike you Labor dropkicks.

RyaN says:

02:30pm | 01/06/11

@Seano: “Big polluters should pay to pollute” but big polluters are the ones being compensated, its the single income family earning a combined total income of 90k a year that will pay (even though the dual income family on a combined income $160k will apparently be compensated).
I agree, I am sure you rich Labor elites will see it as a non-event since you have loads of spare cash to pay any extra tax (thats if you don’t already exploit the loopholes you rich do already and pay no tax anyway).

James says:

02:58pm | 30/05/11

How exactly do you earn your “hard earned cash” pal?

Bob says:

08:56am | 30/05/11

Scratch a green and you find a red - it all goes back to their ugly little prejudices on class, race and gender. Scratch a red and you find a totalitarian - other people are doing the wrong thing and need to be controlled.

r3830 says:

08:56am | 30/05/11

Hang on there Cry…. one shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good story! Isn’t that how the IPCC operates…. with data fabrication - or put more simply, plain lies? As I recall, that was a proven fact, but the thought of a tax has strong appeal to those who supposedly represent the people of this country. It must be getting bad when our government has to enlist actors to push their cause for them!
Any possibility that the government might consider putting out their plan - before it is blindly adopted? Where is the content? Is there any - or is this to be invented after it is legislated? They did that in the US once - and called it the Patriot Act.

acotrel says:

09:32am | 30/05/11

@Bob
‘Scratch a green and you find a red - it all goes back to their ugly little prejudices on class, race and gender.’

What’s the left wing equivalent to Godwin’s Law? Commie phobia ended in 1989 when the catholic church pulled down the Berlin wall!

shane says:

09:01am | 30/05/11

why don’t you write to Alan Jones and ask him for help?

Its ok for him to spew venom into the airwaves at the behest of ignorance and vested interests, yet god forbid an Actress speaking out for her beliefs?

Should we infer that if you ever become rich and/or famous that you will not voice a public opinion on anything ever again?

Hypocrite

acotrel says:

09:28am | 30/05/11

@anthony - GET A JOB!

Ted says:

10:26am | 30/05/11

Well said Anthony. I have little time for Blanch.. given that she has also spoken out to defend a so called artist who would be charged with paedophilia if his work was displayed anywhere other than an art gallery. As further proof to her lack of integrity, why is the power plant featured in the BS campaign from the UK AND was decommissioned in the 80’s????

L. says:

10:27am | 30/05/11

@Shane…

“yet god forbid an Actress speaking out for her beliefs?”

I agree, but you must agree that this is a very contentious issue. So why not give everyone the chance to have their say in a forum where personal wealth, fame and popularity count for nothing…..

An referendum on the matter..???

PTom says:

12:46pm | 30/05/11

Did you vote Labor for a Carbon Price or a CPRS
or
Did you vote Coalition for a Direct Action Plan or a ETS
or
Perhaps voted Green for a Carbon Price

We have had two election where none of the major parties has denied Climate Change or taking action on it.

Now you want a third vote because you did not like the past results.

The current government has a mandate to take action but you are to dishonest to accept it.

Anubis says:

01:21pm | 30/05/11

@PTom - The current Government does NOT have a mandate to act on this. The current Government has a mandate (if at all) for “There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead” which was loudly trumpeted by the red-headed bint just before the election, this sentiment was also loudly and proudly pronounced by that other Green sock puppet Treasurer Swan. That is about all that they can proclaim to have a mandate for.

Jim says:

01:38pm | 30/05/11

PTom - spin and twist it any way you like…every previous government in history has, when proposing a change of this magnitude, done the honourable thing and put it to the people to decide. This current government is not doing the honourable thing by it’s people.

They have even said that it will be buried so deep and will be so intertwined that it will be almost impossible to repeal. What does that say about the integrity on display by Gillard and Brown?

Reggie says:

05:40pm | 30/05/11

Jim “This current government is not doing the honourable thing by it’s people.”

So let me get this straight.

You want people to vote on whether the environment is in jeopardy or not?

OR

You want them to vote on “doing nothing” or “doing something?”

OR

You just want them to throw out this government?

Now I get it, you’re not even discussing climate change. Congratulations, you’ve been pissing in everyone’s pockets all day. You must be dehydrated.

Rover of North Cooma says:

10:22am | 30/05/11

Yep, Tom, they sure do.

Especially this bit: “Gone are the days when young people can plan our futures without factoring in an ominous shadow looming over our plans for our lives, careers and families. Not since the Cold War have young Australians faced a future so uncertain.”

There are a few other things that have worried previous generations of young people too - world wars, conscription, unemployment, the threat of nuclear war, the hole in the ozone layer, AIDS.

This would have been a much better article with more facts and fewer flowery statements, including pompous young person declarations about old, out of touch men.

loulou says:

02:34pm | 30/05/11

tom is right - these comments are gag-inducing.

Godfrey Zohn says:

04:57pm | 30/05/11

Hmmm, so we’ve had a naïve PM telling us to say yes to the Great Big New Tax, followed by a brace of naïve actors telling us the same thing - now we’re hearing it again from a 16 year old?  Naïvety abounds, but informed opinion does not.

Just smell the desperation.  We’re being sold on a YES vote and we don’t even know what we’re saying yes to!

Australia is breaking?  Nah, what you hear breaking is the last vestiges of credibility from the current government.  It’s the GBNT which will break Australia, I think we’re all fairly clear on that.

BTW, given the overwhelming lack of support for this government and its GBNT - where’s our Governor General in all this?  Seems to be fairly obvious that we want an election or a referendum on this tax - not because we voted in a government and it should therefore run full term - rather because we elected (!) it under very false pretences and we’d like an opportunity to remedy that.  About now.

persephone says:

09:37am | 30/05/11

GoM

this has been explained to you, using very big crayons, small words and interpretative mime, on many occasions now.

The aim is to keep the RISE in temperature to 2 degrees or below, through global action.

As Australia is part of the globe, global action necessarily involves Australia acting.

There are literally thousands of nobodies outlining in various papers that this is the aim.

Now, if you repeat the kind of statement you make above again, we’ll have to conclude that you’re not only old and grumpy, but having a few senior moments as well.

MarK says:

09:55am | 30/05/11

pers you slandered me.

Link the proof woman.

link it

RyaN says:

10:26am | 30/05/11

@persephone: So how many degrees increase per year will this carbon tax achieve? A bench mark will be nice so we can measure if its effective or not. If you don’t want to measure its effectiveness then we clearly know the measure of its effectiveness is how much cash the government can lift out of our pockets.

TimB says:

10:39am | 30/05/11

“As Australia is part of the globe, global action necessarily involves Australia acting.”

Actually no it doesn’t Perse. If the rest of the globe acted and we didn’t, the effect would be pretty much the same.

Given that, shouldn’t we first be focusing our efforts on those countries who actually will make a tangible difference?

persephone says:

11:22am | 30/05/11

MarK

you accused me of saying something I’ve never said.

When I corrected you, you accused me of saying something else I’ve never said.

Since I never said either of the things you said I did, I can’t link to any kinds of proof, because (of course) having not said the things, it doesn’t exist.

You can be a man and apologise or you can just be your usual stupid self.

End of conversation, until you apologise.

persephone says:

11:28am | 30/05/11

TimB

we can walk and chew gum, you know.

And those other countries aren’t going to listen to other countries telling them to take action, unless they show that they’re willing to take action themselves.

To get back to the water saving analogy: if you know all your neighbours are using water contrary to the restrictions, even if it’s not a huge amount, you’re more likely to ignore the restrictions yourself.

If, however, you see your neighbours rigidly adhering to the rules, and even taking it further than that and taking active measures to reduce their water usage, it’s highly likely that you’ll concur.

(All of this is confirmed by all sorts of studies; people are more likely to take a certain action if they see others doing it too).

Matt says:

11:36am | 30/05/11

“RyaN says:

10:26am | 30/05/11

@persephone: So how many degrees increase per year will this carbon tax achieve? A bench mark will be nice so we can measure if its effective or not.”

Unfortunately RyaN, once the carbon tax is implemented, it won’t matter what the result is. Say, for example, temps either plateau or decrease, the tax will be lauded as a stunning success. If temps increase, the pollies will then conclude that either it is too short a period of time to make a judgment on the result of the tax, or (more likely) that it is evidence that the tax needs to be increased dramatically. If our economy crumbles, excuses will be trotted out saying how we had to do it, and it was the “responsible” course of action, never mind the cost to Australian taxpayers.

Its a win-win for the scare-mongering Left.

L. says:

11:36am | 30/05/11

@Pers..

“The aim is to keep the RISE in temperature to 2 degrees or below, through global action”

Don’t dodge the question.. GOM’s didn’t ask what the point of the tax is, but what the “effect” will be.

So, using “very big crayons”, explain to us what will the tax achieve (in a temp reduction sense), and how soon..??

Adam Diver says:

12:09pm | 30/05/11

Wow Pers, just wow.

You have simplied global diplomacy, and economic aspirations into the most stupid, childish analogy.

Acting without global co-operation, is economically stupid, environmentally pointless, and morally childish.

How the left can defend such positions behind moral righteoness is unbelievably naive, the world has (not will) chosen economic prosperity over reducing emmissions. Going it alone, hoping that other nations follow our example is incongruent with the argument that we are not the only nation to act. If an example has already been set, can we at least eliminate this weak argument for future post.

Back to the water analogy. Thanks pers for your reference to “all sorts of studies” but may I suggest to compare individuals following the neighbours example is completely different to nations following each others example. The only example the emerging economies are following, is the economic prosperity from cheap power, that first world nations have already taken advantage of.

