The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon chatter everywhere and not a drop of commonsense > Comments

Carbon chatter everywhere and not a drop of commonsense : Comments

By Everald Compton, published 18/5/2011

The supercharged emotional nonsense that is currently swamping Australia's carbon debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Everald. You say: "The vast majority of emails were from readers who want a solution to be found. Some were keen on Howard’s plan and others put up interesting alternatives. All were in no doubt that there are problems with the environment and they want to do something positive to create a better world."

As you point out, most of us are concerned about "problems with the environment" and want to do something positive about it. The real issue is that there seems to be scanty evidence that CO2 is actually causing problems with the environment.

Eminent climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr argues that man is indeed having an impact, but it is largely land-use factors (deforestation, urbanisation, interference with natural hydrological cycles, industrialised agriculture and the like) that are affecting local and regional climate in many places around the world.

The case against CO2 has not been proven. All we see are unproven assumptions about positive feedbacks in models.

What if Dr Pielke is correct? What if natural factors are the cause of observed changes?

The fact is we don't really know, and it would be foolhardy to seriously disrupt our economy and wellbeing until we do know.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 6:42:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" to get Australia started on solving an issue that will not go away."

You mean "... an issue that doesn't exist."

There, fixed that for you.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:26:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that the ignorant extremists on both sides should shut up, that is both minimifidianists and panic merchants, though in my experience there are far more of the former than the latter. As a matter of fact I haven't heard of any advocates of climate change "who believe that the world will be flooded tomorrow by rapidly rising seas". There are relative hysterics out there but they often seem motivated in their folly by frustration with those who blithely deny the evidence presented by the experts.
For the record, I think both Howard's and this government's attempts at action are so tokenesque, and even irrational, that I don't support an ETS myself--and I'm not a denialist.
I think Compton should wipe his gob and stop thinking his position is "reasonable". It's not, it's utterly mundane compromise--the art of politics.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 8:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We will find that there are 32 nations, plus ten U.S. states, that already have implemented emissions trading. New Zealand is one of them. Seven nations have a carbon tax, including the U.K. ..................:"
This is a reason Australia should introduce a carbon tax as well? Hardly. From all accounts no country that has has introduced the "tax" has reduced their emissions by any measurable amount. And the truth is Australia's proposed tax will have zero effect on our emissions.

There are so many areas where energy use could be cut. Our governments have the power to legislate them quite easily. A good start would be outlawing open refrigerators and freezers in our supermarkets. And what about enforced natural light levels in buildings? The list could go on and on.

We don't need this tax just some clever thinking.
Posted by Sparkyq, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 8:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Everald, from the comments so far, it looks like the negativity continues from both sides. Personally, I found your article one of the most balanced op-ed pieces I have read for a very long time – including my own!
Posted by Martin N, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 9:42:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
martin n, interesting comment .. please tell us what the positives are about this subject?

No one is happy about anything to do with AGW or Climate Change issues as far as I can see, but you find reason to comment that "negativity continues", yet offer nothing different, except to comment in a negative way about other posters.

Fascinating ..
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 9:53:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If she does get the carbon tax legislation passed, Abbott will be in real trouble. If he threatens to repeal it, he will lose the next election because Gillard will be able to campaign on the massive economic disruption that he will cause by doing that."

WRONG, this is the purist optimism on the Labor/green side.

If the carbon tax is passed, Abbott will have a peg to hang every cost of living issue and interest rate rise, and the Labor government will be in the indefensible position trying to claim that the cost and interest rate rises were not all based on the carbon tax.

Juliar is in a lose lose position.

I notice the Green's vote is falling too.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Comptom, I also I look forward to seeing the independent advice you recieve on.

A Rebatable Carbon Tax, which exempts no one but provides a rebate to those who take specific actions to protect and improve the environment. It also provides for all carbon tax revenue to be devoted exclusively to development and production of clean energy. I intend to get some independent opinion on it
Posted by PEST, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:22:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting reactions to what was indeed a moderate article. JonJ is an absolute denialist - "I don't want it therefore it isn't there, whatever the evidence!" Stencil at least quotes a scientist, though Pielke's conclusions are not highly regarded by the climate science community (which is easily checked); Amicus as usual makes little or no sense.

