I hope this author's academic research is more reliable than this post.

I took the trouble to look at the policy she criticises, and found that:
- the policy does not so much as mention the idea of 'hate crime';
- the policy acknowledges that not all DV is perpetrated by women.

However, the policy states that 'domestic and family violence and sexual assault ... are gendered crimes – that is they have an unequal impact on women'. Does Ms Wilson deny this?

To deny that the great majority of DV crimes are committed against women is simply dishonest.To try to address violence against women without understanding the history of unequal gender relations in our society would be a complete waste of time.

None of this is to argue that there should not also be action against all forms of violence, in the home or elsewhere.

"The core debate on Australia's response to climate change has been the Garnaut Climate Change Review, led by Professor Ross Garnaut. It was commissioned by the Rudd government in 2007 to conduct an independent study of the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy"

It was a deceitful act to tell us that Garnaut, an ex-ALP adviser and committed alarmist, was "independent".

There is no debate, when has anyone seen in Australia, skeptics and alarmists on at the same time? Skeptics constantly challenge and are willing to address the science and issues, the alarmists refuse all contact and refuse to debate at all, claiming it will give oxygen to skeptics

This whole promotion by the ALP and the lies and underhanded behavior have had the expected outcome in the community, disbelief.

So what does the government do?

Wind up the attack, get the climate committee out there, Flannery and company, another "independent" sell.

Attack skeptics, demonize them, the ABC is running one to two opinion pieces daily, which pull no punches and are just scathing of anyone not a full blown alarmist.

Yet the people, 53% of them now reject the government's position and tax.

You know, maybe attacking and demonizing Australians might not be the best way to convince them.

Do you think it's not obvious to everyone that if you avoid the confrontation and just constantly snipe with extremely well funded resources, using BOM, CSIRO, ABC and all the other well funded organizations, that something is not quite right?

if it's so obvious, so clear, so simple .. then get on with it and actually have a debate publicly, not this ongoing refusal by scientists to do any more than slag off at skeptics.

The government and the climate industry lack credibility and it is clear that they are in it for their own benefit and profit.

I have read this article three times, but I still cannot work out what this article is about in terms of a sustained argument.

It comes across as a mere chronology of a few policy approaches and announcements by Aust and a few other western nations, and then tells us about the demise of Labor and unpopularity of the carbon tax in the last paragraph.

Careful there Jo, I think your bias is showing, or at least peeking through a little.

Quote, "Sadly, Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan has reversed public support for action on global warming, damaged her leadership and delivered Labor its lowest primary support on record. Opposition leader, Tony Abbott is now the closest he has been to Gillard as preferred prime minister. Gillard's personal support has gone from its best since she became Prime Minister in June 2010 to her worst. Since Gillard announced her intention to introduce a carbon tax from July 2011, initial positive Australian support for action on global warming, has turned negative".

Why would you be sad that the Oz people have displayed a dislike for a liar? Your analysis of global warming belief by the Oz people, & the need for a new tax, doesn't hold water too well either, when you realise that Julia considered it necessary to lie about her plans to get elected.

There is now more than enough evidence to indicate that the planet is now taking a hand in the global warming debate, & the news is all bad for the proponents of the theory.

Yes I know that academia has become dependant on the flow of global warming funds. This is a mistake. I would suggest you cure that addiction, & do it quickly. As the natural cycle of cooling continues, the public are going to become very harsh in their judgement of those they consider perpetuated the con.

It's time to jump off the gravy train, before the inevitable crash, you may still be able to save some credibility.

Chris, the technique is called "framing", you set up one after the other, positives, then a negative, that you want turned into a positive, you didn't bite the expected way though .. so it's poorly done.

probably works better on people susceptible to alarmist thinking .. we'll see.