MarK says:

12:23pm | 30/05/11

No pers I linked the proof.

You always defer to Garnaut.

Stop lying. You show proof as to your claim yesterday.

How an unemployed (per nosthow) self confessed alcoholic (per me) that is arrogant (per you) that nobody reads and hangs out at the old codgers bar at the Westport bowlo (per ian the lawyer…oh ian open invitation to come down to any bowlo in port and call the boys in the back bars derogatory terms…...I want to see that) that is boring as all get out (per Badgers many alias’s) owns you the self promoted Uni lecturer, policy maker and ground rooter in every argument we have is betyond me.

Yet again your intellectual dwarfiam has led you into an untenable position where the facts are arrayed against you.

You are wrong.

So you retreat, again, to your happy place where you don’t answer.

Disgusting.

Cowardly.

Disgustingly cowardly.

Woman up pers.

You are flailing all over the shop. Try and least get the basic facts right.

Come on pers link your proof of my statements or gtfo.

Do tell us pers what is the correct level for the carbon tax since we need to stop the warming, limit the warming….whatever.

How can we afford to limit the tax and give compensation?

Gillard herself said in the Sun Herald today there is no time to waste. How can we wait another year.

What level will this tax bite in at.

We must save the world after all.

Hurray. Provide some answers. Kids are in peril.

You do have the courage to actually make a statement don’t you. The science is settled afetr all. We need a carbon tax. Google won’t help. Tory has proven the need for a tax.

What level pers.

Come on.

Ante up and don’t be a coward.

Don’t deny.

Kevin says:

12:58pm | 30/05/11

It’s a bit like sending troops to Iraq or Aghanistan.  I’m sure the USA would have managed just fine without us.  Those deployments must have cost us a bit too.

Sony B Goode says:

01:34pm | 30/05/11

The carbon tax will lead to a decrease of about 10C , inside the homes of people who can’t afford to use air-conditioning in winter. This will be offset by a rise of about 20C in summer.

So we can conclude that a carbon tax will have a net increase of about 10C annually for population living at Sydney latitude, obviously figures will vary north or south.

But take heart we are well on the way to converting Australia to the world’s first continental national park.

Isn’t that right pers?

Jim says:

01:47pm | 30/05/11

@persephone “this has been explained to you, using very big crayons, small words and interpretative mime, on many occasions now.” - Wow…you really are full of yourself aren’t you! Or are you simply adhering to this weeks missive from Labor HQ? Did the message self-destruct I wonder?

As MarK alludes to…you are very good at being smugly superior when you think you are arguing with an idiot, but when faced with real facts and difficult alternatives to the spin you spew out every couple of minutes, you clam up and refuse to answer any more.

persephone says:

01:55pm | 30/05/11

MarK

I only worry about the opinions of people I respect.

So I don’t worry about yours.

I give you absolutely free rein to insult me all you like and to tell as many lies about me as you want to.

It appears to be some kind of therapy for you.

I just won’t bother reading any of it.

I’m really very sorry for you. You are obviously full of self hate. I don’t want to add to that burden.

So I apologise for anything I might ever have said or done to upset you.

Now, go ahead and slander me all you like. It really isn’t a problem—-  I won’t be reading it.

MarK says:

02:33pm | 30/05/11

Waiting pers

Matt says:

02:40pm | 30/05/11

persephone, you insult people all the time. Kinda hard for you to try and take the moral high ground, isn’t it?

persephone says:

03:40pm | 30/05/11

Matt
I don’t misrepresent them. I don’t lie about them. I apologise if it’s shown I’ve misunderstood them.

All big differences.

MarK says:

04:42pm | 30/05/11

Add pers to the list.

I have her beat.

Like all good lawyers, well hello ian, whe won’t be reading me.

What a denier.

She denies there can be any other opinion apart from her own. She cannot win on fact so she cowardly slinks away.

The uni lecturer. The policy maker. The ground rooter thingy.

Well I never.

Imagine people so intimately involved in the “science” for a decade being intimidated by little old me.

Pathetic.

All the worlds reputable scientists on her side and she DENIES I exist.

Laughable.

Respect? I don’t wnat your respect, your pity or anything else besides your answers to some basic questions and an attempt, just an attempt, to stick to the truth and factual evidence.

You are a poor advocate pers. You fit right in with this Labor party now. Endless repetition of lies so as to dull the senses of the people and gain support for untenable positions. Flip flopping and cowardly backdowns at the first sign of trouble. Hiding behind others work as justification.

Respect.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Deserve some yourself before you look for it in others. Having you not respect me is high praise in my book. I read everything everyone writes. I look at all angles. I present facts and srgument.

You present a talking point and lies.

Having you respect me would make me feel dirty.

But lets get back on topic shall we dear?

Why did they show soot in the ad? Why did you lie about what I said?

What price will the carbon tax actually make a difference at?

When will the compensation stop since you are so keen to promote that bit?

What other parts of Garnaut do you not agree with so we all know where you stand? Or is it everything except for the bits that can be used against you?

Denial is a terrible thing. Especially for a teacher.

James says:

04:45pm | 30/05/11

Persephone don’t bother, these people are beyond help and too stupid or arrogant to realise you are trying to do them a favor, they are really not worth your time.

Michael says:

05:16pm | 30/05/11

Pers’ you call people idiots, demean them with big crayons, you mis represent facts, yourself and your qualifications. Don’t bother getting on your high horse after all this time precious.

Matt says:

07:14pm | 30/05/11

Spot on Michael.

persephone says:

07:20pm | 30/05/11

Michael

when people have had something explained to them several times, and then say that no one has answered their question, what would you call them?

And no, I haven’t lied about anything. I try very hard to make sure I check my facts, and I certainly haven’t misrepresented my qualifications.

(Strange how much the righty types here hate strong women, and hate women who have outachieved them, like Cate and Julia. Kind of telling, isn’t it?)

MarK says:

09:21pm | 30/05/11

BAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Now pers plays the sexist card.

Gawd she is one insecure person.

I am a cat and she is my play thing.

Reggie says:

09:26pm | 30/05/11

Adam Diver “Acting without global co-operation, is economically stupid, environmentally pointless, and morally childish.”

... and yet it worked for the removal of tariff barriers. Another Global enterprise that was fought tooth and nail for the damage it would cause to our social fabric. In fact, it was morally mature, environmentally dispersive and economically far-sighted.  Do I hear an echo?

Matt says:

09:39pm | 30/05/11

You know persephone, insinuating things about people is pretty much the same as misrepresenting them. Its quite laughable how you constantly say one thing in a thread, and then completely invalidate it a couple of posts later (kind of telling, isn’t it?).

Michael says:

11:02pm | 30/05/11

Persephone, i promise i don’t hate you or any other person anywhere. I am all for strong women, i was raised by two and have married one who also earns more than me and is my boss

I’m just helping you keep a straight line is all

Mikko says:

10:45am | 30/05/11

I think it’s a great ad, there’s not much else you can laugh at on telly these days. Honestly if it’s meant as a parody of the climate change debate it hits the mark but I think they meant it to be serious, LOL (A bit like the little kid scared by the climate change bogeyman in the short film shown at the pathetic Copenhagen conference).

Chris says:

10:05am | 30/05/11

Sorry TCB 24 X 7, but they do have such taxes.

Trouble is they don’t do anything for the environment, or reduce Climate change or climate extremes in Europe.

What they may have done is decrease pollution (a good thing), but they have really only done it by making fossil fuel generation so expensive that it makes renewables seem cheaper - they aren’t.

Grab a read of Bjorn Lombergs stuff on all this. I think he seems to have a good grasp of it all. Tony Jones doesn’t like his ideas, so he must be on the right track.

Oh, and Europe has a failry extensive Nuclear program, we don’t here in Australia. Would the Greens want that??? - doubt it.

So basically, bye all means use renewables and stuff, perfectly sensible, but making the more polluting mechanism up to 4 time more expensive doesn’t cut it in my view. I don’t remember taxing CFC’s to get rid of them to save the ozone layer - happened because it was a bad thing, at no cost to anybody. So, as Bjorn suggests, make renewables more efficient to make them competitive, but don’t do it by taxing the bejesus out of everything to make the inefficient more efficient - economic lunacy, doesn’t work.

Which economy would you rather live in at the moment???? We are all laughing at Europe and their economic woes (UK included), and they have had carbon taxes of various kind for upwards of 20 years.

You don’t tax your way to properity - Churchill

Jack says:

10:32am | 30/05/11

Hi Chris, the full quote is “Trying to tax a Nation into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself by the handles” Sir Winston Churchill. Describes the fallacy of the Labor/Green ideology so succinctly.

Chris says:

11:42am | 30/05/11

Thanks Jack

Knew it was something like that, sentiment the same though.

Perhaps if they reomve themselves from the bucket, we can tip the contents on the policy. I live in hopeful times

Call me a dreamer

Que says:

08:21am | 30/05/11

“Ah, the convolutions of the denialist mind never cease to amaze me”,..

That’s because I doubt you’ve ever actually stopped to think for yourself. Thinking is hard. Acting like sheeple is lazy.

Just out of interest. Tell me about the outcome of the IPCC projections of temperature rise over the last 10-15 years if you don’t mind? No? The global temp is well below the predictions. Science = hypothesis then test. If test fails, hypothesis fails.

loulou says:

08:23am | 30/05/11

You’re right.  It’s emotional -  and bizarre

PTom says:

01:10pm | 30/05/11

How will a Carbon Price make Australia exports less competative? The dollar has had more impact.