However, I take issue with one statement in the original article, which suggests that there is an obvious left-right divide between those who accept the science, and those who don't. This seems to me to be specious. Clearly, the denialists who are associated with the IPA or the Lavoisier Group or the US Heartland Institute are ipso facto associated with right-wing political ideology. It's what these organisations do for a living: promote the politics of the free market economy.

However, there is no such clear association between climate scientists and left-wing - or any other - ideology. Scientists tend, if anything, to be a-political. There may be right-wing scientists or left-wing scientists or raving red communist scientists - but there is no logical connection between their political beliefs and their scientific work. If you insist that this is the case, that (for example) the IPCC has something to do with world government, you tell me more about yourself and your beliefs than about the real world ...
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does anyone remember an advertisement from long long ago where a young man was sitting in an armchair, in 3–piece suit, smoking a pipe, with his 2 children playing around his feet. The little girl looks up at her father and says: "Daddy, what did you do during the War?". Imagine an old man sitting in an easy chair and the kid saying:" Grandpa, why didn't you do anything about climate change?" I think that this piece by Everard Compton is one of the most sensible comments on climate change that I have read for a long time. Incidentally, the "armchair scientists" might benefit from reading a real scientist's opinion in the Monthy, November 2010 I think, where Peter Doherty gives his opinion on the matter.
Posted by Gorufus, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay, look I'll point it out - ther author writes that seven other countries, including the UK, have a carbon tax..

I was totally surprised by that information. What other countries have a carbon tax, does anyone know? I certainly cannot name them. Perhaps the author is thinking of recent (very doubtful) claims that certain countries, including China, have put a price on carbon.

As for the UK it has an impost it calls a carbon tax on 4,000 of its largest businesses and organisations. The material I read stated that this will raise one billion pounds a year, which is nothing among 4,000 organisations. It bears no resemblence to the Australian proposal.

However, the UK is far and away the most advanced of the developed countries actually trying to do something about emissions. Then nothing.. The only genuine ETS scheme is in Europe and that is limited. The NZ scheme is limited and the US state schemes which have joined up are partial..

Then there is the problem that China and India have shown no real interest in doing anything (China's promises in this respect are either empty or meaningless), nor have countries like Brazil or Canada or.. you get the idea.

Although I agree with the author that Gillard might now have to go forward with her proposal, and it could cost her government, I think he has just repeated the statement about seven countries having carbon taxes without properly checking it first.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:58:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicco .. I know it's complicated so will try to simplify it for you

Someone bemoaned the fact that there are negative posts about climate change/AGW

By doing so, was himself being negative

I asked what was there to be positive about ..

do you get it yet? Can you answer it? (probably get some silly questionnaire in response now)

It's an interesting point, the government is faced with a negative subject (Suspected AGW, doom, hysteria, anger from the alarmists, disbelief in paying tax to reduce source of alarm by skeptics) and adds another negative source of conjecture, a tax, to the mix and must wonder why they cannot get a win.

They won't say what the tax will be or what it will do to mitigate AGW, but are trying to tell us that no one will be affected except the 1,000 big polluters .. so if they know that, just tax them. We all know though, that's not the real game, the real game is the tax and redistribution of wealth.

Then of course you have articles like this that are written by people irritated by anyone disagreeing at all, and why don't you all just listen and get on with it.

Why, because some time ago, most of the population stopped believing anything the government says, they lie they deceive, they even have a propaganda team traveling circus (independent of course) to try to sell the bad news.

What will the tax do to reduce or have any effect on climate change caused by mankind? We'd be better off stopping land clearing, or replanting, but that won't happen now, because the government is picking winners, a great big new tax.

