You need some assistance morganzola. In the context in which I have used it, the well recognised noun “Juliar” is used as an adjective, modifying the noun “brand”. You have taken “brand” to be a verb, which is obviously incorrect.

I trust that this will assist your comprehension of English usage.

Rstuart, you have not managed to grasp that the article by Andrew is merely a ploy to direct attention away from the fact that there is no valid scientific or economic basis for a carbon tax.

The attempt to characterise critics as lacking understanding, by equating them with someone in some sick joke to which he provides a link is a ham-handed and failed attempt to denigrate the sensible people who commented on the article.

You no doubt have no science to back the asserted necessity for this baseless tax, which if it were “successful” would allegedly, and this is according to the alarmists, not the realists, reduce the temperature of the globe by .0004 of a degree, in total.

Not per year or per decade, but in total. This is the question which Juliar has been asked a number of times, and obstinately refuses to answer.

The warming which we were lucky enough to receive, from natural climate cycles, is in Juliarspeak, “zero point seven” of a degree.

The warming has not increased for the last thirteen years, despite the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Since we have been coming out of the mini ice age since the end of the 19th century, we could do with a little more warming, not action to stop something that has been stopped for the last thirteen years.

The carbon tax is based on fraud. We do not need economics, we need a Royal Commission.

Leo Lane,

Stupid statement no.1: "there is no basis for a carbon tax in science, or in economics."
Unless of course you speak to most scientists and economists, who completely disagree with you. (Note, scientists and economists are generally considered experts in the field of science and economics). Of course you then go on to regurgitate Andrew Bolt's BS or whichever other puppet you've decided to follow without question.

Stupid statement no.2: "We are not pricing carbon, we are pricing Carbon Dioxide"
Semantics, and irrelevant as most people understand we are talking about CO2. Besides, CO2 emissions are created from the burning of carbon. This is just another AB regurgitation.

Stupid statement no.3: "Carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is an essential trace element in our atmosphere, essential to life on earth". Yes, it's essential to support life. Just like cholesterol is essential in the human body. You probably don't believe excess cholesterol can cause heart disease though (on account of it being the theory of meddlesome scientists) so this point is probably lost on you.

And "67% of the population" don't agree with the carbon tax? How is that relevant? 74% of people believe in God, doesn't mean God exists. You're ignoring the advice of economists and scientists but referencing the opinions of a bulk of people who in large part get their information from "experts" like Andrew Bolt.

"Their desperation morphs into them insulting and lashing at at critics". This is an interesting one, as I just don't see this happening at all. It's also an interesting one considering the amount of times I read phrases like "Juliar", "loony-left" etc in this forum.

"We do not need economics, we need a Royal Commission"

A Royal Commission on a tax reform without referring to economic analysis?

Genius. Leo Lane for PM. I'm moving to Belgium, however. The option of having no government at all suddenly seems appealing.

<< The price of carbon will keep going up, and up, and up. >>

Not sure about that, rstuart.

Both big business and the little man in the street will cry foul about that. It might go up a bit, but as you say, so will the compensation, probably. So what are we likely to gain in terms of further reductions in emissions…. or I should say; further average per-capita reductions?

Very little if anything. And population growth at anything like the current rate would just continue to completely overwhelm any per-capita gains, meaning that total national emissions will just continue to rapidly increase.

Our government is hooked into the continuous growth fossil-fuel-powered paradigm. They’ve done their bit to show that they have a teensy weensy bit of concern about our environment. They’ve appeased the Greens. So there really is very little for them to gain from incrementally increasing the price of carbon, especially if they are going concomitantly increase the compensation.

Hey, I would love to be proven wrong and see them actually develop the whole ethos of renewable-energy replacement of fossil fuels to the extent that emissions are brought right down, and we are put on a path towards a sustainable society. But right now I just can’t imagine them doing anything of the sort.

Anyone still whingeing about the GST and how it effects them personally? Just like the GST there will be initial hiccups but after awhile who is going to notice?

Will make no difference to me if there is a carbon tax or no carbon tax. The proposal is so miniscule and ineffective there might as well not be a carbon tax.

I have never relied on any government policy to be better off or not. Those who claimed they were better off under Howard better get themselves sorted because he ain't around to hold your hand anymore.

While Gillard won't go down as our most adept PM, the hysteria generated by Abbott is well ...hysterical.

All Gillard wants to do is prove she can do it (*yawn*) and all Abbot wants to prove is he can fool most of the people most of the time (67% apparently).

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favour of reducing pollution and looking after the environment but I'm not in favour of political stunts be they loony lefty labor latte sippers, rabid self righteous tories or watermelon greens.

So get a grip and get a life:-)

<< There is no possible justification for a carbon tax. >>

Oh yes is there Leo. There is a more important reason than for climate change:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4577#118583