Here something that does not get talk about if Energy companies switch to renewables they then no longer have to rely on the coal price, which is affected by the dollar and export demand.

This will lead to price raise of energy will being less, improving your cost of living.

Steve Putnam says:

07:05pm | 30/05/11

RICH? Like Gina Reinhardt ?

Mouse says:

09:48am | 30/05/11

You are right Gregg, before the locks and weirs were built, the Murray was succeptible to the weather. The droughts of 1902, 1913, 1914 and 1923 saw pockets of the Murray dry up or just trickle through.
The locks and weirs were constructed, starting in Blanchetown in 1922 and ending in Wentworth in 1929, so farming along the river would thrive. Dams were built further upriver to encourage settlement and farm growth that would increase the nation’s economic strength.
And you are correct again in saying that the carbon tax will not have any impact on that. The climate is cyclic, over hundreds of thousands of years, and will continue to be so over the next hundreds of thousands of years.
Carbon tax to be given back to companies and lower income families will not stop climate change or the way people live. It will indeed increase the burden on families to make ends meet and Australian companies exporting overseas.
What happens when the carbon tax is fazed out and compensation is no longer paid? The costs of living will not decrease with it. Still some big future questions to be answered.  Maybe we will be told when the “details” are released.

Joel B1 says:

10:09am | 30/05/11

Don’t talk to me about “locks and weirs”.

Here’s a true example of the Green-mindset. (I can find the ref if needed)

Our local creek runs past the Cascade Brewery, down through some lovely public gardens and on through and under Hobart. Its catchment area is Mt Wellington. Most of the time it’s a fairly small creek, but if it rains for a few days or weeks it turns into a raging torrent you can feel shaking the ground throughout Sth Hobart.

Back in the olden days it used to flood out parts of Hobart quite badly. So a flood reduction trap was built out of concrete, it’s like a small dam with overflow area and debris traps to keep the water flowing.

The Green interpretation of this structure is “Cascade park is spoiled by a huge concrete dam built by the Hydro-electricity company back in the 1930’s when they were allowed to build dams every where.”

You couldn’t make it up.

Nuts.

Mouse says:

01:17pm | 30/05/11

Joel B1, that sounds like Green mentality. They really don’t live in the same world as the rest of us, do they?  lol Maybe we should give them Christmas Island, no boats out, and they could create their own utpoia with no interference from all those nasty non-Greens.  Ahhhh to dream !

Fred says:

10:44am | 30/05/11

You may say Cate’s and idiot, but she has made a very nice income by saying “my leg hurts ....” in a mildly convincing way and getting millions of dumb paying saps to watch her say it. Do you honestly believe she gives a damn about the average Australian as her off shore account rolls on? Don’t forget this is the woman that spoke out to protect a paedophile that was protected because he called himself an artist.

Sony B Goode says:

09:02am | 30/05/11

never let little facts get in the way of a good opportunity to redistribute money from the greedy to the needy!

Cunegonde says:

09:36am | 30/05/11

We can get Obama for presidency as well and not pay a cent- yeah,why not let backpackers and visitor have a say.

You can go now Mick, quetly, dont slam the door.
datza gud boy.

Ray says:

10:01am | 30/05/11

Mick, please take the time to read my earlier comment. You have the astounding ability to miss the point. Cate Blanchett is doing a rent a voice commercial because she is a Labor supporter diehard (or try hard) with the tunnel vision to support any Labor initiative. Please explain WTF Labour is going to do with the money raised by the Carbon Tax. I’ve never seen it detailed..

Once again it is the clinical example of financial mismangement. That being, the Government receiving income which is not based on production or endeavour but on ideology, which in itself is non productive.

That is making money from producing nothing. That son is also the prime reason of the Global Financial Crisis. You cannot survive by shuffling deck chairs. You have to actually produce something.

Therein is Australia’s biggest problem in that we have retards constraining our development or giving away our natural assets.

Meanwhile countries like China money launder funds through private countries to purchase assets, land, and food producing footholds in dumb foreign countries that have had it so good they don’t know how to look after themselves. China is securing their future overseas by buying up with a company filtered money laundering scheme. Only the dumbest of the dumb are unable to see that.

And you’ve touched on another point, ‘women’. Well most don’t pay their own way, they depend on handouts or someone else paying the way. So they do not grasp the concept that work puts bread on the table. Emotive theories do not. Also Gillard, MIA.

If you need a budget balancer rescind the maternity leave and leave other things like education alone. In fact give maternity leave funds all to education then women and men can benefit.

I’ll go and ask Cate if that’s OK.

If we produce a carbon tax use it to buy back our own assets.

Mick S says:

12:10pm | 30/05/11

Ray,
You have singularly avoided the issue.
Either climate change is occuring or it is not.
If not, the vast majority of scientists are all wrong.
If they are all wrong, then either they are poor at their science (appears unlikely given the amount of studies) or they are all involved in a conspiracy.
Conspiracy theories include the imposition of a one-world government, a plot to redistribute wealth, a plot to make the wealth wealthier by their better access to a market mechanism (despite the obvious contadiction with the prior conspiracy theory.)
If you wish to believe most scientist are wrong, there is no point in engaging in a logical argument with you as you reject logic..
Similarly, if you subscribe to a conspiracy theory, I can only suggest you continue wearing your tin-foil hat.
If climate change is in fact occuring, then we should be part of the action to correct.
Pretending that the rest of the world is doing nothing so we should just wait doesn’t cut it.
We are part of the same planet and our own geography means that climate change is a greater threat to us than to many other countries.

Ray says:

12:30pm | 30/05/11

Mick S(hit), I never mentioned most of what you a ad to in your response. Never mentioned scientists or conspiracy. But now that you do mention it who says MOST scientists adhere to global warming. Anyone can equally claim most scientists don’t adhere to global warming.

As for conspiracy I want to know whre the friggin’ money is going to. Is it quarantined for resolving carbon based issues. Did you read the contract when you bought your house or just sign an open cheque. I think you are suffering from brain depletion caused by carbon emissions.

My comments on Cate Blanchett and Julia the deceiver stand as said.

Gregg says:

06:20am | 31/05/11

@Mick S,
” Either climate change is occuring or it is not.
If not, the vast majority of scientists are all wrong.
If they are all wrong, then either they are poor at their science (appears unlikely given the amount of studies) or they are all involved in a conspiracy. “
Mick, the Climate is sure changing and always has, something to do with there having once been dinosaurs about on the planet.
So it may not be and most likely is not that all scientists are wrong but why do you not go and have a detailed look at all those studies for they are not all just to say ” shit the planet is getting close to the boil and we had better jump planets “
The IPCC is also a conglomeration of many separate studies by groups and individuals into different aspects but just then saying there is sufficient bulk of evidence to warrant hanging mankind is a bit premature.
And then so what if the planet is warming a couple of degrees over a century or whatever, for delve into that mind of yours and
1. ask whether it is nature or mankind
2. ask a scientist whether along with global warming, is there to be any cooling expected, like as in ” is it cyclical? ”
An honest one knowledgeable enough might well say ” yes, there have been Ice ages ” and they might even be prepared to say we can do some modelling on just how cold it could get in the next one! - read somewhere that the UK may have had just onlu 3 km. of Ice over it during one Ice age as difficult as that may be to believe.

But even if it was 3m for just three years, why not ask yourself what might be worse and then also ask yourself
1. If man has warmed up the planet a tad, could that help the next Ice Age to be not so severe and would that not be great.
2. And then why you’re at it, ask yourself if mankinds whatever contribution can really be stopped by taxing and just what is required by way of energy production and resources for all the solar and wind powered units to be built, not that we’ll ever go close to being able to generate anywhere near enough alternative power to coal/nuclear to maintain power for basic needs or for that matter to power factories to produce the alternative supplies equipment.
Taxing will also not help with production either.

Yep, there’s a lot that scientists can be asked and also politicians but do not hardly expect any sense from most of the latter.

MarK says:

08:59am | 30/05/11

nossy it wasn’t the Labor party that did them just appendages to the party like certain Unions and Get Up etc.

The rest of it is pretty good although Cate and Caton would have donated their time for free no doubt (thinking of the kids those 2).

I though Cate would have had more sense to be honest. The last time she dabbled in politics at the 20/20 conference things didn’t go so well.

This should be a hoot.

And don’t forget they didn’t use an Australian power station in the ads. For shame. Importing stock photos. How low can you go.

nossy says:

09:30am | 30/05/11

@Mark - I have to agree with you MarK. Off for a jog along the beach with my Liberal friend Gavin and he will give me heaps !

Jim says:

10:04am | 30/05/11

Whilever Goofy’s running the show nossy, you can expect Mickey Mouse ads!

Mikko says:

11:25am | 30/05/11

Like I said somewhere above as a climate change parody those ads hit the mark and will work a treat for the anti-carbon tax lobby. No need to fund anti-tax ads with the Get Up kids and unions doing such a great job.

Knemon says:

12:10pm | 30/05/11

@ nossy - you really are the local Punch ‘village idiot’...you continually harp on about Abbott’s negativity and now you come on hear saying this advert is not negative enough…go figure.

These ads have obviously been made so that the average dim-witted Australian can understand them…like crayons and joining the dots.

God help Australians because they’re incapable of helping themselves.

nossy says:

12:42pm | 30/05/11

@Knemon - why thanks for that praise fella !  hahahahahah

Joel B1 says:

09:50am | 30/05/11

Yes, that’s right, we should all follow millionaire actresses’ advice. Charlie Sheens a great role model too. I guess you’ll be joining Scientology soon given the extraordinary number of very rich actors and actresses who love it!