The one big Anglicized country that is not mentioned is the USA, which has dumped any carbon policies, apart from the EPA attempting to do something, and I do believe Canada just elected a government who are opposed to carbon policies, and who intend to dismantle those in place .. no mention of that, but that would then not fit the "frame-up"

rpg,

yes, the evidence used is selective and merely geared to a biased posiiton.

If one is going to mention Canada, they might want to also do further homework. for instance, Alberta has its owns carbon tax but opposes a nationwide carbon tax (and a Cap and Trade system) because the province belives that a local carbon tax keeps the money in the province and a national system and/or a trading system will see revenue lost.

in other words, there are many positiosn wihtin federal nations, and there are many nations with different attitudes towards a carbon tax for many reasons, which suggests that different arguments be included in any piece trying to inform readers of the merits of a carbon tax.

God bless the true believers.

Jo, you need to understand that once the electorate becomes sensitized to proselytizing, there is no going back. The declining support is due to the exclusion of any other perspective, exaggeration, failed predictions, misinterpretation, abuse and contrary evidence.

In the absence of any improvement in what you have to offer, you resort to that which got you into trouble in the first place, bull dust.

We are fortunate in Australia to have people like you to continue the destructive work on the warming orthodoxy.

I note that Godo posted a response to the wrong thread, and then it occurred to me that it actually made more sense here. It’s sort of, like your article really. “What time is it? It’s a long blue one with a Zipper down the side”

Congratulations and keep up the good work.

42% of people WANT to pay more tax for no good reason. Brainwashing does work!

The article cites quite dated opinion polls, such as the 2008 poll which led the story. That was before the GFC, and the noticeable public swing away from green sentiment. Although this is more marked in the US (where the economy is in worse shape) than it is here, none the less more recent polls show that the public in general are switching off green alarmism.

Then there are vital omissions from the international references. A few years back, for example, Canada was notable for simply declaring that it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. And the article does not mention the US at all. The biggest of the anglo emitters does not rate a mention.

Not impressive.

Jeeez It's so cold today.

I'll have to turn the air con on to warm up!

Chris, agreed, cherry picking data though seems to be a tactic of the alarmist camp.

That's interesting what you say about Alberta, so here we have a system that keeps the tax within their boundaries and they appear not to trust others with their money .. so how does this work, are they just reducing GHGs in Alberta?

"province belives that a local carbon tax keeps the money in the province and a national system and/or a trading system will see revenue lost."

Our system is going to give 10% to the UN, and the rest sprayed around all over, but I'll bet it is used to balance the federal budget in 2013. We'll be lucky to ever find out where all the money goes or what it will be used for.

We'll eventually see all our money lost I reckon .. more waste by the ALP, but I imagine another folly will arise to distract us that the ALP can tax and waste on..

I distrust the government on this and am coming to distrust climate scientists as well .. sadly, they appear to have gone over to the dark side, and scientists who band together to stop free speech, well.

Why do Julia and co feel the need to perpetually lie to us about the "Carbon Tax", now renamed (by Penny Wong last night on Q&A) as "Pollution Tax".

Ignoring for the moment that total lack of any real discussion about the real issues relating to climate change and its causes, it is patently obvious that the "Carbon Tax" is not a "Carbon Tax" at all, but rather a "Carbon Dioxide Tax". Why the lie? Probably in a naive and stupid attempt to con the Australian people that the real issue is soot and related emissions, which have been dealt with here in Australia for many years now.

They say that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Not so. It is NOT a registered pollutant. And nor is Carbon. Why lie about it?

Do they think that we are stupid? They need to realise that these days that can't rely on the ABC and Fairfax press being the only source of information. Many of us are accessing varied sources of information across the globe, and can figure it out for ourselves.

rpg,

tax is low at $15 a tonne, and intended to generate a technology fund.

Here is an article on the Alberta situation, although Jan. 2010.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/many-albertans-agree-a-carbon-tax-was-the-best-solution/article1441309/

chris, that's just government picking winners again .. probably the worst people to be investors in technology.

