I wonder who 579 thinks pays for Council Rates, electricity used by Government Departments, schools, shopping centres etc etc. I wonder who 579 thinks is going to pay for the increase in food albeit modest and every other item in the supermarket. I wonder who 579 thinks is going to pay for small business increases in power bills which will be quite substancial (around 8%) Oh well some people are to blinded by their alliengances to think with any rational. And all this just so the emissions can be released overseas with no penalty.

There is some substantial evidence for one aspect of the climate debate. The BOM sea level measurement data from around the Australian coast is readily accessible and shows that over the last twenty years the average rate of sea level rise on the east coast between Portland Victoria and North Queensland is 3.5mm per annum. The west coast is about twice that rate but I am not aware of an explanation for the difference.

How much of the rise is due to the melting of land ice mass and how much to lowered water tables due to irrigation (any water extracted from aquifers ends up in the ocean eventually) is never discussed but none of it appears due to sea temperature change.

The climate researchers now talk of ocean heat content rather than temperature change (0.0007 degrees per annum is unimpressive compared to a massive number of Joules) but the figures I have seen, and used for calculations, indicate that at the present rate at which the ocean heat content is increasing the oceans will be one degree warmer fourteen centuries hence. That seems about right considering that there is about 290 times as much ocean water as there is atmosphere.

<<the carbon tax was so important that Gillard advised Rudd to postpone it for years.>>

Great point Runner. It's funny how many of the laborites now screaming URGENT, URGENT, URGENT were prepared to put it off till later!

Even if climate change is not real ocean acidification is.
The ocean produces two thirds of our oxygen and is described as the lungs of the planet. In some places the ocean has recorded a 2C temperature increase. We do see ice and glacier melts and a navigable north west passage during the northern hemisphere's summer.
We need to reduce our Co2 emission, if only to reverse ocean acidification! I don't expect my house to burn down any time soon, but won't cancel the insurance, while I draw breathe.
I think we could approach a carbon tax from a very different perspective, which would ensure everybody paid for their own carbon footprint, small or large. This could be done if we simply completely jettisoned the current convoluted tax system in its entirety, and replaced all that with a single stand alone expenditure tax.
The single tax could be set at around 4.5%, with a 0.3 component added as the price we pay for our own carbon emission, which is most accurately reflected in our own consumption/expenditure patterns.
The fact we would make significant savings through no longer having to fork over current taxes, plus their compliance costs, would more than offset any carbon tax component.
We could use the need to impose a price on carbon as the logical and vastly overdue premise, to completely reform, simplify, and rationalise the way we pay tax.
The fact that an expenditure tax is entirely unavoidable, will not please the biggest avoiders/minimisers. Pseudo religions and or, a few international corporations,with budgets larger than many sovereign nations?
Nor will it please the 20,000 strong ATO, or a similar number of equally unproductive tax practitioners.
But, the simultaneous creation of a brand new and franchised poeples' bank, would create vastly more productive career pathways and or wealth creation opportunities, for all those made redundant by the proposed two tiered reform package. What else should we do with the large new surpluses we would create, other than to reinvest them in our own people and their better ideas. Carbon tax? What carbon tax? Rhrosty.

Ludwig, the imperative you raise as always, is that we are running out of “things”, thus you are able to scare us all with peak oil, peak population, peak food production, peak sea levels, peak polar bears and peak polar ice.

Then you dive straight into your favorite scientific assertions which is, “it’s CAGW”

Your problem remains that after 20 years plus and all the pseudo-science from public pseudo-scientists you are left with what you started out with, RETORIC.

After that you have to fall back on the “Cult Rhetoric Hand Book”, May I point out just a few?

Your cult responses; 1. through 7.

1.
13. Attack Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged as prideful and sinful, blind acceptance encouraged.
(Yes, the skeptics are attacked as hard and as often as possible by the believers)

2.
8. Crisis Creation - They employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt.
(The created and overstated impending doom of Peak everything)

3.
9. All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Support these answers with material produced or "approved" by the group.
(Yes, it’s all so simple, cut carbon emissions and switch to renewables and just look at “our” supporting international opinions and efforts). Just what are these Ludwig?

4.
2. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, the group and/or the leadership has a special mission to save humanity.
(Yes, Saving the Planet)

5.
33. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.
(Yes, the single orthodoxy reigns supreme)

6.
12. Guilt and Fear - Group dwells on members' "sinful nature"
(Yes, you are evil and destructive polluters who must seek absolution)

7.
16. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter.
(Yes, shoot the messenger and accuse them of being in the pay of “Big Oil”)

Your predictability is directly proportional to your gullibility.

BOTH SIDES OF POLITICS WILL GIVE US A CARBON TAX.

I'll enlarge on what runner said about the Greens.

The Greens threatened Labor that unless Labor pushed through climate change legislation Labor would be out of office.

It has to be said the Coalition (Turnbull and Abbott) floated a climate change policy in an attempt to entice the Greens into helping them form Government.

While the Greens have the balance of power climate change laws (amounting to a carbon tax) will be implemented by both sides of politics.

Pete