I can’t think of anyone LESS qualified to tell ordinary Australians that Julia didn’t mean “No Carbon Tax” and that a CO2 tax is a really, really good idea.

Darren says:

10:13am | 30/05/11

Actually I agree with Greg Hunt’s doctoral thesis!

The Badger says:

08:47pm | 30/05/11

Darren
is that the one he wrote about the necessity of pricing carbon?

Dr B S Goh says:

09:39am | 30/05/11

Paul you know why? Our PM does not know basic Maths. For example she is planning to send away 800 boatpeople and get 4000 in return plus spending unknown millions.

India just announced that its population increased by 180,000,000 in the last TEN years. So whatever we do in Australia on global warming is irrelevant for global warming but sadly it will harm Australia’s economy.

We should act on global warming only if USA, China and India have an effective plan of action.

Best we forget a carbon tax in Australia. It is more effective if we change our position on uranium and sell it to India under two conditions. Firstly it is not used for weapons. Secondly India does something serious about reducing its population.

Steve Putnam says:

08:12pm | 30/05/11

The NSW State govt cut the solar rebate not the feds.

Bill says:

12:29pm | 30/05/11

Silence fool. Do some background research before ringing the moronic communist bell.

Dash says:

01:14pm | 30/05/11

No Bill, I wont sit by and let idiots tell me to be quiet just because I show the ALP up as a pack of lying and deceitful morons!

Tell me Bill, by how many degrees will this tax reduce global average temperatures? Tell me Bill, if this is about pollution, why should families be descriminated against on the basis of income? Tell me Bill, why did Gillard and Swan deliberately lie to the Australian people on the eve of the last election?

And whilst your at it, tell me why you back up such deceitful behaviour from the ALP? Ask yourself who the fool is that believes the crap dished up by this government.

Here’s some background research for you Bill. Gillard, despite telling us that her membership of the Socialist Forum was something she did in her 20s, was actually a member of that radical socialist organisation right up until 2002! In other words she only left it because it became politically damaging for her! What was she doing writting socialist rants for that organisation Bill?

Ding Dong, Ding Dong!

VVS says:

01:35pm | 30/05/11

To be fair to Dash, it’s never a bad time to bash a commie…

Just sayin.

Bill says:

07:12pm | 30/05/11

Well showed up. Good work.

You’ve protect Australia from the Red Terror.

Give this man an OAM. Just don’t put it in a packet that’s too difficult to open and make sure there are no choking hazards nearby.

By the way, I just got back from a shop that sold the cutest tin foil hats. You’d love it.

Dash says:

08:54am | 31/05/11

@Bill, Any chance you might answer my questions? Nah didn’t think so. You’ve swallowed the ALP bullshit hook line and sinker! Must be part of the 25% that will vote ALP no matter what they do to the place.

Freeman says:

10:30am | 30/05/11

Very well put,

The arguments of those on the affirmative regarding the AGW debate would hold more weight if they weren’t advocating only money handling schemes and ruling out any direct action approach.

loulou says:

02:52pm | 30/05/11

“....another money making scam….”  and a power grab.  End of story.

dobbieb says:

09:59am | 30/05/11

I am up to the back teeth with so called Celebrities directing we ordinary people as to the way we should think and act. These two are actors, nothing more and nothing less. Maybe good or bad, who cares. But they have as much knowledge about climate change as I have or maybe less, and mine has been acquired over 75 years. As well, I don’t believe these two made those commercials for love or altruistic reasons alone. Do you?.

Miles says:

01:38pm | 30/05/11

One of the few people to make the distinction between ‘climate change’ and ‘environmental pollution’.  The latter is very real and yes, must be dealt with.  However, the former is a pure fallacy and designed purely for revenue raising.  Introducing a carbon tax will not stop either.

Flash Gordon saviour of the universe says:

10:14am | 30/05/11

perhaps they all could be taken from the shelves and stored in a bunker…like carbon capture sort of

Oh oh i think lust saved the world, can all the carbon we can get our hands on and store it in a bunker or better yet jettison it into a trajectory that will see it burned up in the sun or similar.

Steve Putnam says:

08:06pm | 30/05/11

Nearly 7,000,000,000 people on earth and counting, but you don’t think the world’s climate is impacted by this. There are none so blind…..

Dave says:

11:01am | 30/05/11

Labor learnt well from and idol, the Socialist Republic of Germany. “Tell a lie BIG enough and often enough and the people will believe it!”, Joseph Goebbels.

dobbo says:

10:33am | 30/05/11

Dunno BOT ...thought (PT) Bar(num)by Joyce did a sterling job…hand wringing, solemn face the works…surely worthy of some sort of nomination.

Looking forward to the screams and hollers from the rest of the LNP freakshow as they try to negate star power so sneakily employed by the PM & co.

Dash says:

11:02am | 30/05/11

No one denies climate change. But yes we deny the need to introduce a carbon tax that the science proves will have zero impact on global average temperatures! And we deny the need to follow a socialist policy of wealth redistribution to reduce our carbon footprint.

And many people are very angry about the fact that the PM and Swan on the eve of the last election, deliberately lied to the Australian people about their intentions.

If you want to be an apologist for that kind of discraceful behaviour, go right ahead. But some of us expect better from our politicians.

It is no surprise that Gillard, who was a member of the Socialist Forum right up until 2002, is now following the most socialist agenda in the nation’s history. She has fallen into line with Brown’s Communists and is using the environment as an excuse to redistribute wealth from those creating it to those destroying it.

They are using taxpayers money to fund a propaganda campaign and yet they have not come clean on any of the details of the policy except that they will descriminate under the compensation scheme, against Australian families on the basis of income not on the basis of pollution.

After all of the promises we’ve had from this ALP government, I cannot bel;ieve that there are still fools in the community willing to accept the crap that copmes out of their mouths. Wake up Australia. Your government is trying to introduce the biggest deceitful fraud in the nations history.

Dobbo says:

11:56am | 30/05/11

Thanks Dash…a sterling effort. Spoken like a true Tory.

Incidentally, if we in Oz don’t come up with a price on a carbon tax it will be imposed by the rest of the world anyway. Best to be proactive don’t you think?

Dash says:

01:27pm | 30/05/11

@dobbo, bullshit! The USA, China, Canada, India…... do not and will not have a carbon tax.

If you want to cut emmissions in half, start talking about nuclear energy like they are in the UK. It would halve our emmissions, reduce the cost of energy and would mean we don’t have any need for this tax.

My issue is the compensation scheme not the feel good “do something for the environment” part of this argument. The compensation scheme is going to descriminate against Australian families on the basis of their income not on how they pollute. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution. That is socilaist and it is being inflicted upon middle and High income Australia under the excuse of an environmental policy.

Please don’t believe everything this government feeds you. they have a track record of lying and not delivering. This policy is a fraud.

Nafe says:

02:35pm | 30/05/11

Nail / Head/ BANG!!!

If man made climate change is real, and if you are deadly serious about lowering emmissions, Nuclear is the ONLY answer.

dobbo says:

08:09pm | 30/05/11

Dash….Dunno what you base your bullshit claim on. Certainly the likes of Professor Garnaut would take issue.

Here’s what he said in address at National Press Club earlier this year:

“All developed countries have accepted targets to reduce their emissions. The outstanding feature of global action on climate change at the moment is the action in the major developing countries. Led by China, they have moved more quickly and further than I had anticipated in 2008, towards changing the relationship between their economic growth and their greenhouse gas emissions.” (Launch Update Paper 6: Carbon Pricing and Reducing Australia’s Emissions)

Maybe wider reading than LNP media releases would be helpful.

Dash says:

08:49am | 31/05/11

@dobbo, action on climate change does not equal a carbon tax and a socialist policy of wealth distribution. The argument i have is not about climate change! Your claim that the rest of the world will have a carbon tax is bullshit. Not true. Just as it’s not true for the ALP to claim households will be compensated because it’s only the ones they choose that will be!

Dash says:

11:34am | 30/05/11

Yep, thats a fraudulent argument! Reality is that China is buying coal from us in increasing quantities and the coal we sell them is damaging the environment more than this tax will provide in benefit. The whole thing is a sham!

Let the ALP come clean on the details instead of hiding them from the public whilst bombarding us with propaganda!

SD says:

01:33pm | 30/05/11

And that is why Labor and the Greens is having to run the mother of all scare and lie campaign. PS I prefer bikinis tops down

Capt Col says:

10:50am | 30/05/11

“With a stupid MIA Prime Minister of the useless gender, what can we expect.”

That’s classy Ray.
But as you say “Fairdinkum some people are plain stupid.”

Ray says:

11:29am | 30/05/11

Capt Col is that ‘bikinis on top’ in psuedonym. I’m starting to doubt you are not just as useless. Staggering input on the ‘issue’.Seems you have a problem with the truth. A bit like the protagonists of this proposed tax to shore up bad management.

Try one issue related comment el Capitano, define what parameters have been put on the usage of this tax. Budget balancing com es to mind.

Anyhow Cate will be able to tell you if she’s in the country. May also be MIA. Otherwisse contact the Australian Theatre Company who will receive backhanders even if Cate doesn’t get them personally. She’s in the same ‘class’ as G, Greer who gives Ausralia adviice from afar. Also of the useless gender, but I am prepared to overlook that if Cate can guarantee where the tax will be quarantined for usage, because JULIA has not.done so.