The effect is now lost in the argument about the size of the tax, so the ALP is on familiar grounds, Tax and Spend .. business as usual
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 12:11:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I have points of disagreement with the author, nevertheless, he did come up with a very important concept: the need for cooperation. Despite the head-in-the-sand attitude of denialists, climate change IS real and needs to addressed. We have to get on a war footing and pull out all stops to mitigate it. Bickering on the floor of Parliament is not helping - delay is only making the problem worse. Agreeing on a reasonably high carbon price (over $50/tonne) would be a good start. Removing subsidies of fossil fuel industries would be another. Directing that money to establishing renewable energy industries the next. We haven't got time to wait.
Posted by popnperish, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 12:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The facts are:

Climate change is real,

The carbon tax at about $26/ton will make no difference without reciprocal agreements with our largest trading partners, ie China and Japan.

The Carbon tax will increase the cost of living, increase interest rates, and close businesses.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 2:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Both popnperish and Shadow Minister assert that "Climate Change is real."

No disagreement on that. Of course it is real.

The real question though is what is the cause? It could be natural cycles. It could be land-use factors affecting local and regional climate. It could be anthropogenic CO2. Or it could be some other factors. The fact is that you/we do not know!!

It is certain that it has NOT been proven that CO2 is any kind of problem. Yet here we are going through agony about a carbon tax that might be completely unnecessary.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 5:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again, on the Carbon Tax merry-go-round. The Oz public is about to reap the super-cala-fragelistic-expi-alidocious harvest of a government determined to pursue a failed undeclared socialist ideology of such idiocy that it defies understanding by even the major protagonists themselves. Mind-boggling.

Not content to fiddle while Rome burns, this government runs rampant around the bonfire setting new conflagrations to intensify illumination of its own naked ambition for historical recognition of an ineptitude of such enormity as to defy all comparison. God, give us strength.

Here we ride on a tidal wave of mineral resource productivity of biblical proportion (and finite span), but the surfboard is in the hands of a committee of blind left-footed neo-intellectualati whose compass only points inwards to gargantuan implosion. Great!

Green is the colour of our new born friends, and red is blood of the balance sheet.

Tax big business, tax the miners, tax fossil-gobblers, modify welfare - do it, legislate, and use the gains exclusively for renewables and re-greening of the planet, or get out and let someone else do it - but don't go burdening the public at large with ill-founded schemes based solely on pride and misplaced ambition. Eventually the Oz public will have had enough of deception and mismanagement and will be begging for change.

The latest news - there has been no decision. Surprised, everyone?
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 6:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everald. You say: "The vast majority of emails were from readers who want a solution to be found". Unfortunately few have called for carbon tax revenue to be used for climate friendly infrastructure in Australia."

I Sent a submission to the Tax Tax inquiry a few infrastructure proposals:-

1. To Make better use of the existing Australian car fleet by the provision more CNG infrastructure to encourage its use as transitional fuel for road vehicles and encourage the use of electric cars: gas /electric, petrol/electric and diesel/electric hybrid cars.

2. Tax incentives for employers to provide electric car, electric scooter and electric bicycle recharging facilities and provide roof top; wind energy or solar energy collectors for heating,cooling lighting powering computers and other tools.

3. Carbon taxes raised to be used to build bikeway networks in all Australian cities, enhance rail infrastructure, extend rail services and express bus services into all outer urban areas: provide secure bicycle parking at all modal interchanges and railway stations: also rural stations used by commuters into the capital cities.

4. Encourage Encourage state planning agencies to constrain developers to reduce urban sprawl and provide public transport services in new residential and industrial areas and make urban areas more permeable with direct routes for walkers and cyclists.

5. Provide short cuts for pedestrians and cyclists, in existing built up areas: more light bridges, routes through both public and private properties, bridges over barriers, safe mid block main road crossings.

6. Policy support for the states to change the constitution of road planning agencies to make it their responsibility to reduce the;demand for road space, unsustainable travel, road congestion and thecreation of a continuous arterial bike network within the overall
hierarchy of urban roads.

