<< Negativity reins. By the time carbon tax gets here the rises will all ready be in place.>>

Yep! it's called budgeting & planning, 579.
And strangely enough most businesses tend to do it --leastways, those that want to stay in business.

No joke, this:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/graham-readfearn-39692.html

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3807130.html

in case there are difficulties (video clip has been "removed".

Graham Readfern is your authoritative source?!! As one of the commentators at the link to Graham's latest effort says:

John Coochey :

03 Feb 2012 8:15:12am

Look Graham, you had your chance in Brisbane when you went head to head with Monckton and your own newspaper ran the headline "Monckton takes Brisbane". Now he never talked over you or was rude. You had every chance to present all the evidence you wished and you failed. So suck it in and cease the attempts at character assassination. If you had a case you have had adequate opportunities to make it and you have not done so. Simply present the facts including no warming for the past seventeen years, the end of the drought against alarmist predictions. Tell us what the solutions are and who we are going to implement them without going to thermonuclear war with India and China who are not going to seriously restrict their carbon emmissions, token lip service, but no cuts. So why bother?

Just sour grapes on Graham's part. Here is the link to Graham's debate with LM:

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.html?id=1418

Didn't Graham do well!

Cohenite
Rather than attack the messenger (a typical 'defence mechanism') why can't you just respond coherently to the message?

Were you able to find a link to your Lord's video remarks to his fellow travellers, the subject of the message?

On phone so can't engage too much :(

I don't think Readfearn has a point. He is asserting that Rinehart, or indeed any rich person who runs media will 'taint' that media by imposing their own views on the editorial position. A number of things.

Firstly, even allowing for that to be true, how is it any different from a corporate mentality such as the ABC's 'tainting' their presentation of the news; the ABC has been completely one-eyed about AGW and content to parrot the IPCC and the other 'official' outlets without even considering the manifest corruption and vested interests of those outlets; a great irony since the ABC invariably associates sceptics with big business, which is patently untrue.

Secondly, it is not true; the Australian, for instance has such columnists as Steketee, Van Onselen, Lloyd, Beattie etc, all of whom slavishly follow the AGW mantra. The AGE has no such sceptical equivalent. Any bias in the MSM is therefore pro-AGW. And will increase now that Graeme Wood has got his vanity project up and running:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/welcome/

At the end of the day, like all lefties and alarmists, you only scream bias when it doesn't agree with you.