Keep at it you’ll be rewarded for participation

James1 says:

04:09pm | 30/05/11

“With a stupid MIA Prime Minister of the useless gender, what can we expect.”

Yet again, you attack all of our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters.  I agree on the AGW stuff, and particularly the carbon tax, but you will win over no one as long as you continue to insult all of your female relatives like this.

Once again, your wife and daughter may be “useless”, as you call them, but mine are not, and I would wager that most on these threads would agree with me (even Erick).

Ray says:

04:39pm | 30/05/11

James 1 are you of Royal disposition. If so your families wealth is based on pillage and rape. So don’t come the holier than thou Pontious Pilate, pious crap of indignit that you espouse. Other than that you make no sense at all.  I am reflectiveof the collective aim of those females who want to bring down men for their own convenience. Not my female relatives. At least not some of them

James1 says:

06:59pm | 30/05/11

If so, you express yourself very poorly Ray.  You should really try to work on that.  No wonder you have trouble understanding my deliberately basic English.

Freeman says:

11:17am | 30/05/11

Sensible argument but two points can be made.

“Climate change is both natural and anthropomorphic”
this is opinion and cannot be stated as fact.

“It also distresses me that above commentators try to disparage scientists because the do not limit themselves to their original field of training.”

Assuming that is in regard to criticism of Flannery, He is professing to be an expert in a field in which he is not. He’s entitled to an opinion but not be an authority on the subject. The claims and predictions he’s made were so rediculous and utterly wrong he should retire from the debate. If he were a prominet voice on the other side of the debate his credentials would be attacked and he’d be shouted down by the AGW chorus who seem to be very willing to accept opinion from non experts, as long as it aligns with theirs.

Joan says:

02:09pm | 30/05/11

Peak oil. Drink !

Flash. Drink !

Reg says:

01:38pm | 30/05/11

Agree - she should have kept her pie hole shut

James says:

02:44pm | 30/05/11

Tell that to her face tough guy

simon says:

11:46am | 30/05/11

Quite well put Jon. I agree with you 100%. Climate alarmists don’t have a leg to stand on, I have asked many to provide me with proof of man made climate change. None have provided anything at this stage. Why does it have to be a pervasive new tax, i would have though tax incentives would be a better incentive to develop new energy industries. It’s clear the government needs this money to fill budget gaps, it will be interesting to see how much of the carbon tax will be used to compensate etc. I bet there will be about 10 to 15% that will go into general revenue.

Jon says:

11:36am | 30/05/11

no, the argument is that scientists and ANY body who is PAID by the govt to find evidence to back up the govts policies, is not to be trusted.  Dont twist words. 

as for attacking the opposition… what makes you think i prefer the oppositon?  im a permanent resident in this country, i dont vote, i have no preference to any party, i think they’re all in it for monetary gain…. what i dont appreciate however is that because alarmists are sheeple, that they, in return think that ‘deniers’ are sheeple because the opposition take the same stance.

deniers dont need to take any convincing argument… it is not the job of deniers as you put it, to “convince’ anyone… the emphasis of convincing anyone is on the side of the perpretrator of said propaganda… or in plain english, if the govt maintains the planet is doomed because of mankind, let them show 100%, irrefutable proof of that, oh, and preferably from a body that has no allegiance in any form, monetarily or otherwise to that govt…  hasn’t happened yet…

P.S. Checked any volcanoes recently…

Tchom says:

02:34pm | 30/05/11

@Jon

I didn’t mean the party in opposition to the government. I mean the opposite side to a debate. I’m not sure you follow me. Saying scientists are on the govt bankroll and shouldn’t be trusted doesn’t mean they’re wrong. What needs to be criticised is the argument they make.

If they don’t have irrefutable proof, what evidence is there on the contrary to what they are saying? That’s what I’m looking for: an argument, not name calling.

I also love the irony of the number of people that use the word ‘sheeple’ in commments of Punch articles

The BaDgeR says:

09:40pm | 30/05/11

“I wish I had millions of dollars to spew forth bile and lies in order to make myself feel better.”
Marry Gina and make an honest man of yourself.
Then you can spout as much shit as you want through full page ads and Channel 10 documentaries. Whilst growing ever larger in girth and gout.

Joel B1 says:

11:30am | 30/05/11

@James

“I would love to see some in the howling mob get up infront of the country and state their beliefs”

Ahh yes! Me too! Just like Julia Gillard (and Swan and Wong) did just before the last election.

What did they say again?

Oh, that’s right! “There will be NO carbon tax”.

That was pretty clear wasn’t it? Such a good example of truth and honesty set by our nations top leaders. And we rewarded Gillard’s honesty by voting her government back in.

Regardless of AGW or not, regardless that it will not do anything for climate, this tax is built on the biggest lie ever broadcast directly to the Australian people on the eve of an election.

Thomoo says:

11:35am | 30/05/11

If only we were given the public platform…

James says:

12:06pm | 30/05/11

Joel you sound like you are on the edge, (financially speaking) you don’t seem to be able to fork out a red cent to decarbonise our economy.  You know I bet sewer systems cost a pretty penny back in the day, what if people had howled down that proposal we would be knee deep in ...

Joel B1 says:

12:49pm | 30/05/11

@James,

As I live in Hobart I’m qualified to talk sewerage. Sure, you’re correct, decent sanitation and reticulated water saved many Hobartians from cholera and dysentery.

But the difference is, cholera and dysentery were actually happening.

Unlike some half-arsed, “we’re all going to die because my UN grant relies on me saying so” rubbish.

There, see the difference?

PS I have enough to pay for it, but unlike you apparently I don’t care to chuck my money and our economy away on some stupid bloody fairy tale.

Cate Blanchett! FFS.

James says:

01:43pm | 30/05/11

Joel old man I think we have established that I am more qualified than you to say what is and is not real vis a vie global warming.  It is very much like the germ theory of disease, you can’t see it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a reality. 

I’m sure there were Joels back then who scoffed at the very notion that tiny particles caused sickness and who thought all the “mumbo jumbo” spoken by the scientists was a plot to lighten people’s wallets.  Surely you have to see the comparison here.

Believe me any time/money you spend on preventing global average temperatures rising above 16 degrees C is the best time/money you ever spent and surely beats the crap out of doing nothing.

If you are in a desperate situation, and despite what you chose to believe, we are, the only rational thing to do is take postive action TINA.

Joel B1 says:

02:08pm | 30/05/11

@James

“preventing global average temperatures rising above 16 degrees C is the best time/money you ever spent”

Mate, if you’re in the game get your spelling right. Do you really mean 16 Degrees C?

It’s people like you who type 16 degrees when they mean 1.6 degrees that give AGW such a crap name.

Are you sure you’ve got a Masters? Must have been 100% coursework hey?

James says:

02:31pm | 30/05/11

Ah Joel old boy, what is the average temperature of the globe + 2 deg C?  I think you will find it is 14 deg C + 2 deg C = 16 deg C.  We are not in the Wild West Joel, we are talking science old fruit, best to think before you shoot from the hip.

RyaN says:

08:54pm | 30/05/11

@Joel B1: he is quoting surface temperature from the very debunked global surface temperature records. You know the ones, we have all seen the pictures with the stations next to air conditioners, next to tar roads and basketball courts. You shouldn’t argue with anyone claiming global warming from these, you already know they are nuts and won’t accept that their figures have been debunked, by real science that is.

The BaDgeR says:

09:46pm | 30/05/11

Actually ryan
Those “debunked global surface temperature records” that were “debunked by mark’s favourite climate scientist (a retired radio station weatherman) were revisited by NASA and they determined that the reading should have been hotter than the original recordings.
Bit of egg on your face ?
Go ahead ryan, go marry Gina, your shit would still be shit, but your stink would reach more punters.

James says:

09:52pm | 30/05/11

Alright genius, what is the annual average temperature of the globe then?

Dash says:

11:51am | 30/05/11

Yes, I like the fact the government is trying to pretend that we the public have a choice in this matter. We weren’t given a choice at the last election because the government deliberately lied to us about their intensions. And now Chairman Gillard is trying to ram this through parliament as soon as her Green comrades get into the upper house.

This is a deceitful fraud! I object to being asked to pay for this lie so Gillard can redirect my hard earned to some ALP, green or marginal seat. Bloody socialist cow!

David C says:

11:29am | 30/05/11

That is exactly the smart option that we need. Make it even less say $2-$5 and put it all in to innvovation and technology.
Another suggestion I like is to put a 2-3 cent levy on petrol. The price moves moe than that in a week so it is hard to see it maing a difference but would raise a signifcant amout of funds to plow back in to making alternatives cheaper.

LC says:

01:13pm | 30/05/11

I hear what your saying David, but wouldn’t the carbon tax in and of itself make cleaner alternatives to petrol cheaper?

LC says:

01:31pm | 30/05/11

Or the could make 2-3 cents a litre from the taxes on fuel they already have go to sustainable energy R&D. Whichever floats your boat.

David C says:

02:18pm | 30/05/11

no the levy just makes petrol more expensive, not alternates cheaper. That will take technological innovation which I propose could be funded by the levy. Techincally it will make petrol more expenive but most wont even notice it because the price at the pump changes day to day even more than that .
The tax needed to make alternates cheaper now is just off the charts and just wont happen. Besides the government is just going to recycle most of it anyway.
We now use 10% of the oil we used to use to produce electricity why? because we found a cheaper alternative .. coal

Dash says:

12:38pm | 30/05/11

Sally, to which alarmists are you referring?