They will do what they did here, waste money to appease the loudest minority, invest in rubbish but popular schemes, hot rocks springs to mind.

Subsidize solar and wind .. instead of building truly carbon free power generators, Nuclear.

They will waste the money since it is not truly the technology they are chasing it is popularity.

rpg, you could be right.

My main opposition to the carbon tax is that it will be introduced without a popular mandate.

It pisses me off that political parties can promise one thing, then do another.

Labor should have the guts to make it the issue of the next election. Then, if they won, they could indeed claim some legitimate mandate.

This is a view I put to some anti-carbon tax protestors in Canberra, and they agreed they would accept the umpire's decision (that being the democratic process).

When I ask left-wing professors about this, one told me that it does not matter if their is or is not a people's mandate. Can you believe that from a lefty?

I often wonder who is more in tune with the people; from this debate, I would argue it is the Coalition as the lefties and Labor appear to give little regard to the outcome of public debates.

I will be amazed if Labor gets out of this mess. Even if it does, it has provided a shameful act that defies the democratic nature of public debate and democracy.

Herbert Stencil said: "They say that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Not so. It is NOT a registered pollutant. And nor is Carbon. Why lie about it?"

Don't waste your breath, I've said as much many times on this Forum only to be howled down by a few ideologues who, bizarrely, are convinced that it is. One even claimed science qualifications. Its truly a sad state of affairs when a person who has studied science can believe that CO2 is a pollutant, yet its true. Then I found out that the AGW movement had redefined the meaning of the word pollutant to suit their own cause. Its quite scary, really.

Joh you are dead wrong on this one.Carbon Dioxide is not increasing temperatures.Go outside tomorrow and look at the Sun.

For all the supposed action by countries with ETS's and carbon taxes, the trend in CO2 is up and up: see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ . It seems that their efforts, like Gillard's and her Green coalition partners, are exercises in futility, even stupidity. A global problem requires an effective global solution.

With ozone depletion and CFC's we had a convincing cause and effect. Hence there was a global agreement to phase them out. Despite that there hasn't been much sign of the ozone hole recovering. With climate, our observational record is so miniscule that it takes decades, even centuries to be sure that there is any change. Is it any wonder there is reluctance by many to take any action. It is more likely CO2 emissions will only start declining when the fossil fuels are exhausted, or some catastrophe decimates human kind. Perhaps global warming, if indeed it is caused by humans, won't be so bad as some make out. Antarctica, for example, is a large continent that may become habitable.

Phase 1: Cite 'global opinion' as a precedent for taxing carbon dioxide.
Phase 2: 'Global opinion' shifts against AGW and the IPCC.
Phase 3: Cite 'European prosperity' as a precedent for taxing carbon dioxide.
Phase 4: European prosperity goes down the gurgler.
Phase 5: Cite a carefully selected minority of Anglophone nations as a precedent for taxing carbon dioxide.
Phase 6: Who knows? But it doesn't look good for the alarmists.

The other thing that gets me going about Julia and co going on about "I believe in climate change - its real". And "we have to do something to reduce emissions" to fix it.

So simplistic. Of course we all notice that the climate changes - all the time. Who doesn't "believe" in climate change. Note though that she cleverly avoids the real questions. Is man having an impact on climate change? (My answer - probably). If he is, are anthropogenic factors greater than natural factors (My answer - not really known. Probably not). Of the anthropogenic factors are anthropogenic CO2 emissions a major factor (My answer - not demonstrated. Probably not). If anthropogenic CO2 emissions ARE a major factor, is the likely resultant climate change adverse/costly? (My answer - not demonstrated. Probably not.)

And finally. Even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are demonstrated as having a seriously adverse impact, what, practically, can we do about it. (My answer - not much).

Julia and co just avoid all the above questions, and jump straight the conclusion that We Must Have A Carbon Tax.

If you ask me it is all about politics, spin and plain bs. Not about reality.