Ancient Egypt had a judicial system based upon the role of a “Magistrate”. It’s a system upon which our modern judicial systems are based. The Egyptian magistrate had a wider role than today’s, involving investigation, witness statements, establishing a hearing and administering the judicial process, it remains very similar today.

The process was based upon “preventing a lie from crossing the river”, (the Nile). A key part of this process was the “Ferry Boatman” who represented the “Judiciary” and had a key role to only ferry across the river (to the Jury), a balanced representation of the case.

The prosecution and the defense could call witnesses and expert witnesses however, at the direction of the Judiciary, only the “fair, balanced and truthful” case was permitted to be carried by the Ferry Boatman across the river to the Jury. Not much different to today’s process of justice. (“Objection” to whatever evidence was put on the ferry boat with a decision by the Judiciary to sustain or overrule).

Today the Australian Public in the dock accused of “polluting” the environment, facing heavy fines and social penalties through a CO2 tax.

Who is this ferry boatman and what is he carrying across the river?

We have to acknowledge that the ferry boat is pretty full, packed to the gunwales with prosecution advocates from science, politicians, government advisors, academia, celebrities, commercial opportunists, NGO’s and public advocates.

Objection your honor, where is the case for the Defense? Overruled says the Judge, the case “is settled”, those already on board the ferry boat have “consensus”, there is no case for “denial” and any further objections from “flat earthers” will be regarded as contempt of court.

That only leaves the Australian electorate with an appeal to the “Ferry Boatman”. Who are you? Why are you taking only the case for the Prosecution across the river? Why can’t you make room for us?

Well, we are actually the MSM and Public Broadcasters; we have a duty to “balance” this case, and anyway, the real ferry boatman has abdicated.

Where is our natural justice?

yes the discussion
when there is no informed disscussion allowed

lets not talk of real numbers
lets not talk of whats really not happening
lets say the debait is settled..to avoid a debate

modeling must be right
afterall they are only trying to save us from ourselves
we need nanny to protect us and think for us..and find ways to tax us[so we dont buy lollies with our own money[or god forbid smokes]

le4ts give the dirty unwashed free lightbulbs
and give thenm plasma tv's that chew up lots of power
[much more than a darn lighbulb]

lets gift 7700 worth of solar cells to those who can affortd to waste 1700 of their own money[to make power for our lights in the daytime]

lets put them on regulated off peak power [so to speak]..to heat water.that never gets used up..or get them on solar heating[with a booster to still chew up the power[dont tell them at light the solar heater cools instead of heats the water

but hey lets incease the cost of power
to say its for infastructure
[for laying gas wells pipelines

..cause daytime-solar
is like storing water for a rainy day

or spend the infastructure cash on bying [subsidising solar cels on roofs..or paying double the going rate for those bying into the solar[day time power generation scam]

mate we heard the fear calls before
recall ozone-hole..cfc's or hydrocarbons
mate they going to turn oz into a warm dessert
and lo when it did..it wasnt cfc's or hydro..what done it
but carbon...

[that stuff that makes bubbles in softdrink and bread
[you know a polutant so bad the environmental protection agency has listed it as a poisen]..and we must tax anyone who dares breath it out into the air to make a plant grow

but all them other
BAD greenhouse gasses
[like cfc's or hydrocarbons..
they arnt bad ...*now

[the modeling says its all carbon' fault]

and we fix it by taxing it..
as a commodity
for trading by the money men..
telling accountants its cheaper to do it ..NOW..today

the accountants model..[bling]
says so

I thought this was a carbon tax, Co2 and carbon can be separated.
Coal is a block of carbon, if you burn it it becomes co2 & carbon.
Oil can become co2 & carbon when burnt. So where is the injustice.
Carbon is pollution, when burnt. So where is the problem.
Oil is best left in the ground, or at best used to make plastics.
Coal is compressed wood, and there is alternatives, gas is far less of a pollutant than coal.
By issuing a tax on carbon pollution, incentives will be there to get off oil and coal. Or else separate the co2 and carbon, whichever is the more viable. Co2 is manufactured and kept in cylinders. Carbon used to be in making torch batteries.
So what has natural justice got to do with pollution.

"""
Carbon is pollution, when burnt. So where is the problem.
"""

Being the 4th most abundant element in the universe, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it's a pollutant. Are you a pollutant because you are made of carbon. It's no more a pollutant than nitrogen which is the 7 most abundant element in the known universe and which makes up 78% or our atmosphere, carbon dioxide only making up 0.039%. Perhaps they should tax nitrogen as well. Oh and carbon doesn't burn at all, try burning the lead in your lead pencil and see how well it does?

"""
gas is far less of a pollutant than coal.
"""

Tell that to the people living around hydrofracking sites. Natural Gas is mostly ethane and methane which are far more destructive to our atmosphere than CO2.

"""
By issuing a tax on carbon pollution, incentives will be there to get off oil and coal.
"""

If this were true, the free market would have already come up with alternatives. As both have now become extremely expensive and difficult to extract. I'm sure if there were better alternatives we would already be using them rather than waring in other countries to ensure our supply. Oh wait, there is, Nuclear, but those idiots calling for a ban on carbon won't let us use it!

"""
Oil is best left in the ground, or at best used to make plastics.
"""

The production of plastic is far more damaging to the environment than that of burning coal. But as iphones are made of plastic the idiots calling for a ban on carbon dioxide would scream if we demonized iphones as much as coal. Also plastic has a high carbon content so therefore under your theory is a pollutant which should be taxed and banned.

It's true that we humans have polluted our environment and are increasing our efforts in such, but it's not coal burning or carbon dioxide that are the problems, it's population and consumerism which are the problem, taxing carbon dioxide won't slow those two problems.

cont...

@spindoc

"""
Where is our natural justice?
"""
I guess this is the best we've got, see you at the rallies!
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/

http://joannenova.com.au/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index.php
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&tab=podcast&Itemid=41

RawMustard,

Watch it! Logic has no place in a 'discussion' with Greenies on Carbon Tax or anything else.