Soames says:

01:06pm | 30/05/11

Sally, a foolish man tells a woman to stop talking drivel, but a wise man tells her that her mouth is extremely beautiful when her lips are closed.

James says:

02:38pm | 30/05/11

Sally I am a terrible speller (I blame spell check and learning Italian) but a not half bad at science and maths.  Seeing as you are so smart like, I have a few questions for you to answer.

What gas absorbs and emits in the infrared section of the EM spectrum?

How does CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere?

Has the output of the sun increased or decreased over the last 40 years if so by how much?

If you can’t answer these questions I will take it that, in fact, you are the one who is stupid.

James says:

02:14pm | 30/05/11

Oh no you misunderstand global warming is like the Cold War in that, like nuclear war, it poses an existential threat.  However unlike the threat of communism (or totalitarianism) with global heating you are not negotiating with people (albeit hostile in the case of the Soviets) you are attempting to negotiate with the laws of physics and that is just as suicidal as a motorcycle rider who thinks they can beat physics and take a corner faster than is physically possible

James1 says:

04:18pm | 30/05/11

“Oh no you misunderstand global warming is like the Cold War in that, like nuclear war, it poses an existential threat.”

Oh yes I’m sure it does.  I am further sure that it will turn out the exact same way, ending with a whimper rather than a bang…

James says:

05:13pm | 30/05/11

“ending with a whimper rather than a bang…” in that you are absolutely correct and the point is, it will be you doing the whimpering.

James says:

03:01pm | 30/05/11

What you actually mean is watch the great global warming swindle and believe everything you told by it, you bloody hypocrit.

Tiger says:

12:27pm | 30/05/11

Aha! So that’s why they’re known as “glitterati”? :p

Ed. says:

12:34pm | 30/05/11

Struggling to pay my electricity bill now and that’s before the nsw july increase and before a carbon tax!

Anubis says:

04:42pm | 30/05/11

None of you Labor trolls prepared to address any of the above points - too hard is it ? What about Perse-phony, or you James ? No - didn’t think so - wouldn’t be in the script for this week would it ?

Steve Putnam says:

10:01pm | 30/05/11

Low income families will be compensated for any rises in power bills from the proceeds raised.
“Closing down mining”...yeah right ...so why have BHP and Rio Tinto called for a carbon price? To give them an excuse to up stumps and depart these shores after a hundred years of successful operation here?
It may have escaped your notice Anubis but the Business Council of Australia have also requested a price on carbon because they can see that the world has taken a few small steps towards a low carbon future.
Even conservative institutions such the British Monarchy and the Papacy have enacted measures to make them carbon neutral as soon as possible.
Kinda makes a mockery of your alarmist schtick doesn’t it?

Thommo says:

12:35pm | 30/05/11

Who Cares? canada Russia and china all just dropped out. Carbon Dioxide could reach 1200 parts per million before anything bad would happen. Siop worrying about bullshit

Greg says:

12:59pm | 30/05/11

@Thommo, the point I was trying to make is that the ALP and Rudd have signed us up to an agreement which could be financially damaging to our ecomony. And for what reason? So Rudd could win a place on the UN? I don’t think the fact that the ALP have forced financial penalties onto the Australian taxpayer is bullshit!

simon says:

02:03pm | 30/05/11

You are right Greg, the government has no right signing up to these agreements. Most Australians disagree with this carbon tax, so any commitment is not in Australia’s interests or supported by Australians. I say, no more signing up on these agreements until they are discussed and agreed to by Australians first!@!!

Ray says:

01:05pm | 30/05/11

Gladys, you are right. Throw in that our future was yo work for a living. Not adhere to vacuous numbskulling. Some education is dangerous.

Thommo says:

12:36pm | 30/05/11

Absolutely Spot On.

Kenny says:

12:41pm | 30/05/11

Yah! Let’s have a Carbon Tax TODAY!

Glen says:

01:20pm | 30/05/11

But was that when Climatology believed in global COOLING, the science was in, the gravey train was running and anyone that disagreed was a denier???

James says:

02:40pm | 30/05/11

And your qualifications in climatology are…?

Joel B1 says:

04:51pm | 30/05/11

@James, you really need to get over your Masters degree mate.

It’s just a Masters, and your incessant appeals to your own authority make you sound like a 5yo.

James says:

05:06pm | 30/05/11

Joel this is a debate on a scientific matter and therefore scientific qualifications matter, you are only say that because you have a degree in something no one has ever heard of from a uni you won’t specify.  Face it mate, my qualifications trump yours, you are just sore about that fact.  You need to man up and admit you really don’t know what you are talking about.

Marco says:

06:22pm | 30/05/11

James, if you’re as talented as you say you are then why hasn’t the Labor-Greens dictatorship hired you to write their speeches?

James says:

10:00pm | 30/05/11

Marco despite what you may think of them not even the Greens let alone Labor are attacking climate change at the right level, we need to decarbonise our economy on a war footing.  That is what the science says, that would be my speech (I can just hear the crikets chirping now)

James says:

02:55pm | 30/05/11

It is if you believe the we are not causing the globe to warm and if you believe that you are betting against pretty much everyone worth listening to on this topic.

Anubis says:

03:24pm | 30/05/11

James - who would that be - the head of the IPCC (a railroad engineer), Timmy Flannery (a paleontologist), Ross Gumnut (an economist who had no idea the GFC was coming even though it was in his field of expertise), Al Gore (a second rate documentary producer and ex politician), Bob Brown whose Green credentials came from blockading the Franklin River), a 16 year old girl with no real life experience, Julia Gillard (Australia’s most incompetent PM) - Any one I missed there James ?

Ted H says:

03:30pm | 30/05/11

James, and your qualifications in climatology are…? , DS

Harry says:

03:36pm | 30/05/11

I will let you in on a secret James, these people are on the whole the same group that were running around 30 years ago denigrating anyone that did not believe in global cooling. You really need to do you research as to the jokers you listen to!!!

James says:

04:07pm | 30/05/11

Anubis you missed heaps as you well know.  Flannery’s statements are underwritten by the very best scientists in the world only a fool would bet against these people.

James says:

04:14pm | 30/05/11

@ TED degree in physics (including atmospheric physics), masters in energy studies (including climate science studies), have read widely on climate science, including what are laughably termed “the alternate theories” aka bollocks from fossil fuel industry.

Your turn.

Anubis says:

04:40pm | 30/05/11

@James - Is that Tim “Gaia Man” Flannery who said
“...idea of the planet as a self-regulating organism, or Gaia, Flannery sets out to show us how we belong to and are part of nature:

“We actually are Earth. We really, really are just animated bits of the Earth’s crust, so to talk about us and the Earth is the wrong paradigm. It’s not us and Earth. We actually are Earth, and if they don’t grasp that . . .”
Profound words from the Guru - If this guy were turned loose into real life and society he would be locked up as the whacko that he is. As for being"underwritten by the best scientists in the world” that utter load of bollocks belongs with Flannery’s Gaia man comment. The IPCC uses a core group of about 14 scientists. They are devotedly echoed by avery other scientist who has hopped on to the “AGW/CC” gravy train of recurrent grants. The real, unbiased scientists however are shunned by the IPCC elite who even refuse to accept papers from anyone who does not toe the party line. What a crock. There are more scientists in the world who disagree with the IPCC than there is who agree - and don’t give me that crap about 97% consensus, that has been debunked many times.

To add to the previous list we now include Cate Blanchett (a mediumly talented actress), Michael Caton a B-grade Australian soapie actor, Any one else want to add more to this parade of fools ?

James says:

05:11pm | 30/05/11

Anubis the fact is the “fools” are backed up by all credible scientific institutions on the planet and you are not. Simple as that.

Mouse says:

09:04pm | 30/05/11

Hi James. We all agree the climate is changing, correct? We all agree that we should become more environmentally savvy and responsible, correct? What the conflict appears to be is the way we approach it.  The IPCC have put forward their opinions, let’s be exact here, and their maybes or possiblys. Nothing definitive, just possibilities if the future climate follows their computer projections. I am not savvy to their applications or the the formulae used to arrive at these conclusions,  but I do wonder what data has been used, both on earth and above it, because it all relates to the way our climate behaves.
The tricky thing here is though James, for every one credible scientist that you can say agrees with the IPCC findings, I can give you two that don’t. These people are not politicians, they are not actors, they are dedicated and published scientists.
So, I suppose, what you believe in is your own choice and it is yours to make. I am all for cleaning up our act and becoming less dependent on fossil fuels. What I am not for is wealth redistribution and the plugging of budget holes by a section of tax payers.  The urgency that the government seems to be in to get this up and running before the details have been worked out is a little unsettling.  This is a big thing that will affect all of us, so don’t you think that all of us deserve to be heard?

James says:

10:05pm | 30/05/11

Mouse, did you go to uni?  If so what did you study?

Mouse says:

11:44pm | 30/05/11

BSc/Psychology, double degree, Assoc Dip Computing, Dip Retail Management, assorted certificates & courses. I have an interest in climate change but no qualifications.  I’m not a tree hugger but then I also don’t believe that we should do nothing. I’m just not a “carbon tax will save the world” believer. But I certainly enjoy a good debate! :o)

James says:

10:51am | 31/05/11

Mouse I would put it to you like this, we are sort of in an all or nothing situation.  Think of action on climate change like normal tax, I only use a tiny fraction of the governments services but that does not mean I shouldn’t pay tax.  Rich countries emitt the most carbon and therefore we have the moral duty to make deep cuts first.  If we don’t then it will become a situation: of we’re not doing anything until you do something, well we’re not doing something till YOU do something and at that point the planet is in deep do do.

Mouse says:

04:54pm | 31/05/11

James I do hear where you are coming from and I do also believe we should be grown ups and work together with other countries. I mean to say, who cares who does it first, let’s just start! What I do not agree with is the carbon tax. It is not an ETS, which I agree with, and does nothing in regards to the environment. It is unfair, it is not thought out and impacts badly across the nation. There is no safety net, there is no cost protection and there is nothing stopping the government increasing the tonnage costs whenever they feel like it.  I do not trust the current government and, as their record has shown their continued incompetence, don’t believe they can effectively run a program of this magnitude. I also don’t believe that the compensation is sustainable as the economic nous Labor has shown is non existent.  They have it in their head about having to have a 2013 surplus and bugga the consequences.  I suppose gillard has to have one promise kept!  I am sick of the current government and opposition behaving like love struck teenagers. I wish they would get over themselves and get on with the job they are being paid to do. This is a massive undertaking and without bipartisan co-operation, Australia’s future does not look good.  Gillard needs to be replaced and probably Abbott as well. Both parties need to work together for Australia and us, not their bloody egos. The carbon tax itself is wealth redistribution, nothing else. I really think they need to consolidate the ETS with direct action as we need to clean and replenish. 
Well, sorry about that, you got me on my soapbox! lol I know there is pros and cons on both sides but it would be good to be allowed to vote on the decisions made and, because this will be such a big thing, we should have the right. Just saying…

James says:

05:53pm | 31/05/11

Mouse the ETS has always had a fixed price introduction as part of it, if we stop this train now it may never get moving again and we will be the white trash of Asia mining and farming forever rather than developing value adding technology and becoming a renewable energy powerhouse (pun intended)

Wayne Kerr says:

02:03pm | 30/05/11

@blackcat

While I don’t think Cate Blanchett’s opinion is any more or less valid than anybody else’s I’m sure there was a time that she was struggling for a buck when she first started out in her chosen career.  So it’s a bit of a stretch to say she would never understand what it’s like to be short of a quid.  She got good at her chosen career and is making money from it. The fact that her chosen career is acting makes it no different to being a successful carpenter, builder, plumber etc.  I don’t see the point in mocking her saying “She was too busy acting”  It’s still a job that pays the bills.

I think you’ll also find that this tax, should it happen, will be taking from the rich and giving to the poor not vice versa

The points you made about the variations in weather over our lifetime are quite true and valid but shooting the messenger doesn’t help your argument.

St. Michael says:

03:11pm | 30/05/11

@ Wayne Kerr:

“I think you’ll also find that this tax, should it happen, will be taking from the rich and giving to the poor not vice versa.”

If you really think any tax on the face of the planet functions along the principles of Robin Hood, I’ve got a harbour bridge I’d like to sell you.

Taxes take from the middle class and give to the government.  Nobody else.

Wayne Kerr says:

03:51pm | 30/05/11

@St Michael

Fair point, there isn’t any such thing as a Robin Hood Govt howvever I’m arguing along the lines of “wealth distribution”. The only thing I can see this tax doing is taxing middle to high income earners and a proportion of that tax being fed back to low income earners as opposed to what Blackcat wrote.

So no thanks on that bridge but I’ve got a very pretty Opera House with great harbour views I can sell you if you’re interested.

Stiffy says:

01:46pm | 30/05/11

Sorry should have said $ per ton not %.

rufus says:

01:44pm | 30/05/11

Well they mostly are old, out of touch men trying to deny science that is convincing to objective observors. That’ll do me for a validation of the sentence.

Ray says:

02:20pm | 30/05/11

Anna you are getting to be a feminist ideologist..

It’s men’s fault. That is about the most convenient argument you can muster.

Is that what they teach you in our feminist dominated schools.

Tally Ho. On with the gender cleansing. Emphasis on the ‘ho’.

Ray says:

03:12pm | 30/05/11

Yes Anna I’m starting to agree with someone else who said that if you step in the arena you have to be prepared as to what comes your way. 

Men again. What is really needed is funding to correct the force fed feminist crap indoctrinated thoughout our schools. It is a pressing situation requiring immediate attention. Boys have a future as well without being handicapped.

Ah stuff it, Cate can fix that as well. Didn’t she play Merlin also.

mel says:

03:39pm | 30/05/11

Failed Federal Liberal leader, and Failed Chair of Financial Company in Receivership,  John Hewson,  is in no position to label any politician, Liberal, Labor or Green.  Dream on

Dobbo says:

04:22pm | 30/05/11

Sorrry Mel… doesn’t matter from whose hands the mud comes…it sticks mate…it sticks. And you and all the rest know it and are damn worried.

Tony H says:

03:02pm | 30/05/11

Ah the Robert Mugabe supporter signed up did he?

mel says:

03:06pm | 30/05/11

Failed Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser (8 wasted years) wants a price on carbon.  No newsflash.  No surprises here.  He’s No.1 on the “old out-of-touch men” list.  Fraser is helping to marginalise Abbott??  You need another dream

loulou says:

03:44pm | 30/05/11

Fraser,  who once called, and called loudly, for support for one Robert Mugabe.  Now he calls for a price on carbon.  Could he be wrong on this, as well?

James1 says:

04:02pm | 30/05/11

I may not be a global warmist, but Mr Fraser deserves a defence against these two charges.

Firstly, he is a failed PM who won three elections.  Doesn’t sound very failed to me. 

Secondly, it seems a little unfair to hold his lack of future-predicting abilities against him.  The Mugabe of the 1970s and 1980s is a far cry for the Mugabe of today.  We cannot blame Fraser for supporting the democratic movement in Zimbabwe over the overtly racist Rhodesian government of a certain Mr Smith.

So by all means attack him for his views now.  But don’t a) try and rewrite history and b) apply a generous dollop of hindsight in a failed effort to discredit him.

paul says:

05:18pm | 30/05/11

James1,  Defend Malcolm Fraser, by all means.  However, he has remained silent regarding Robert Mugabe.  Not backward in coming forward on many other matters, but silent on Mugabe.

James1 says:

07:04pm | 30/05/11

Paul,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/why-i-backed-mugabe/story-e6frg7ef-1111116081128

RyaN says:

07:45pm | 30/05/11

James1: “The Mugabe of the 1970s and 1980s is a far cry for the Mugabe of today.” what a load of bullshit, seriously you need to get your facts straight.
Mugabe was the same then as he is now, his fifth brigade massacred over 20 000 men, women and children in the 80’s and you have the hide to just dismiss this.
Your Fraser has blood on his hands, he is just as bad as Mugabe if not worse.

paul says:

08:11pm | 30/05/11

james1 Appreciate link to “Why I backed Mugabe”.  Been waiting for that.  But what about the grammar!  -  “me playing a part….....”.

loulou says:

08:21pm | 30/05/11

james1, I’ve just read Malcolm Fraser’s defence (at last) of his support for Robert Mugabe.  History shows Fraser was wrong!  How ghastly it would be to know that you have backed such a tyrant.  Yet this does not stop Fraser -  he believes he is right to call for a carbon tax.  He is not the man to be advising on important matters.

James1 says:

10:47am | 31/05/11

“Mugabe was the same then as he is now, his fifth brigade massacred over 20 000 men, women and children in the 80’s and you have the hide to just dismiss this.”

I don’t dismiss it.  I just placed it in context.  No side was innocent in that fight - Ian Smith had just as much innocent blood on his hands.  Mugabe stood for majority rule, which subsequently became a racist repressive autocracy.  Smith stood for a racist repressive autocracy from the start.  Are you seriously saying that the racists were any better?  If you supported Smith in any way, then you also have blood on your hands, just like Smith, Mugabe and Fraser.

Stiffy says:

08:24am | 31/05/11

Yet the EPA in the US says that man made carbon is 150 times worse than Volcanic eruptions.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

It amazes me how people can be so certain about this subject. Would you bet your grand children’s future on this? Are you that certain?

A risk strategy needs to be put in place. ETS would have been better and the Greens should have compromised to at least get it started.

Anubis says:

03:29pm | 30/05/11

Other than 10% to the IPCC/UN to hand out to tin pot dictators, 50% for compensation (read economic redistribution) to low income families, 97% compensation to trade affected industries, Julia has recently come out and said that the Carbon Tax “pot-o-money” could finance new roads and infrastructure. Not sure if that would leave anything for R&D into new/alternative energy sources when you consider that a whole new Bureaucracy will be needed to administer the whole scheme. (NOTE: all the above expenditures have been spruiked by different members of the Labor/Greens alliance over the past couple of months).

Doesn’t leave much for worthwhile endeavours does it ?

Rosie says:

04:04pm | 30/05/11

@ Harry

They did. Just last August. The Coalition lost. Remember?

Harry says:

04:27pm | 30/05/11

@ Rosie.  With the ALP stating that they will NEVER introduce a Carbon Tax.

BTW the Coalition got more votes than the ALP.  It was the deceit of the independents that got her power.

A victory based on a lie on a lie on a lie.

Gillard is a liar.

Joel B1 says:

04:32pm | 30/05/11

@Rosie,

Do you get special ALP training to be so ignorant?

Australia voted for Gillard’s “No Carbon Tax”

This is the single most arrogant and stupid response to a genuine comment I’ve read today, and that’s just on 500 of them.

Well done, that’s why 60% don’t want a CO2 tax, people like you.

Rosie says:

06:48pm | 30/05/11

@ Harry

Speaking of liars, no they didn’t. See here for the truth.

