Jedimaster - oh come now, surely you can think of a more plausible pretext for dismissing inconvenient facts. What qualifications do you require to know when something is connected or not, or what is your reason for doubting when senior officials say, on the record to a highly-respected journalist in a publication that has never bothered with the global warming debate one way or the other, that the wind farms aren't connected?

One of the problems with this debate is the global warmers fasten on any piece of nonsense, no matter how unlikely, that supports their viewpoint but then dismiss anything that disagrees with their viewpoint on the slightest of pretexts.

Then they accuse others of being shallow and condescending. Dear, dear! If you're so experienced in the debate, you cna do better than that.

Why can’t we just set up a “pilot scheme” or a “proof of concept” for CO2 reduction?

We could make the whole of Tasmania a low carbon dioxide economy. The rest of Australia could then observe progress at no cost.

We could measure just how much the cost of living goes up if at all, how many green jobs are created, how much pollution is reduced, how they transform their economy, how they avoid being disadvantaged, how they manage incentives for business to reduce CO2, how they demonstrate the big benefits through pricing CO2, how every dollar raised is dedicated to supporting households, how certainty is provided for investors, what economic reforms result from pricing CO2, what long term interests are served and how the most vulnerable will be protected.

Tasmanians are noted for their green credentials and could save the Greens and the ALP by simply showing the rest of Australia how easy it is. I think they should be given every opportunity and encouragement.

>> One of the problems with this debate is the global warmers fasten on any piece of nonsense, no matter how unlikely, that supports their viewpoint but then dismiss anything that disagrees with their viewpoint on the slightest of pretexts. <<

One of the problems with this debate is the global warming denialists fasten on any piece of nonsense, no matter how unlikely, that supports their viewpoint but then dismiss anything that disagrees with their viewpoint on the slightest of pretexts.

Fixed.

bonmot .. lol, it wasn't broken!

spindoc: A pilot scheme in Tasmania, if imposed by Canberra, would violate s.51(ii) and s.99 of the Constitution, which forbid the Commonwealth from discriminating between States in matters of taxation. But there's nothing in the Constitution to stop the Commonwealth from using a Territory (e.g. the NT and/or the ACT) as a testing ground for new tax policies. :-D