Bonmot makes his usual entrance with 2 insults in 3 lines and a link which proves what?

The CO2 tax will decimate the economy; bonmot’s link purports to say it will not and that its economic impact will be a piddling 2.8% reduction in GDP by 2050, equal to 2 years economic growth, or about $2 TRILLION in today’s dollars. This figure of $2 TRILLION confirms a Frontier Economic modelling study from 2009:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ets-to-shrink-regional-growth/story-e6frg6nf-1225691476399

That doesn’t sound piddling to me but what do I know, I have cognitive dissonance. So I checked a more recent analysis using treasury data; this shows a $1TRILLION shrinkage in GDP by 2020:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/08/15/government-senator-telling-porkies-and-scoring-own-goals/

Yeah, the CO2 tax will not have any impact on the economy at all; and that’s the Treasury not Jo which is saying that. We could be lucky though, given Treasury’s track record they’ll probably be wrong about this as well. Treasury could be wrong worse or better. Bonmot will probably say wrong better. But then what does he know.

Sarnian; great post; obviously you are talking about the alarmists who believe in AGW and are flat-Earthers in the true sense of the word since they want to take us back to a time when people believed the Earth was flat; just one slight correction to this:

“but I don't want the way I live, to change”

Should be:

but I don't want the way I live, to change, except to get worse.

Everyone needs to google and read 'Kangaroo Court of Australia' and you will see why our redhead is so keen to spend lots money against taxpayers future income to stopping our freedom of speech in Australia. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'!!

JF, AGW is an acronym for anthropological global warming, i.e. global warming caused from human emissions.

No scientist has put up a basis for human emissions having any significance in global warming. The IPCC say it is “very likely”. The fact is that there is no measurable effect of human emissions on global climate.

The majority of scientists agree that we have experienced global warming. A small number, the Climategate miscreants, attempt to confuse it with AGW, which has no proveable scientific basis.

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions. The natural variation in the volume of the cycle is 10%. It is not surprising that the effect of human emissions is trivial, and of no significance.

Human emissions have only been shown to have a local effect, not global.

JFAus:

Ocean algae, otherwise known as phyloplankton or cynaobacteria:

http://phys.org/news199471106.html

Conversely:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-ocean-wins-again/#more-38673

Who knows whether levels are rising or falling:

http://landshape.org/enm/oceanic-cayanobacteria-in-the-modern-global-cycle/

What a joke Anthony Cox is. Calls others he disagrees with idiots and trolls but cries to mummy when he is shown up for what he is.

Trolls the Nova and Watt's blogs, holds fundy-right wing tanks as the be all and end all of scientific endeavour while at the same time does not know how to denounce the drivel emanating from his chorus of back-slappers who revere catalaxy, Lavoisier Group, Heartland and the 'Lord' Monkton's SPPI.

Yep, what we have come to expect here on OLO.

Me, I rather partake in real scientific forums.

Well, Bonmot, thank god for democracy, people such as yourself AND Anthony can express their opinions, giving offense right and left. Beautiful.

One of the roles of the media is to provide information. one of the roles of citizens is to interpret, to make sense or a hash, of what information is at their disposal.

Your conclusions, Anthony's conclusions, my conclusions, arising from that information, and our perfectly accurate (in your case) or distorted (in my case), as well as Anthony's, interpretations are all allowable within the context of freedom of expression.

After all, freedom of speech and expression means as much right for idiots such as myself to express themselves as a sensible, intelligent, perfectly correct person such as yourself can.

And we should be celebrating that, instead of trying - as others have done on this thread - to demonise people by labelling them 'denialists' or 'alarmists'. Forget the messenger - what is the message ?

And we have to ask ourselves, in what direction would the application of the recommendations of the Finkelstein Review move discussion ? Or channel it ? Or stifle it ?

I'm puzzled: most of us are not half-wits. We're not puppets. So why do some people fear the power of TV stations, or of News Limited in particular ? Surely most of us can read between the lines, we know when a particular element of the media is pushing a certain line on an issue - in fact, we expect it. After all, newspapers and TV stations tend to represent certain class and/or political interests: some of us take it for granted, and have done all our lives. We can negotiate the minefields. We don't need some Council to 'protect our interests' and do it for us.

Thanks, Bonmot.

Joe