@ Joel

That is the single most arrogant and stupid response to a genuine comment I’ve read today. It was an election, not a referendum.

Anubis says:

04:10pm | 30/05/11

@Ray - ROFL on that one Ray

James says:

04:19pm | 30/05/11

That statement makes absolutely no sense

Ray says:

05:31pm | 30/05/11

James your grasp on life is tenuous at best. You follow like a bad smell, with repeat one liners. It’s like self plagerism. Be flattered because no one else will plagerise your thoughts. Unlike mine which have universal acceptance to the educated.

James1 says:

07:01pm | 30/05/11

The educated tend to know how to spell plagiarism.

James says:

10:10pm | 30/05/11

Ray you are a very silly little man

Ray says:

07:43am | 31/05/11

James/James1, are you Siamese twins?. you seem joined in a death roll of terminal mental deficiency. I’m stuffed if I know, between the both of you can only come up with one line of recidivist mental limitation exhibiting a total IQ that doesn’t even reach triple figures.

I’ve never known 2 people so impressed and willing to say so, that they have brilliant Kellogs qualifications. One of the great faults of today’s society is that education in the wrong hands can be dangerous.To one of your earlier statements, in maths I would outclass you pulling up. Get out and work instead of ponfiicating.

Ray says:

10:31am | 31/05/11

Sure James/James1, pontificating is a freudian slip on the ivories.

James says:

10:42am | 31/05/11

“Get out and work instead of ponfiicating.”  ha ha ha Ray you have done it again.

James1 says:

10:51am | 31/05/11

I am most certainly not the global warmist James.

It is interesting that you seem to think people are either maths or English experts.  I can do both, and no doubt would outclass you in both, due to my education, which I paid for by working throughout my university degree while raising a family.  Perhaps if you had done the same amount of hard work, working long hours and studying in the gaps between, you would not be looked over for promotion and would not harbour such ill will towards the women who were more qualified than you.

Perhaps it is you who needs to work harder, so that your pontificating actually makes some sense.

Joel B1 says:

04:06pm | 30/05/11

“who couldn’t explain what carbon is in a concise sentence”

Ironically the alleged pollutant and alleged problem is Carbon Dioxide.

So you might want to reconsider your rather flamboyant and defiant cry of “Deniers is dumb”.

By the way, did you get that off that Cate advert?

Anubis says:

04:09pm | 30/05/11

@M is for Moderation - And none of that has anything to do with Carbon Dioxide. There are, however, other pollutants being pumped into the environment that are being ignored by Government and environmentalists as a result of this big scare campaign into an odourless, colourless, trace element that is essential for life on earth. Real pollutants (not Co2) can be legislated away without the need for a tax on everything. Take for example CFC’s - didn’t need a big new tax or Lead in Petrol - didn’t need a big new tax. As far Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) - not a term to be used now as it would be too easy to discredit (just like Global Cooling in the 70’s). Gotta be referred to as Climate Change because you can’t disprove that because it is a long term natural cycle and, no matter which way it goes the fundamentalists can see “Look what we achieved”. A load of bollocks.

Tony H says:

04:17pm | 30/05/11

Carbon causes cancer? I bet it also causes earthquakes and tsunamis and civil wars and racism and oppressive regimes and asteroid strikes and and and…..

James1 says:

04:19pm | 30/05/11

A concise sentence explaining carbon?

How about this: The building block of all life on Earth.

Does that do it for you?

neil says:

04:53pm | 30/05/11

I knew it Tony H, man made climate change causes cancer!

neil says:

07:37pm | 30/05/11

@M is for Moderation

“the rivers are drying up”
Yeah these bloody foolds are really drying up the rivers

“cancer is on the rise”
Rubbish we are just getting better at identifying causes of death and have found that cancer is a greater cause than we had previously known.
Palaeontologist’s have found that the rates of cancer in sharks have remained constant for 350 million years. If you don’t believe me ask Tim Flannery, hopefully he knows something about it because he knows nothing about the climate.

James says:

10:13pm | 30/05/11

Global warming load the air with water hence the floods

While Europe was cold other parts of the globe were much hotter than normal hence the average temp was hotter than normal

THere has been warming over the last decade

Refer to point one

Gregg says:

05:56am | 31/05/11

@James,
Has it ever registered with you, even where you live that the weather varies significantly from one year to the next and even within seasons, the clod snaps we’ve always had, along with occasional Indian summers warmer weather into early winter.

It’s called the weather and climate is variable and it always has been and always will be, just like the national and many peoples finances under labor but unfortunately, longer cold snaps and short lived Indian summers.

James says:

10:56am | 31/05/11

Yes it has occured to me Gregg, but it also occured to me that we have statistical data detailing that variablity of climate events over all of Australia so if multiple events happen outside historical variablity something is afoot.

James says:

05:08pm | 30/05/11

Good onya Robbo, just be grateful we have lots of minerals to dig up becasue if you had to compete on brain power you would be up shit creek.

Robbo says:

06:10pm | 30/05/11

James, I have a degree in physics (including atmospheric physics) and a masters in energy studies (including climate science studies). I know what I’m talking about here.

P.S Why are you so keen to pay a tax that will do absolutely nothing? Are you in bed with Bob Brown or something?

James says:

10:20pm | 30/05/11

Robbo as you probably know you are a bit of a boof head why don’t you have another beer, watch the footy and leave scientific questions to people who have been to uni ok.

Ray says:

10:27am | 31/05/11

James you have been to uni. Big friggin’ deal. Meanwhile others have been out working to provide priveleges for wet nappy’s like you.

I often contend that education in the wrong hands is dangerous.

James says:

11:03am | 31/05/11

Ray, spare me the hard working bloke routine it is getting a bit tired.  The only hard work you appear to be doing is working hard to misinform your fellow citizens, while you are at it why don’t you kick their kids.  You are like the “helpful” bloke at the races who promises they know a “dead cert” then dissappears when the horse comes in dead last.

Ray says:

11:49am | 31/05/11

James, I’m retired, done my work and bask in what it provides me and my family.

Now if kicking kids is in your mind go get some attention

James says:

03:46pm | 31/05/11

And what exactly did you do Ray? Because it better be something pretty special to justify your jawboning

Robbo says:

07:49pm | 31/05/11

James. congratulations on the masters degree and PhD in bullshit. Now be a good lad and get a real job instead of trolling the Punch boards all day.

James says:

10:30am | 01/06/11

Thanks for the career advice Robbo, might I ask what exactly is it you do? Other than spread your ignorance that is.  If it weren’t for the educated people in this country you can bet Australia would be part of the 3rd world.  Oh well yet again the educated must nudge the bogans in the right direction and cop nothing but lip for it.

Craig says:

06:17pm | 30/05/11

Hear Hear !!!!!!!!!!!

loulou says:

08:28pm | 30/05/11

I don’t understand!  It’s all too much.  I think I’ve overdone reading on all this.  I’m just saying NO NO NO

neil says:

09:12pm | 30/05/11

Smile, avoid eye contact, and back way slowly.

David Rhys-Jones says:

07:48pm | 30/05/11

Why was it called global warming and now called climate change?? I’ll tell you why, because the world has actually cooled over the last decade but the fearmongerers wont tell you that. Al Gore has been disproved as most of the Green lunatics will be. I am nearly 50 and have seen the good and bad in weather patterns and nothing has changed except for the attempt over the last 2 decades to “educate” through schools a GREEN message that everyone in my age group knows is a farce. I SAY NO to more taxes from an incompetent government who will waste it anyway. I live in hope that sense will prevail but think I have as much hope as this comment being published

nossy says:

08:09pm | 30/05/11

@David Rhys-Jones - bewdiful reply davy old fella BUT looks like you misqued and your reply appeared in the wrong spot - but again lovely prose and your commas all in the right spot !  An 8 for spelling ! hahahah

Craig says:

08:21pm | 30/05/11

She’s also destroying kids lives

loulou says:

08:24pm | 30/05/11

In a weird and wonderful way, your post has cheered me, Glen.  Made me lol

Mark says:

08:40pm | 30/05/11

nihonin says: 06:05am | 30/05/11

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Craig says:

08:39pm | 30/05/11

We can only impact less, Mother nature is much bigger than us, we are deluded by thinking we control it

neil says:

09:23pm | 30/05/11

The perfect politician. He could make bullshit smell palatable.

Gillard has let Bob Brown make the same shit smell like a green sewer.

And Australia does not wan’t to taste it.

Mark says:

09:05am | 31/05/11

@ neil

Thanks for proving my point.

Mark says:

09:07am | 31/05/11

@ neil

Thanks for proving my point.

James says:

11:06am | 31/05/11

This is either very funny or very funny

James says:

03:48pm | 31/05/11

This ‘man’ votes

the dark lord says:

04:17pm | 31/05/11

any hole’s a goal

Lord of the Wang says:

04:56pm | 31/05/11

I’d like to do some global warming with my hockey stick.  Maybe even a bit of ATM.

James says:

05:54pm | 31/05/11

Yeah yeah and if Cate Blanchette was standing in front of you, you would piss your pants

Bobby Huge says:

07:04pm | 31/05/11

It wouldn’t be p*ss mate, well maybe sticky white love p*ss.

James says:

10:19am | 01/06/11

Yeah, right.

Edward III says:

04:29pm | 31/05/11

Wow.  You have really drunk Al Gore’s Kool - Aid.

Sad.

James says:

05:55pm | 31/05/11

And saying that is all you got, you’re out, time to go back in your box.