7. Provide bike lanes on main roads and reduce their speed limits to 50 kph .
When there is not room for a bikelane or bike path in the road reservea safe alternative route would be provided on residential streets witha 30 km per hour speed limit as in the Netherlands.
Posted by PEST, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 7:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, if by 'climate change is real' you mean that we have a good reason to believe that global temperatures change over time, then there is no question of that. But if you mean that 'global temperature is rising steadily with increasing levels of CO2', then you need to explain why it isn't; in particular why there has been no significant increase in global temperatures over the last ten years, despite a steady rise in carbon dioxide concentrations.

The one thing that will kill the global warming movement has nothing to do with all the science being levelled against it, with Climategate or with the inadequacies showing up in all the models: it is the simple fact that warming isn't happening. Not only does the AGW Emperor have no clothes, he is rapidly losing his skin, flesh and bones as well.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 8:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everald,just because a lot of bored silly easily led politician's looking to ingratiate themselves with the public jumped on board does not mean society should put up taxes for the hell of it so that industry sectors can barter over the spoils,now that the climate change, global warming, ozone hole,melting icecaps temperature measurement scam is in transition from fact to fictions, players old and young still want part of this non action that will not change the climate or save money or us, just inflate costs and probably produce stagflation as there is no added value, where is the productivity in that? Unaffordable twaddle. Inigo Jones (rip).
Posted by Dallas, Wednesday, 18 May 2011 11:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert Stencil
You deny the relationaship between rising CO2 and warming. The Swedish scientist Arrhenius showed definitively that carbon dioxide has warming characteristics, similar to that of a greenhouse. Charles Keeling showed us that CO2 has been steadily rising since the 1950s. Deforestation and industrial activity have contributed to the CO2 increase - they are human activities. What don't you understand? Why don't you understand? Have you no science training at all?
And Jon J - we've just had the warmest decade on record. Why do you say there has been no rise in temperatures in ten years? Just because 1997-98 was a very warm year is irrelevant - you have to look at trends over at least a decade, not just individual years.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:40:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
popnperish.

I, along with nearly all of the sceptics that I have come across, accept (to the extent that it can be known) that the physics seems to say that a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would lead to around 1 deg C of warming.

Leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether CO2 levels can double, given the response of the biosphere to higher CO2 levels, the real issue relates to the feedbacks. The IPCC generally assumes strongly positive feedbacks which are included in the models that show substantial warming for doubled CO2. However, these assumptions are not strongly supported, and in fact are challenged by many climate scientists who argue that the feedbacks are neutral, or even negative.

If the feedbacks are neutral or negative, then CO2 as a cause of concern falls away. Especially compared with the other impacts that humanity is having on regional and local climate.

Why don't we examine the issue of whether the feedbacks are negative, neutral or strongly positive before we engage in costly and disruptive carbon taxes?
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert Stencil
Would that you are right about a mere one degree warming with a doubling of CO2. Given that we have already had 0.7C degree warming by going from 280 to 390 ppm CO2,however, we may anticipate that we will have one degree warming long before we get to 560ppm, say at around 420ppm. And even if there would be no more emissions today, the inertia in the system means we will continue to warm by another 1.5 degrees.
As for feedbacks, the biggest seem to me to be mostly positive (reinforcing)rather than negative (offsetting). Snow and ice reflect more radiation than dark seas. A warming tundra will release methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas. The effect of more clouds in a warmer wetter world is mixed - some reflect light (negative feedback) but others trap heat (positive feedback). Carbon dioxide promotes plant growth but higher temperatures generally reduce yields.
I would like you to be right, then I could sleep more easily. But I fear positive feedbacks will greatly outweigh negative ones.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:29:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert Stencil, thanks for the atmospherics lecture.
Just maybe, the chances of your thesis being better than the science community’s observed data are not all that high.
If you want to run with geologist Ian Plimer’s statement that carbon dioxide levels were much higher, yet “life thrived” - then it would be good to admit that such “thriving” was really a re-development following mass extinctions of species accompanied by changes of concentration of carbon dioxide.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:04:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Warming isn't happening" says JonJ. One wonders which planet he inhabits. The evidence for global warming (on Planet Earth) is overwhelming, and very easy to find. Only the most determined denialist could say "warming isn't happening", as each recent decade is measurably warmer than the one which preceded it. Measurements are coming in from satellites, buoys, radiosondes, weather stations, balloons, animal behaviour, plant behaviour, ice sheets, farmers leaning on gates. For "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950", Murphy et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, see: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
Posted by nicco, Thursday, 19 May 2011 2:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ah nicco, you appear to be cherry picking - if you read the rest of jon's post you see what he's getting at. He was responding to someone else, and you need to read that as well to see the context.

don't just do things like this to win points, it just makes you look desperate and angry and looking for any chance to rant at those who think differently

maybe you are ..

one could always cherry pick your post as well

"Measurements are coming in from xxx xxx farmers leaning on gates"

really, now measurements come from farmers leaning on gates .. wow, real science there huh?
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 19 May 2011 3:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sense of humour? Notoriously difficult, I know. Please read "farmers leaning on gates" as "agricultural science and food security." And JonJ's statement seems clear enough, and accords with his earlier posts.
Posted by nicco, Thursday, 19 May 2011 4:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clear that the issue of a carbon tax has divided Australians in a manner that has rarely happened before. We have to go back to the conscription debate during World War 1 to see such bitterness.The fact is that the world is overpopulated and we are all polluting our planet in one way or another. We have to take steps to fix it. If the carbon tax is wrong then someone must come up with an alternative that will work. Tony Abbott's plan won't fix it and it will cost taxpayers more than the carbon tax. We need a new vision.
Everald
Posted by EVERALD, Monday, 23 May 2011 7:25:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Start by getting on your bike,breath in,through your nose and out through you mouth,repeat until you clear up any blockage,now keep those handlebars straight,Everald the social experiment is over, and those who are on the teat supporting inflation/stagflation or want to expand the government teat or sit on the fence, more than likely want bigger government, if you think that will fix something dream on, how about we survey the conditions of the road network for once as those potholes need repairing. Can we get a decent pavement management system in place before we push for higher taxes. Humor cures some wounds but the facts are in you face.
Posted by Dallas, Monday, 23 May 2011 9:26:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everald,

While most people will agree that man induced climate change is occurring, and that a global price on carbon is the most efficient means of doing so, the reality is that:

Australia contributes a tiny portion of the world's emissions, and any savings over a decade will be eclipsed by the increase in China's and India's emissions in a few weeks.

A price on carbon below $40 per ton will not reduce emissions, and at best export the emissions with the manufacturing jobs overseas, while drastically reducing the standard of living of all in Australia.

This point has been made very clearly by the coalition, and it is simple and easy to understand. All the rhetoric coming from the government ignores this simple issue, and unless it addresses it directly, the case for a carbon tax will never gain traction.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 23 May 2011 9:47:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM

>> Australia contributes a tiny portion of the world's emissions, and any savings over a decade will be eclipsed by the increase in China's and India's emissions in a few weeks. <<

Australia is just a little guy in a big pool. Therefore, Aussie can continue to pee because he doesn't urinate the same volumes as the bigger guys. And he should just continue to piss until someone else stops.

Right?
Posted by Ammonite, Monday, 23 May 2011 10:13:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

Firstly the analogy is incomplete. If everyone else in the pools is increasing their urine output dramatically, and if one had to bear significant pain to reduce slightly (not stop) ones urine output, whilst not personally experiencing any reduction in the urine level, there would be no incentive to inflict the pain on oneself only.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 23 May 2011 10:58:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know Shadow, the religious fervour in your political outlook conceals the fact that on most other topics you are pretty well grounded. You must know it's an irrational outlook. Gillard and Abbott seem to be very similar to me. But seem to be self serving populists who will pretty much say or do anything to get re-elected.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 29 May 2011 5:27:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy