Given the description of Australian Politics in the British Journal is it time we woke up?
Not one side but both seem lost , who would have thought plain packaging of tobacco products would not get support from all sides.
Carbon pricing, while a body the conservatives refused is it on meet we see leaders say it is proved by the science but not combine to get a good result for every one.
To what extent is the 24/7 Medea wish for an instant headline controlling our politics.
Why do we want to increase tax and LPG, stop Solar power support, not the money making aspects , that needs attention.
But why not remove all tax on Solar home schemes and do what ever it takes to use more.
How many of us,honestly, are not concerned with leadership in both camps.

I agree Belly. It seems that the Opposition are disagreeing with the Government even if the issue is a no-brainer, like plain packaging for tobacco products.
Maybe the Liberal Party are the recipients of more than their fair share of Tobacco company financial support?

I watched Tony Abbott being interviewed by Lisa Wilkinson on the Today Show the other day, and he was absolutely about to blow a gasket about the plain packaging issue. She kept asking him about how he stood on the issue, but he kept repeating that he hadn't seen the Bill yet.
He was getting more and more flustered and inarticulate as the interview went on.

I would be so embarrassed if we had him out there representing Australia as a PM (shudder!).
Bring back Malcolm Turnbull I say!

As for carbon pricing, I hate to say that I am with the Liberals on that one.
I realise we have a problem with the changing weather patterns and rising sea levels in our world, but I am a skeptic about whether us mere humans are involved in causing it all.

Dear Suze,

Human activities - the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are triggering changes we are witnessing in the global climate. Taking action on climate change is the right thing to do. We need to start taking action now to promote new sources of renewable and cleaner energy otherwise we will pay a much higher cost in the future. Decisions we make now will determine the severity of climate change our children and grandchildren experience.

As someone wrote on another link (sorry, I've lost the site) but as it made sense to me I'll quote it:

"Australia's only hope of forestalling seriously damaging climate change is a strong international agreement to curb emissions. That's mostly out of our hands; but we increase the chances of such an agreement if we ourselves demonstrate a willingness to take hard decisions about reducing emissions. This is where "Direct Action," fails most demonstrably - since it is clear such a policy will not reduce emissions but continue their present practices."

There's no incentive for polluters to stop polluting. They will be paid by taxpayers to continue polluting - and there's no incentive for them to try alternative measures to curb their pollution. Various alternatives have been offered - and accepted internationally by most progressive nations. "Direct Action," will just confirm our international reputation for dragging the chain on climate change.

And in such a context, our current 5% target is inadequate - seriously inadequate for convincing other nations that we're serious about reducing emissions. It needs to be increased substantially - to an internationally acceptable levels and we need a serious emissions abatement policy to demonstrate good faith to the concerned nations.

We have much to talk about, and both sides of politics can be targeted, hopefully will be.
We just do not have first grade politicians running either party.
Abbott should with out delay stop excepting tobacco funding 95% of British tobacco donations to politics is in two checks,nationals and liberals.
This may account for Minchin saying no evidence exists that tobacco smoke kills.
Suzi humans do impact on climate.
The evidence is firm, our industrialization has driven it.
The fact we need to talk about it is proving my point, we need to wake up.
I think Gillards personal approval is going to make this impossible to get past the house.
So recommend we return to the ETS as planned under Rudd even if it delays the start.
Today a film star has worked in a TV add she and those paying for it, are being blackened.
IS that an attack on free speech? does it say any thing we want to say should be monitored by who? conservatives?
Who monitors Abbott's confrontational no matter what actions.
We Australians are poorly served by our Medea, newspapers worst, but all Medea and politicians on both sides.
Cracks are opening, just maybe my feeling both sides will not go to an election with current leaders is about to be confirmed.
We will be better for it, by the way,lets see some new threads contributors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SdDiHbG1tY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3-u_sBWMQ&feature=related


THE world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new studies into man’s impact on the oceans.

Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea. The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral, crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out, say the researchers.

“Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared,” said Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s global ecology department.

When CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean, it forms carbonic acid. A little of this can benefit marine life by providing carbonate ions — a vital constituent in the biochemical process by which sea creatures such as corals and molluscs build their shells.

Caldeira found, however, that the huge volumes of carbon dioxide being released by humans are dissolving into the oceans so fast that sea creatures can no longer absorb it. Consequently, the levels of carbonic acid are rising and the oceans are “turning sour”.

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union’s ocean sciences conference in Hawaii last week, Caldeira said: “The current rate of carbon dioxide input is nearly 50 times higher than normal. In less than 100 years, the pH of the oceans could drop by as much as half a unit from its natural 8.2 to about 7.7.”

This would mark a huge change in ocean chemistry. The shells of marine creatures are made of calcium carbonate, the same substance as chalk, which is vulnerable to acidity. Even a slight increase in acidity would mean many creatures would dissolve. Others might be able to rebuild their shells but would be unable to reproduce.

Gees, Iam glad there's No evidence:)

Leap

Gettig rid of our coal fired power stations will have an impact on global polution of Zilch.
Stopping our coal exports would have a massive impact.
But then we wouldn't get the money that coal brings in.

So we shall have to help the major polluters to continue to polute.

Suse,
Gillard is an absolute liar and a failure. I do not agree with you about your preference for Turnbull as Opposition leader. We would now have an ETS if he were. I do not particularly like Abbott either and he lacks any charisma at all, but he did stop us from having an ETS, so must get a few points for that.

Lexi,
You have absolutly no proof whatsoever that there is human induced climate change. Like all other warmists and alarmists, it is a religion for you with no basis, only your blind faith.

Show me your proof and I will discard my sceptisism.

In the last 10 years carbon dioxide has increased yet the global temperature has dropped, so if CO2 causes global temperatures to rise why has it not done so?

We have no influence over tides, earthquakes or volcanos and we have no influence over the worlds climate, end of story.

Belly,
The whole carbon dioxide tax is a fraud. It is designed purely to gain revenue that this government blew in stupid schemes over the past few years.

Is Mise....well if the findings are true, we cant afford to stop, and slowing human growth wont stop either.

So the planets system are going to be fine, I think FUBAR is all thats left to say.

The old wont be worried, but the new definitely will:)

LEAP

Banjo,

We've been down this route previously and I feel that nothing constructive will be achieved by going over the same ground again.
If you want evidence - just Google the subject - there's plenty of evidence on the web - or go to your local library. There's plenty of documented scientific material available. As a librarian I don't deal with "faith" I've been trained to deal with facts regardless of what you may think.

However, you may one day realise that something is happening when changes in the global circulation patterns that drive the weather bring about more powerful storms, more numerous hurricanes, rises in sea levels; flooding of river delta cities (Cairo, New Orleans); inundation of low lying areas like the Netherlands; seepage of salt water into many fresh-water sources, and aridity in previously fertile areas. Then by the end of the 21st century when global temperatures increase by as much as 9 degrees, raising sea-levels by ten to twelve feet turning tropical areas into deserts, and creating a climate far warmer than anything humanity ever experienced.

You may then begin to question your scepticism. You may stop listening to the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries.
They're a powerful lobby reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task of curbing emissions. Profits are more important afterall.
And who cares about the future - live for today. That unfortunately seems to be the mantra for so many people.

cont'd...

Banjo - you and I know that you can't convince some people. Like telling them not to live in bush-fire areas, or flood-prone plains.
And not prepare for the inevitable but simply think -"She'll be right, mate!" So too with climate change - and the susequent consequences - you can't convince some people that the inevitable is coming and the costs will be far greater if you do nothing.

So therefore, when the proverbial excrement hits the fan - they will scream and deny and demand why nothing was done in the past. That's
human nature.

Lexi I understand all the worry about our climate changing, and I realise that humans pollute their Earth, and that the Earth is worse off for that.

What I find hard to believe is that humans directly affect our climate as such. All the dire warnings about rain, winds, droughts and storms are preceded with such comments as "...the worst in 50 (or 70 or 100 or whatever) years."

The fact is that the same thing happened all those years ago as well. Maybe the climate problem was just having it's turn at coming around again?

I don't usually get into the arguments about climate change because I really don't believe it is human activity that caused it, and I am always afraid of getting lynched :

Lexi

Considering I've been described as someone ( *so I don't have to drop my pants and run around the room.* will in time, be laughing at their own stupidities since what I and many others that use the evidence:) and others will be seen as just over-educated oxygen time wasters and the only thing their really cleaver at doing, is showing off how smart they are to each other by selectively illustrating their talents, but really saying...look at me, look at how clever Iam, and yet provide No answers, No solutions, and show all how obtuse they are in actively doing Nothing creative with there brilliancy. Well clap, clap, for the handy-capped:)
I would normally tell these people to go to hell....but I think their already there. So while your so full of gutsy vigor, most seem just to be contented with having the mentality of a gang of monkeys furiously typing Shakespeare in ever reversible circles.

If your all so edumakated, why do you all just watch the impending disasters approach, then disparage all others and don't make any effort yourselves in this situation.

They Can talk the talk, but cant walk the walk:)

Well, Iam quite use to your insulting behaviorism's and the disrespects for all to see, and I will go down on OLO as at least someone who tried. I know Iam just wasting my time.....but having fun none the less:).....that's what its all about, right?

Maybe, we just all let it go, and sit on your fat arses and do what you all do best....and that's Nothing.....and when its all FUBAR....don't come crying to me:)

Its public record you know:)

:P

lea

lexi and Belly,
There is no proof of human induced climate change. If there were the Al Gores, Penny Wongs and Flannerys would be shouting it from the rooftops and all the sceptics would be silenced.

The whole thing was exposed as a fraud by 'climategate'and the sus figure and sourses the IPCC used. It simply is a religion to those still believing.

Hey, if you really want to reduce the CO2 that humans produce why not start birth control programmes like Iran introduced a few years ago. They lowered their birthrates from 6.5 per woman to less than 2. Now imagine how much less CO2 there would be with fewer people and how much heathier most would be. Less deforestation, more fish and more food.

When they come up with proof I will listen, in the meantime the more important issue is world population and food supply.

Question. How doe we get the major political parties to have a fair dinkum debate on immigration and its effects on Aus and our standard of living?

Dear suzieonline,

I don't think you have to worried about being lynched. I think in many ways the debate has moved past that. Most people have made their minds up one way or the other and the effort required to changed entrenched positions is deemed by many, certainly on the side of those who are wanting action on climate change, not to be worth the effort.

I meet a lot of people in my various roles who are just getting on with the job of thinking globally while acting locally. This includes many conservative types and those throughout various levels within government and corporations. When someone with a different position speaks up they are generally listened to respectfully but the willingness to engage and debate is no longer there. People just tend to move around them and get on with what they are doing to live more sustainably and reduce their carbon footprint.

Even if the government was to do nothing the movement at a community level is very strong and getting stronger. The sentiment seems to be if the two major parties want to sit there with their thumbs up their arses well fine, just don't get in our way. Sure there is deep disappointment with the way the parties are playing politics with an issue that people see as damaging their children's future but I think the Economist go it right. People have just moved around the 'Punch and Judy' show. The danger for Abbot is thinking that an anti-tax/cost-of-living that might be getting traction is signalling a move away from the community's desire to act on carbon pollution or even a growing disbelief in the veracity of the climate change argument. It is not.

Cont..

Cont..

I along with many of those I know no longer bother to engage in debate with the other side so I won't be doing so with you. I will direct you to the source that finally settled the argument for me. It was sitting through over 20 hours of David Archer lectures from the University of Chicago.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

I had done a fair amount of research before then but since that effort in 2009 I haven't mulled over much of the evidence since. I like many others just don't have the time. It would take someone like Archer to have a change of heart for me to go back to the grindstone.

So more than happy for you to have an opposing opinion. If you wanted to use the link I have provided well and good but perfectly understandable if you don't. Same with the conservative side of politics, but when they start hindering the capacity of the community to act through removing things like solar panel rebates then they should expect a backlash, especially when the community often put their own hands in deep in their pockets to do their bit.

That's when we will see a wake up call.

csteele
The community can provide the solar rebate all by themselves, without the need for government to do anything, can't they? But if they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is, it's not about global warming, the environment, or caring for grandchildren. It's about power, simple as that.

How are you reducing your carbon footprint, btw?

How are you reducing your carbon footprint, btw? ....more the question...How are you doing it?

And yes, to hell with the environment! We can all sustain our present stupidity, cause the human/carbon foot print on this planet, is a load of rubbish.....

"The community can provide the solar rebate all by themselves, without the need for government to do anything, can't they? But if they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is, it's not about global warming, the environment, or caring for grandchildren. It's about power, simple as that."

And there you go. Peter Hume has just illustrative concluded every persons attitude on the planet.....Thanks Peter....there's another 6 billion people that have the same thoughts.

Well Done.

LEAP

Peter Hume has just "illustratively" concluded every persons attitude on the planet.....Thanks Peter....there's another 6 billion people that have the same thoughts.

Sorry:) Typo

Your all a sad bunch this week:)

LEAP

Dear Peter,

If we can find $11 billion dollars in fossil fuel rebates for the mining industry then why shouldn't the community be up for a fraction of that for solar panels?

As to "How are you reducing your carbon footprint, btw?" why on earth should I be telling you? If you were asking advice how you might do the same then I would have no problem but that is not why you are asking is it. Why don't you tell us why you want to know?

I don't usually get into the arguments about climate change because I really don't believe it is human activity that caused it, and I am always afraid of getting lynched :
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 29 May 2011 7:12:00 PM

Oh really:) Then explain this, and tell me how billions of more people than there is now on this planet, wont make the arguments your so afraid of. Here are some links, just to show the non-human effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyOD2YTu_Lg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BseOyexWSm8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_pollution

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=polution+by+humans.+you+tube&docid=836607737994&mid=2129EF276894FE834A5C2129EF276894FE834A5C&FORM=LKVR13

Yes the human impact suzeonline:) your all guilty, and Iam not your friend. Play your cards...........cause we're all watching you all.

And the clock is really ticking.

Good luck.

leap

I never suggested we shouldn't do all we can to preserve our environment and find cleaner ways to provide our world with power, or that the world is worse off with the many more billions of people now living here.

All I said was that I didn't believe that humans could directly affect the climate. I believe the Earth and solar system do that well enough by themselves.

I still prefer solar power, and I ensure I use recycling bins, and I do whatever I can to help lessen pollution on this earth.
For the record, I am not a Liberal supporter or a religious person as such.

I don't need to follow the reasonings of one scientist against another if I don't want to.

That doesn't make me any better or any worse than any 'humans-cause- climate-change-believers', just different.

Sheesh! I just knew I should never have put my thoughts foreword on this subject.
I'm out of here...

Dont worry Sue, your not what we are after:) and its very brave of you to make your opinions here or any where else. I know your in the medical profession, so you see haft of what normal people DONT see each day.......and when I said "Iam not your friend" It means Iam here for the reasoned understandings that we are all here for.

Iam a realist. I can only see real things. And I see the planet that Iam standing on, and if the human-race that I love, destroys the very thing that's given us all this chance to evolve on, how can anyone say what you see is not the saddest thing we are doing to ourselves and all we need to survive on.
I risk jail, persecution, prosecution, and all the rest. What a sad species we have become, and I once had dreams as a child.

You wouldn't think Environmentalists are highly intelligent people:) but we are.
See! there are people that know the truth and if your out of here, then your maybe a rear end of a bad dream:) but Iam not here to insult you, most can do that by themselves.

Thanks to belly, the most sanctimonious realist, in his own right:) I feel for the man, I really do.......but just to understand a dedicated poster....adjective pious, smug, hypocritical, pi (Brit. slang), too good to be true, self-righteous, self-satisfied, goody-goody (informal), unctuous, holier-than-thou, priggish, pietistic, canting, pharisaical, Tartuffian or Tartufian He writes smug, sanctimonious rubbish.....but this is not always the case, but with us all.

A wake up call............I wonder what that means:)

I guess we are human after all, who would of figured:)

Now! back to the earth that gives us all life....and yes....you religious people are in-clued.

Now that we are all here...........speak up, or for ever hold your peace.

LEA

We all have views lets see them here, but can each of us consider both sides?
Banjo the Australian Industry Group, no servant of Labor,and this country's other leading bosses group, believe in man made global warming.
Why if not, do they want a ten dollar price on carbon?
Why is our country seeing the diatribe against the carbon add, but refusing to look at Abbott of former health minister not supporting, yet,plain packs,he will.
Tony will dance naked if it helped.
Why is my country spending so much time money and effort in limiting losses on poker machines but not even trying to stop drug barons becoming millionaires.
We do need to wake up second grade politicians seem to have forgotten what they once stood for.
I offer as evidence Banjo and others STILL beleiving a world wide conspiracy exists, and that we who fear climate change have been conned, as proof we must wake up.

see the joke
we got a KATE/bank-cheque..on tv telling us were bad
[yet on her own mansions roof sit over 60 solar cells]
estimated cost @ 1000$ per cell=$60,000[jeez how much power does she use?

did she get govt subsidy
for her gross excessive abuse of power?

next joke is we got a solar ship..[oops sorry boat]
with 800 solar cells on its extended deck
did they get a subsidy i wonder

[cost 800,000]
to run a large twin hull ferry size boat
PLUS REPLACING THE BATTERIES..[every few years]

[noting its going in..for service at cairns/next]
seems its batteries wear out every few thousand..amp hours .//./lol

but there is yet more
to the joke

see with smokers they learned guilt works
make fools feel guilty you can tax them into their graves

but there is more
usa raises 6 billion..from quater of a billion people

and we 20 million..will be raising 25 billion..
per year]..

[but we dont know EVEN the starting price..[yet]..
nor how much that 'price'..will go up to

so ya kids will be paying
whatever the bankers think we MUST pay
this simngle issue..will cost us the world

the kids will be saying to you
mummmy you paid all our money..to build a forrest
that dont grow food...

now mummy im hungry...
so mummy what will you do?

go right a blankcheque to kate /mate

"If we can find $11 billion dollars in fossil fuel rebates for the mining industry then why shouldn't the community be up for a fraction of that for solar panels?"

It's not the community paying $11 billion for fossil fuel rebates, it's the government. I'm against the fossil fuel rebates rebates - I thought you were too? Yes? So you're not confusing the government with the community.
So the fossil fuel rebates provide no justification do they?
But you're not answering the question. Why don't all those who favour the solar panel rebate pay for it themselves?
If you say it's good for the government to force the taxpayers to pay for the solar panel rebate, because the government presumptively represents the community, then the government represents the community in paying for the fossil fuel rebates. I don't believe it for a minute, but how can you escape this presumption - you're the one arguing it?

"Why don't you tell us why you want to know?"

I want to know because I can't see how any amount of carbon usage on your part is consistent with your beliefs? I thought it was making the planet unsafe for our grandchildren? How do you figure out how much is too much? Why is any amount okay? Doesn't that imply you have a right to exploit the planet, and pollute the atmosphere, and ruin the climate? What about your internet usage? Surely, in the scheme of things, that could not be considered essential? Something you could easily sacrifice for the good of the planet? You want other people to be *forced* to pay for your beliefs - but you aren't prepared to *voluntarily* sacrifice the merest luxury? Doesn't that smack of hypocrisy? Yes?

belly,
You said "Banjo the Australian Industry Group, no servant of Labor,and this country's other leading bosses group, believe in man made global warming.
Why if not, do they want a ten dollar price on carbon?
Why is our country seeing the diatribe against the carbon add, but refusing to look at Abbott of former health minister not supporting, yet,plain packs,he will".

It is obvious that the Industry Group is hedging their bets and having an each way bet. They can see the posibility of the carbon tax and want to reduce its impact.

Maybe the Libs are getting donations from the tobacco industry, it would not surprise. Big busness donates to both major parties to ensure we keep high immigration. Why would mining unions support the carbon tax which will effect the industries their members are in?

You are right in that we have a poor selection of politicians to choose from, each party trying to pick a popularity contest and not put up their basic beliefs and policies. Yep, they are all hollow.

leaper...you should listen to the science
not the scammers..trying to build
the next industrial solution..
[by govt subsidy]

you spent many words saying gibberish/spin
but when you add lime to an acid
the acid aint acid

how to explain it to those full of spin and fear

the ocean is salty
we bath in it
[and it dont melt the skin off our body]

now hold your hand in acid
it melts

[now is the sea/ocean...salty or acidy..
its an either or question]

[yes im aware salt is an acid..[
but is the sea more like a bubble bath
than an acid bath...and there is the spin revealed

yes we got masses of lime...
EXTRACTED FROM THE WATERS OF THE DEEP[sea/ocians]..

IT got into the water..
in the high acid..[relitivly speaking] period..
that melts just enough lime..to neutralise the waters

its a contuinual flux
if all the lime melted into the water
that means all the acid has gotten neutralised

think THE white cliffs of dover..[are made of lime]
so when they say briton has sunk..we THEN may be getting closer

but mate its all lies and spin

spin built on GUILT
so you pay your guilt tax
ITS ALL ABOUT THE NEW BIG TAX..!

just the money..money from you
to big solar...big wind
who made them big?

your tax..!
gifted to you few

its not i.o.u
u.o.me..

for the solar-cells
you got,..from my money

Please note Lexi and others'
For goodness sake folks; the figures input to the IPCC's computer modelling projections are WRONG !
The Uppsala Universities Energy Systems Group showed that.

Until the computer models are rerun using the new quantities of
available fossil fuels all discussion is useless.

Belly, you should turn your hand to writing the script for a Monty Python sketch.

Bus Driver Gillard: OK folks this is your stop.

Passenger: But this stop is not on the schedule.

Driver: Well no, but I did discuss the possibility that we might go there.

Passenger: Yes, but not on this trip.

Driver: Yes, but it’s the right thing to do.

Passenger: Hey, you just missed my stop.

Driver: It’s OK; we are a good bus company but have lost our way.

Passenger: You are missing other stops and the timetable is completely out of whack.

Driver: Just wait until the ads come on TV, they will “explain” everything.

Passenger: Why have you given all the passengers “Gerry Cans”?

Driver: We are low on fuel, our credit card is maxed out and the other bus companies are refusing to let us take more of their fuel.

Passenger: So you want us to go to the fuel depot and buy you some fuel?

Driver: Yes, because we have a “Fuel Change Committee” and they say it’s the right thing to do.

Passenger: We would be better off walking.

Driver: No, that’s not acceptable because Bob Brown, our director of “penance” says you all have to share the pain, it’s therapeutic and the right thing to do.

Passenger: Can we please go back to the terminus and exchange our tickets or a least get another driver?

Driver: No you can’t, this is what you all voted for. Anyway, just think yourself lucky you don’t have that “other” driver, he would make a real mess of things!

Ring ring, ring ring, ring ring……..Oh! my wake-up call. Thank goodness that was just a bad dream.

Being criticised for faith in Christ is so easy when you see the stupidity of those who have faith in the pseudo science of man made global warming. How embarassing for those who are interested in true science. Tony Abbott has only lost credibility because he along with any other person honest knows a that man made global warming is what he originally said it was. How foolish we must look to other countries to destroy our own prosperity all so we can look good in the sight of a few deceived and pompous UN officials.

spindoc
LOL, good one.

Well it is very clear isn't it?
Some cannot wake up.
Some will not.
Peter Hume excuse me, got it wrong.
Long ago thought you to be while different than myself a very bright person.
Personal efforts to stop climate change, surely you do know, are not going to EVER IMPACT much at all.
See the lost comment inferring Blanchets solar panels are subsidized.
I have solar, bought/paid for/installed by me.
I grow trees in my yard, grow some of my food and fruit,give more away than I eat.
But every car running on petrol or its like puts more in the air than I save.
So tax filthy fuels, make searching for cleaner ones worth while, that is fighting carbon.
Bazz your mate Abbott says, but he lies he lies he believes in man made climate change.
Give you an in side tip.
Just as Tony Abbott is about to step in front of a TV crew watch his body language,as soon as his lips move, the very instant, you know he is lying.

It seems not all Liberals are with Abbott on plain packaging.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/24/3225372.htm?section=justin

Abbott is not answering the questions directly because his party receives huge donations from US-British tobacco.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/abbott-defends-antismoking-credentials-20110527-1f6zn.html

I am not sure plain packaging will work to reduce smoking but given the fuss from tobacco groups maybe I am wrong. Older smokers won't be deterred from buying cigarettes, addiction is greater than a pretty package and I imagine most addicted smokers wouldn't give a toss and if they did there are always rollies or cigarett cases.

One of the major arguments is plain packaging will deter the young from taking up smoking. That is what tobacco companies fear most, a drop in take-up and new customers.

Most kids take up smoking to be cool, peer group pressure or to be seen as anti-authority. Will plain packaging influence these motivations in the long term?

However, the Liberal party is losing or credibility on this and many issues, opposing for it's own sake is not a worthy strategy nor does it support the democratic process. The choice for voters in Australia is woeful, a dog's dinner would be preferable to the status quo.

pelican..im a smoker
and couldnt care less about what brand
having competition would be great...

so i agree get rid of brands

but wait/...lets dis-cuss

what the implications..of it will be
see we signed..*every freetrade usa...put before us

and they are all about
branding/patent rights free trading etc

we cant watch some patent/right stuff..here on the web
because of the collective insanity..loyal to branding/patent etc
and fretrade agrements...binding govt from governing..by whim..or lobby

see how ciggies..branding..are the thin edge of the wedge
next we get only plain lable booze..[boy that hurts you dont it]

i dont drink..and like i said
couldnt care less if your wearing niki or levie..mal-bro

but the money men do..!

see after we get plain lable drinks..[as the nannies rekon]
we will go for plain lable lollies..
[diabetus/fatties will ensure this]

well who knows
how far the greenies nanny state
wishes to take it..it worked..*with smokes..why not booze?

so anyhow im fine..

but the thing is
i only got my overnight tax..
as a destraction for the news cycle

just as now
to get their 'other' carbon tax through..
they are now saying look plain lable..[you dont need legislation detail..or numbers]

but the coursts wont uphold it
but note..how EVERYONE gets consulted
except us...not bid business..who got our tax..by lies overnight

its all about..more taxes
[how else..does govt get out of
a yet ever growing deficite..by 2013]
except by collecting..*more tax..from you lot

chuckle
chuckle
go plain lable

how about
pay a tax..on using too much/power
the more you ab/use..the more you pay

and you who got free solar..must re-pay...*double..!

mainly because of the clever scam..
that sees you get double tarrif with fre solar cells

[free solar..then extra price
way abouve true day tarrif rates]

the key is..must be..

HAVE YOU actually...*REDUCED
*your consumption

or only by clever accounting..
payed less cash?
for more..!

When I consider the amount of industrial and commercial waste being dumped into the environment every year, I think I should be entitled to litter without fear of prosecution.

The amount I would drop personally over the years is miniscule compared to the rest and stopping my own activity would make negligible overall difference to the environment.

Likewise, I should be allowed to smoke freely in public places because there are far more carcinogens in the environment to be concerned about and my contribution to endangering public health would also be comparatively very small.

It would seem that the planet has enough non-renewable primary resources to last any size population forever so why not put our own interests first and let's party!

Why don't they just ban tobacco and be done with it ?
Any other product that causes death, they rush around the shops and
take it off the shelves.
I know the arguments about loss of tax and the rights to go to hell as you please.
They are a nonsense, some die a horrible death and some years of illness.
Other things that are banned are much more benighn.
Even the smuggling of tobacco is very difficult as it is so bulky.
I went to H O Wills to repair a computer on one occasion and saw the
arrival of a shipment of tobacco. It was in a number of 40 ft containers
and it could be smelt from many yards away.

Belly, Re Tony Abbot, you are running the risk of sounding paranoid.
You sound like a tabloid news sheet or a radio shock jock.

OUG
The proof will be in the results as you say. It is difficult to predict if plain packaging will reduce take-up. My guess is it won't very much if at all.

Belly
It would be almost impossible to ban a substance once it has been legal for a long time and where there is widespread acceptance (or tolerance) as part of the culture. Part of a good argument for not legalising other drugs. The difference is smoking generally harms only the smoker unless they are smoking in the home where there are young kids or sharing smoke with others in a restaurant etc.

It is the same with other behaviours that might not be healthy such as over-eating, risk taking sports which generally only harm the individual. This is unlike some other drugs where consumption (even in moderation) may infringe on the rights of others who wish to be able to walk down the street without being bashed by someone in a psychotic state bought on by drug use.

I've taken all manner of drugs, and I have NEVER been remotely violent.

I thnk drugs just amplify the person that's already there.

The level of drug debate in Australia, and probably most of the world, is still at the primative VCR-stealing stereotype. Think of who even wants to own a VCR, and you will see who is running the debates; Old fogies. Who have never done any drugs themselves.

If alcohol was replaced even by meth tomorrow, there would be no real difference in violent crime rates. If it was replaced by coke it would even reduce a fair bit, if replaced by ecstacy or heroin it would plummet.

Still, the chardonnay sipping elite that goes through a bottle of $50 wine every night needs to look down on the kid who pops a couple of e's on a weekend, and the coke addicted Lawyer or vicodin addicted doctor is given a slap on the wrist if ever even caught and some teen who dares to have a good time or sells to his friends at a concert because he has contacts gets his life ruined.

I think it's ridiculous to make plain packaging and I don't even smoke. I think it's motivated by Wollies and Coles who'll get in with their home brand, and make it cheaper for smokers.

pelican it was Bazz who spoke about banning it, at times that was my wish but it is a dieing thing in more than one way.
Bazz,sorry bloke we go our separate ways on this one, its ok we can still share some views.
Of those who claim understanding of this issue and Australian politics,some understand.
The committee currently sitting, IS TRYING to set a price on carbon.
TRYING to compare what other country's are doing.
AND considering the total impacts on us.
Tony Windsor,one of the best on ANY SIDE a man who supported a conservative NSW government, now my team, has stated IF WE ACT ALONE he see,s no reason to do any thing.
We are about to be told who is acting.
All this is true, reckon Tony knows this?
Then did you see the silly little man, not a reference to his size,lie in top gear in the house just half an hour ago?
Tony Abbott time and again demands the government give details HE KNOWS THEY DO NOT YET HAVE.
OUG gee mate you make it hard you claim the actress's a power thief,if she is every bird every tree very blade of grass is too.
She bought paid for enough solar panels to never need our power,the Sun gave it to her.
And the plain packet of death you say you can not live without, we are better than that mate, tomorrows victims need todays help.
You find your self in the company of Abbott.

By the way Belly, who is Get-up kidding?

I assume you're in the know about who funds them?

Then again Cate knows what side her bread is buttered on too. More arts funding coming right up!

Belly
"But every car running on petrol or its like puts more in the air than I save.
So tax filthy fuels, make searching for cleaner ones worth while, that is fighting carbon."

Interesting. Reminds me of a story an ex-girlfriend once told me. When she was young, a man raped her.
"Please don't rape me" she had said.
"I have to" he explained "because you won't agree".

Can you see how your moral reasoning is the same? Because you can't get what you want by the *voluntary* actions of people who *agree* with you, you reason that therefore you're justified in getting what you want from people who *disagree* with you, by using *threats or force*.

So whose moral reasoning is wrong? The rapist's? Or yours?

Also, if your moral reasoning is that flaky, what makes you think the rest of your reasoning is any better?

Dear Belly,

Don't put up with that crock from the ol' smoke and mirrors man Hume.

You have every right to make the connection between carbon pollution and smoking. Even to this present day people like Senator Minchen cast doubts on the dangers of both active and passive smoking. 

The ol' Humemiester would have the heavily taxed smoking brigade as victims of your 'rapist' plain packing supporters.

Tell him he should save the bull for the veggie patch.

Fresh from evading my questions proving the hypocrisy of his preaching, csteele rushes into the fray to misrepresent the issues facing Belly, and urging her to use the same tactic and evade me too.

The issue isn't "the connection between carbon pollution and smoking", it's the connection between wanting people to do something, and forcing them.

Still waiting for you to answer why those in favour of rebates or other policy handouts don't just fund it themselves?

If, as Belly says, that's not going to have much impact, then that only proves that you don't represent society in urging such measures on everyone else, doesn't it? Everyone else obviously disagrees with you, or you wouldn't be saying that.

By the way csteele, what was your answers to my questions? How is any amount of carbon usage on your part is consistent with your beliefs? I thought it was making the planet unsafe for our grandchildren? How do you figure out how much is too much? Why is any amount okay? Doesn't that imply you have a right to exploit the planet, and pollute the atmosphere, and ruin the climate? What about your internet usage? Surely, in the scheme of things, is something you could easily sacrifice for the good of the planet? You want other people to be *forced* to pay for your beliefs - but you aren't prepared to *voluntarily* sacrifice the merest luxury? Doesn't that smack of hypocrisy? Yes?

And you've got the gall to accuse me of smoke and mirrors? A bit of projection on your part csteele?

Quantumleap
I'm not reducing my carbon footprint for the same reason I'm not keeping kosher, fasting in Ramadan, or observing Lent.

It is indeed curious how, so soon after the decline of traditional religion in the West, this carbon copy (so to speak) pops up running the same beliefs, only this time blindly worshipping the state instead of the church.

But go ahead and prove my point guys, lay on the ad hominem evasions - because that's all you've got.

Dear Peter,

"But go ahead and prove my point guys, lay on the ad hominem evasions - because that's all you've got."

Lol. You are a funny guy.

Moving right along.

"The issue isn't "the connection between carbon pollution and smoking", it's the connection between wanting people to do something, and forcing them."

Um, correct, that's the argument . That is why we as a community tax cigarettes so extensively. We recognize the harm to individuals and the ultimate cost to the community of the unfettered promotion of an addictive substance. Taxation is a tool used the serve the commonweal.

 Should we instead listen to the smokers and remove all taxes as it infringes on their rights. It flies in the face of one of the guiding principles of Australia, that of the notion of commonwealth. There are other places in the world where this ethic is not as strong and where Atlas' shrug. Thankfully not here.

As to your question I answered it fully.

I keep hearing of this international reputation we have for dragging the chain on climate change. With whom do we have this reputation? Which nations have taken decisive action and are not joining us in 'dragging the chain'? And which of those decisive actions are based any more solidly on science than our up-in-the-air carbon tax which may (or may not) happen? Which nations have taken measures that cannot be disregarded as 'tokenistic'?

Peter Hume, look sorry, I get it wrong, you are in no way bright ok?
Posts here,along with Houlies new thread scream, we need to wake up.
We must stop putting our own hands over our eyes and refusing to see the truth,we are being manipulated.
Again the committee that conservatives refuse to serve on has not yet made any known choices.
They/We do not know the price the impacts the things other country are doing, yet.
But the fact this is so,is used to LIE saying Labor refuses to tell us.
Poor old Houlie wants to pillory get up and Cate based on unions.
BUT no way he will look at EVIDENCE that can NOT be over looked,Tony Abbott and his National Party PARTNERS ARE acting, BASED ON tobacco funding to their party's alone.
We see some wanting to isolate some views/opinions actually claim being wealthy takes your right to haveing an opinion/take sides is no longer yours, UNLESS YOU ARE CONSERVATIVE?
LIBERALISM once its founder said it was for middle Australia.
It will be again, but only after this present party of lies finds its self.
Review if you have the courage Tony Abbott's quotes on climate change, leave a on the birth of a child, his refusal to say what he thinks about plain packs .
This country has 4 living former conservative Prime Ministers all agree with action on climate change.
Abbott stands out ,he defames Liberalism.
Now Know this Gillard should leave Parliament in the same dumpster as Abbott.
I do not claim other but I do say Australia must wake up,to drag issues as big as this down based on thoughts of politicians with no pride is to betray us all.

leaper...you should listen to the science
not the scammers..trying to build
the next industrial solution..
[by govt subsidy]

you spent many words saying gibberish/spin
but when you add lime to an acid
the acid aint acid.

LOL ok OUG:)

We should put a carbon tax on smokers too.
I think another 2 dollars on top of what you inhalers
pay of a packet cigs.....your pollution is pollution OUG:)
I wonder if the big tobacco pays taxes in that respect?
You know Tony rabbit just hits the little guys:)
And the call is, Tony says business is going off-shore because of the carbon taxes......what a load of rubbish! There moving off-shore because they can seek cheep labour and exploit second and third world countries for there resources and continue to poison very thing they effect.

OUG? how long do you think humanity can to get away with what its doing to the planet?

Once this planet is destroyed, you just cant go out and buy another one.

Big business must pay for the damage they do, and no-one will argue that point, and the world can see the damage they do.

LEA

its not for me to educate you regarding ph
clearly your one of the unwashed poor that never had a pool
or done any garening...or kept fish

ph possably looks..even to you
like a thing too big for your little mind to comprehend...
so i will leave u at that..there are other [important things] to dis-cuss.

the big point today sems to be our
carbon creation has hit an all time high
with industry producing them nice solar and wind stuff..thats little supprising

thing is that we collectivly...create too much
yet this tax is a blind instrument..not targeting the big users
[in fact giving them free solar cells...and then extra income on top

how many
with free solar cells
have ACTUALLY used less power in total..?

its the smoking scam all over again
just like this attack on gamblers
guilt..[it works a treat]..just like religion
if you pay for your 'indulgences'...your not indulging

unless your of the sort
who uses daytime power from solar...[which they arnt...
its 'sold' to electTRICK companies,..

and they still feed off the coal power]..24/7...
[or else why pay you for it...[GET IT?]

you high and mighty
holier than thou kate blackcheques of the world
still are using coal power...!..[if your getting a feedback tarrif rate..!]

se proper solar would need to be OFFLINE
ned to be storing ALL its own power
BUT IT DONT..

[to wit its a feel-good SCAM*]
so the big users get big offsets
WITHOUT REDUCING THEIR abUSE..

ohhh soooo clever
the hide of those
sharing collective guilt
then casting stones at smokers

talk about being in denial
lol

'BUT no way he will look at EVIDENCE that can NOT be over looked,Tony Abbott and his National Party PARTNERS ARE acting, BASED ON tobacco funding to their party's alone.'

Where did you get that Belly. It's self evident, I cant believe you would think it's even under question. I think you have pigeon holed me as a coalition supporter or some conservative. Wrong!

But *I'm* not funded by tobacco companies, and I still think it's a daft idea. Tokenism in the extreme. I don't think smokers are loyal to brands, they are loyal to that nicotine stuff that tells their body they need another hit.

Kids see smoking in MOVIES, with COOL PEOPLE, and like ANYTHING that they're not supposed to do that may be DANGEROUS. Girls like that it KEEPS WEIGHT OFF. The brands are neither here nor there, coming AFTER the fact.

There is a very real risk that all this plain packaging, Woolies Home Brand will make smoking cheaper, which can of course be tackled by upping the tax. Hmmmm. Bingo!

Just for the record.

A carbon tax in Australia will not save the planet because it is not at risk. It will keep spinning around the sun regardless of what us humans do. What is at risk is the livability of this fairly unique orb and the abundant though shrinking variety of life it supports including us humans.

The evidence flags a strong possibility that the generally benign climate conditions we have enjoyed as a species over the last ten thousand years, and which have contributed much to the advancement of civilization, may well be being impacted by our use of fossil fuels.

As one of the world's leading emitters there is, I would have thought, a moral imperative to take mitigating measures but if that doesn't push your buttons then the probability of our exports to Europe and other countries being slapped with excise taxes to compensate for our noncompliance is very real. Also the opportunities for the development of renewable technologies are finding far more fertile grounds in other countries. Innovation and manufacturing skills that were our hallmark are quickly giving way to our skill with glorified shovels.

The "She'll be right mate" attitude can be a blessing and a curse.

We can be a very blinkered lot sometimes.

I'm with you csteele.

With this moral imperative, I think we should instantly cut all exports of our resources to the rest of the world. It's not enough to stop burning coal, we shouldn't even be digging it out of the ground, ditto Uranium, and anything that contributes to greenhouse gasses. Slaughter all the cows too. Inhumanely of course, don't want to use any fossil fuels.

Hang on, my infant daughter farted yesterday, she thought it was funny but I will give her a whipping next time!

'The "She'll be right mate" attitude can be a blessing and a curse.'
It seems so too can the anal retentiveness.

Well OUG....Something has to taxed.....25 dollars a packet of poison sticks will do just fine. That way more will quit the habit, plus a big chuck for the Government:).......See! all are winners.

And you wont smell as bad.

LEA

Houlie ,just can not think how you linked my words to think you are payed by big tobacco.
Or that you are a conservative.
Abbott held a meeting with his party, he saw enough would cross the floor to vote with the government.
So he withdrew.
Tony would cuddle climate change to his breast,IF it got him votes.
He has no policy's, none that would work, he is not a Liberal.
Now we get a bit feisty, me no less than any one, in the long run that is life.
But we need to respect if not one another this forum.
It does not need bad publicity,it needs all views and more willing to post, threads in particular.
I want to offend no one, but OUG constantly tells posters, QL this time but me and others.
He alone has insight,and just maybe we who take other views are , well do I need to remind anyone about all views haveing value and people in glass houses.
Every one of us should watch question time, it is a child minding center but informative.
Abbott is openly lying and he is as likely to be leading in twelve months as I am.

Belly,

The only reason that you are spitting the dummy is that the decision by TA to support the legislation on packaging makes every thing you said false. TA never said he would not support it, just that he was concerned that it had no research, and possible severe consequences.

Considering that the coalition introduced more anti tobacco legislation than Labor, and that smoking levels dropped more during this time than any other, makes your claim of the Libs being in the pocket of big tobacco a complete lie.

The difference between this legislation and what the coalition introduced is that the previous changes were trialled and proven, and had legal advice that there would be no consequences, whilst the ALP legislation has the backing of a focus group, and a huge risk of the government paying tobacco billions for IP property.

Once again it is a good idea with the implementation preparation of the pink batts debacle. This is feel good legislation, easily passed because no one likes the tobacco industry.

If I were TA, I would let Labor pass this legislation, and wear the consequences.

Shadow Minister ever let Truth get in the way of a good slander.
I in fact said Abbott would back down.
He has not yet joined the other party's,EVERY OTHER PARTY except his coalition painters in returning tobacco funding.
You and I are entitled to have our say and opinions.
I except my over reactions to you are many and quite wrong.
It is my truly held view you would say and do anything to avoid confrontation with truth and honesty.
I look forward to more of your threads, as time passes we are nearer to Abbott being replaced and if Labor does not do the same your team will govern.
The non core promises will be chin deep.

Belly,

I notice that the ALP gets huge donations from gambling. Should they return it?

Also at what point did Abbott back down. He never said he would oppose it, only that he was concerned it had serious flaws. He now says he will support the legislation, but move some amendments to correct those flaws.

This legislation has been flighted before it is ready simply because Labor is desperate to pass something with some popularity. If the concerns are correct and the government ends up paying big tobacco billions for IP infringement, then it will be another own goal.

While I think Tony Abbott is working toward blocking a bill or a few of them to force an early election he may have trouble and soon.
Remember Turnbull only got a one vote defeat.
And that he,and others intended to vote against their team on climate change.
Without doubt Tiny Tony only backed down on plain packs after it was clear he could not control the vote of some in his party.
A vote on this climate tax is quick sand for the little fella.
I feel it is his waterloo he must be concerned about Turnbulls intentions in that vote.
Others too may put their own views before party lets watch.
Labor can not cross the floor, do not agree with that,but conservatives do.

It is as much quicksand for Juliar. She has not got the backing of Windsor yet.

Even if she does get the carbon tax through, every cost of living increase will be pinned to the tax and to Labor. It is a win win for Abbott and kick me note pinned to the back of the liar.

SM,

This may clarify things for you:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/05/31/carbon-tax-wont-blow-household-budgets

Hey, SM - they're all "liars" it seems....Labor are indeed a monumental disappointment, and it would be so uplifting to have a leader in opposition who seemed to have real vision and to stand for something - other than merely "opposition".

Tony Abbott appears to be an empty vessel in that regard. He's a particularly uninspiring leader from where I'm standing.

.....can you tell me what this man stands for?

Lexi, really.

I have a degree in economics and an MBA, a fluff piece from a greenie website is not going to suddenly light the way. For you a small piece of economics 101.

There are two main factors in the economy i.e. businesses (from heavy industry to hairdressers) and consumers (households)

Industry buys in inputs of goods and services (from other businesses) and labour (from the households) and produces outputs that are consumed and paid for as inputs to other business or eventually by consumers.

Households consume the products and provide labour.

For both business and households the value of products and consumption are equal.

Thus if the cost of inputs (energy) is increased business has either to pass the cost on (which is inflation) or reduce inputs. Given that goods and services are unlikely to decrease, this can only come from reducing labor costs, or finally simply go out of business.

Simply giving cash to consumers to compensate for increased costs boosts inflation further.

Since Ian McAuley publishes articles almost exclusively in support of Labor policies, his fluff pieces reflect more his personal politics than economics.

SM,

I wasn't aware that "New Matilda," was a "Greenie Website," (shock, horror). And your credentials, if I believe you, should have given you the capability to do some lateral thinking. All I ever get from you is no concessions whatsoever - no admittance even of minor points, you seem to simply carry on with the same rhetoric as your party leader. It makes me immune to it all after a while. Every argument being presented to you is either - "motherhood statements,"
"unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo," and now of course - "Green websites."
Listen to yourself. Did you even read the website in its entirety. I thought the author presented a rather balanced point of view - presenting what needed to be done for things to be effective.

For someone who takes pride in their supposed credentials (and I only say supposed - because your behaviour is not that of a well-educated person) - you come across as possibly someone who can do simple arithmetic. The more ambitious accountants foolishly imagine that their trade will one day rival the bar as a training ground for a political career. Certainly skills of accountants at adjusting the books so as to make profits look like losses for tax purposes and at making losses look like profits to fool shareholders are of great assistance to parties, especially those of the right or the affluent left.

Did you fail at a political career?

Lexi/Poirot you do not need to rebut Shadow Minister, he does it best.
We all know we should not get involved in verbal tennis with him.
He has no strings in his racket, yet it is for filling to take an easy win.
Facts are we do need to wake up, in the strangest way, for a place that puts so many conspiracy theory's out we may be victims of a real one.
I do not speak for propaganda reasons, but just airing my true belief.
Labor, other than just a few is by far better than the front bench of the opposition.
Maybe not some little Tony holds back, young new blood left to go stale.
But we are unable to hear from them.
Medea,now remember privately owned, just as likely SM could own part,is ignoring our country's best interests.
Tell me, headlines about pink bats, but no indignation about conservatives being funded by tobacco.
Mountains built from ant nests against Labor but few words saying Tony little man is the only living conservative leader not supporting a cost on green house gasses.
Wake up Australia.
If we elect one of these two leaders we do no favors for our country.
When will the media be honest about the fact we are followers not leaders in costing carbon.

Poirot,

Fiscal discipline and competent government.

As opposition leader, his job is to get rid of the most incompetent and dishonest government under Juliar that Australia has probably ever seen.

As for what the libs stand for, it took me 10sec to find this.

http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/~/media/PlatformV11version3.ashx

If you rely on information from the Labor party, you will be in the dark

csteele
I point out one set of false beliefs, you lie that you answered my questions when you evaded them, and then trot out another set of false beliefs which you make no attempt to prove.

But if it's true, when what is the limit, if any, to this wondrous invention of taxation? Why shouldn't the tax rate on everything be 100 percent?

"We as a commmunity" don't tax, the state does. You are simply parroting your brainwashed beliefs that they are the same thing.

Cars and butter kill far more people than cigarettes - should be they illegal too?

Why shouldn't everything be illegal that you don't like?

I recommend those who truly want to know about politics in this country watch question time.
On again tomorrow and the real Anthony Abbott can be seen.
He refuses to tell you, I already know, his carbon scheme is a multi billion dollar tax on us mostly paid to polluters.
We need to wake up.

Belly,

I used to watch question time or listen to it on ABC News Radio....I was truly a political animal. But with this crop of pollies, I can't see any merit on either side.

Isn't it incredible that in a country of 22 million people, that the best we can elect to represent our interests is this rag-tag bunch of middle-class ignoramuses....sad really.

Dear Poirot,

I'm currently home with a rotten cold so I watched "Question Time," today - as a deflection. What ever happened to statesman like behaviour and common courtesy? Or at least answering questions that are being asked. All they seem to do is attack each other. And then pat each other on the back with set up questions from the back-benchers. As you said - it is sad - made sadder still because these are people who are supposed to represent us. They don't seem to be able to extend basic courtesies to each other. What would overseas visitors think of our pollies - if they sat in the public gallery. It looks more like a dog-fight than anything else and I feel so sorry for the Speaker of the House who
has to keep shouting -"Order! Order!" Poor man! I hope he's well paid.

it was an interesting question time bellies
you can get transcripts of the parlementry stuff here
http://www.openaustralia.org/?keyword=house%20hansard&creativeid=1117913217&gclid=CMGSzPi5rKcCFQXabgoda1BHAA

here is the link to question time
http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-03-24.75.1

just listen to the interjection on this question
http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-03-24.94.1

its about typical of the level of debate
in lue of supplying facts

labrats are bending backwards
to give insults in lue of answers
especially note the pm jiliars reply
to tonies first question..

it was all about how immoral tony/lib's are
and no attempt to reply his question

http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-03-24.93.2

i have noticed govt policy now seems to be
release sceme's..
but not the fine details

then insult the oppisition...
in lue of giving the facts
diont govern..just name call on todays main talking point
[fishing for the headline...that makes todays news not that they didnt give the full details again]

but that mr turn bull into spin..wants tonies job
as if thats news

real news hould present the real detail
or embarris govt into talking about
the relitive ploicy facts/details
of their latest scam/sceme/tax

todays questioning time?

mate just relax
more of the same..

thats the neo labrat/
independant greenie clan..game plan*

QL,

The issue isn't CO2 mate, the issue really isn't that clear cut. The current climate cycle bears way too many similarities to that experienced in the 1890-1900 period (massive eruptions, tsunamis, fires, drought, floods, the works) for it to be so simple. Yet according to the experts, CO2 emissions have increased exponentially since then.

There is also the acknowledged effect of tsunamis (massive volumes of water heated by the sun that is normally deep in the ocean), volcanic eruptions (SO2 emissions are far worse for the ozone layer than CO2 - they are oxidized to give oxygen and SO3) while ash clouds provide a denser blanket for UV than CO2 does. The Northern Hemisphere is actually cooling, which is arguably a natural response to warming in the Southern Hemisphere (that is what happens in ice-ages).

The difficulty is not evidence, it is working out what the evidence points to, carbonic acid causes much lower acidification than the dissolving of SO2/SO3 in oceans. Emissions from natural sources dwarf those of Industry, how do the greens propose to cap the emissions from the volcanoes in the Northern Hemisphere?

BTW I actually support a tax on carbon, I just dislike quasi-scientific arguments that ignore ACTUAL data in order to make the point. The rapid decline in carbon sources provides sufficient grounds to tax those who are utilizing it inefficiently. Surprising no-one very much, the major cost will be borne by those who escaped wearing the mining sur-tax.

Custard while I believe in man made climate change I too give credence to your case as put, as in part a contributor.
Some say we can look at statements that it is the hottest/coldest wettest /dry est day in years as proof it has happened before.
All ok, but not all together.
In another post I spoke about local rain fall figures.
It equals out, droughts followed by rainfall and floods.
But the last 6 years are the worst for rain exceeding norm in this area.
Now for question time, GIVE IT A MISS OUG HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR labrats COMMENTS.
Poirot you should look, I promise you and Lexi it has always been this bad.
That sickens me,but is true.
The pressure being put on the chair is going to bust, he looks to be about to give it up.
But watch the lies and worse on display, know it is a war.
Abbott is manipulating question time to gain headlines.
OUG enough mate I tried then gave up on you many times, once thinking you to be both broke and depressed tried to get money to you for your tobacco, a gift it would have been.
Posting here may well be good for you therapy, but your self confidence is miss placed.

Belly,

You're right - I can long remember question time being a free-for-all. Politicians are masters at not answering the question put to them and introducing their own agenda....and questions asked from the government's side have always been used as an extra opportunity for government promotional spin.

I believe the delicate balance of power is making the speaker's job far more difficult as his orders now can be defeated if one of the independents sides with the opposition - it's a matter of a loss of his sense of authority.

.....I still believe they are a very ordinary bunch - as Lexi intimated, there's not a statesman in sight.

Dear Peter Hume,

Your post was very good lol. Thank you.

I have been escalated to liar. Wow. All I did was call you funny.

Now just for the record my very amusing chap I have not said smoking should be illegal I have just said it should be taxed commensurate with the harm it causes and the cost to the community. This is exactly what should inform a tax on carbon.

The distinction between the state and the community should be far less in a democracy like ours but you seem to view a substantial chasm. Are you an Ann Rand fan?

By the way your question was indeed answered fully. To expect the answer you would like would have been presumptuous. You got what the question deserved.

Poirot we you, me Lexi want better, yet we know it has always been so.
We should not let the idiotic displays blind us to truth, some great talent can be found on both sides.
It exists.
A proud history of very real Wits exists in our Parliament, in every state one too.
Unfortunately, no play on words fact, some are very much twits.
It is a place for school yard bully's, not unlike any bad day in any boys school.
Yesterday, do not get me wrong Labor is nearly as bad,a very good speaker came close to leaving his job.
I offer both conservatives and others to watch if able today.
Look at Pyne/Bishop/Abbott appear to play silly kids smirking at the teacher.
See time after time both sides act that roll.
But too watch member after member rise to ask questions they under stand no answers exist for yet.
In an effort to sell the big new tax carbon lie.
But see also Abbott skip with every bit of his athleticism any move to pin him down on the costs of his scheme, and the fact it too is a tax on us not business.
Poirot we will never get perfection/best/near it government.
But for those who look gems can be found on both sides in the rubbish bin that is our Parliament.
I look as much for the best of a bad bunch knowing we will find no statesman, other than Rudd on any front bench yet.
Bill Shorten this country waits.

While I agree in principle, it is most likely due to the fact that the government has such a poor record when it comes to implimenting anything, that the opposition has to oppose.

Take plain packaging.

The problems I see.

A customer goes to buy a pack of winfield blue.

First, the assistant has to hope that they were placed in the correct spot, so they have to check every pack. Time costs money.

Now let's say the customer gets the wrong brand.

They then return the cigs but their receipt says they got what they paid for. More wated time and costs.

Now, if a condition of buying cigs was that they must be removed from their packet and placed in a plain bag, do you think this would deter smoking. NO!

Yet another complete waste of time and money. This is why TA opposses it.

Some items revealed from the Garnaut report:

THE Government's top climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has belled the cat on Julia Gillard's false claims that only 1000 companies will be affected by her carbon tax.

Professor Garnaut had the honesty to say what Julia Gillard won't.

He said: "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price" and that "for households, carbon pricing will raise the price of electricity".

Families across NSW are going to be hit hard by Labor's carbon tax.

Just for starters, a carbon tax at $26 a tonne would raise power bills by $500 a year. It will add 6 1/2c a litre to petrol prices and will raise grocery prices by 5 per cent.

A carbon tax may start between $20 and $30 a tonne but that won't be where it finishes.

you have got a lot of milage from offering
to buy me a pack of smokes..

*[which i declined..
explaining it was a principle..not a shortage of cash]

mate im not including you..as a labrat
but your party machinations..by those who promise one thing
then do the very thing..they said they wouldnt do...

its not about you..
its about them

i cant promise to exclude..use of the apt phrase
and include any elected party minester..with thin skin
[like the meouew..[so called cat noise]wrong penny created as destraction..from yesterday

where the delicate* flower..[lab/ratter]
http://www.openaustralia.org/search/?s=penny+wong
decided to refute a point..
to try to make a bigger point
over reacting to a wisperd exhale

that no doudt destracted..the press yesterday..
from the real issuess..even today

the poor thing
even her funny reply
[glossed over by the media]..
deneying herself to be a woman..!

wasnt noticed..in the destractions that followed
it could be said she needs to grow a pair..getting upset
over..[being excluded]..from tha catty mob..the poor thing

so delicate
she shouldnt be in politicks

now what was the topic..*here again
who knows..its about ignoring what others think
making others look like beggers..
while ourselves looking like victims.[pure..*white as driven snow]..

and just getting your own adgenda..
on the news cycle
in a positive light..
with a minimum of detail..
while making their deneyers...

*look childish

making uncalled for promises
or recalling a thing that never happend
going over..the same..im good ..your bad..ground...again and again

lets hear the call
and wake up

Dear Lexi

Agree 100%.

Part of the problem is the adversarial style of debate, which encourages cheap shots.

Pollies should note the Comedy Debates - prefer Paul McDermott over cat-calls.

I guess when a Liberal Pollie disagrees with a male Labor Pollie s/he woofs?

Dear Ammonite,

Yes - the recent calibre of Liberal frontbenchers are completely unspoiled by failure.

Shadow Minister,

You need to quote fully what Professor Ross Garnaut actually said - otherwise it gives people the wrong impression Sir.

According the an article in The Herald Sun, Prof Ross Garnaut said that households should have their compensation for a carbon tax ramped up over time after the plan is introduced.

His report called for two round of tax cuts over time to provide more assistance to households. Prof Garnaut said 55 per cent of the $12 billion that would be raised by taxing big polluters in the scheme's first year should go to households through generous tax cuts and benefits payments.

Within 10 years of assitance this should increase to 60-65 per cent of the money raised by taxing polluters.

"It makes sense from equity and efficiency perspectives for households to ultimately receive the vast majority of the carbon pricing revenue."

Prof Garnaut says most money should go to low and middle-income earners, but recommended lifting the tax-free threshold to $25,000 so all workers get some benefits.

"Raising the tax-free threshold would have the effect of cutting tax for all taxpayers including high income taxpayers." He said this would drive more people into the workforce.

"Over time... there will be further opportunity to provide more assistance to these households through a second round of tax cuts."

Prof Garnaut said there was a case for "structural adjustments" for workers and communities in coal regions or other high emitting regions that will be hit hardest by the new tax.

He recommends $1 billion over four years be set aside to help those communities.

I have rebutted SM in another thread, he nearly word for word told the same story, watch question time at 2pm worth it.
Rechtub launches the Minister for silly walks defense claiming to channel Tony Abbott.
Let us ignore the fact the world health organization and almost every national one wants an end to smoking.
As a retailer Rechtub would know cigarettes are stored in racks.
After this in behind closed doors,no mistake possible bloke so flogging a dead horse.
Abbott once totally believed in man made climate change, he has held every view on every issue.
He will use the view that helps him, EVEN IF HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT.
OUG no not a labrat, ok but you defame me.
I would go without to help any one, am what I am because others did just that for me.
Hungry childhood made me.
I am a social activist because I saw pain every day.
The fact you defame every thing I believe ,and that I still talk to you,surely proves it is not for any other motive.
In truth this is me, I do not care what you think of me.
But you claim to care for battlers by supporting this spoiling opposition?
No other road exists,that is not a dead end but Labor for constructive change.
See the Victorian governments passing of a bill to allowed religious bigotry and NSW one restoring work choices for its workers
Know Abbott is no different.
Wallow in your self image but try to grasp reality.

Question time and other cuts from federal Parliament yesterday,made me wish every one could have seen it.
One point stands out to me,we do need an understanding compromise is needed in such a Parliament.
But we are getting a Tony Abbott sponsored confrontation instead.
And it is a poor out come for this nation.
It is unlikely we will get a hung Parliament again soon.
But the senate will see negotiations needed.
Or will they.
Majority interests are rarely served by greens policy's.
So why not deal.
I think conservatives will without doubt in my mind back down on climate change and the tax/ETS.
And that the easiest way ,for both party's, to dump policy's is to dump leaders, blaming them for the policy's, not an unusual act.
Similar views on mining tax and refugees,together non green groups could drop the confrontation and settle both matters, after true negotiations.
Our country's politics is being held to ransom by the need to win elections not govern well, by confrontation to turn votes not best out comes.
Abbott remains the man he always was, lifted by Labor to his current heights he strangely is the reason Gillard survives.
We voters end up uncared for by both sides as personal victory's wins over actions/.

Belly, nice shot, but I am afraid you are wrong with regards to plain packaging.

Have you ever seen a staff member place an apple into the orange stack? Answer, no, nobody could make that mistake. Much like a pack of Winfield blue compared to Marlboro red.

Now, wrap both the apples and oranges in plain packages, with just a simple label Orange/apple, and I bet you would see a mix up or two.

Smoking is an addiction and to simply make the package look less appealing will achieve nothing, other than possible confusion for retailers.

Remember, it’s the cigarette that is smoked, not the packet.

The fact remains that this reckless government has gone from one disaster to another with regards to both policy announcing and implementation.

The sad reality we must all face is that we have had billions wasted and still they continue to waste billions and announce policies without facts.

Now if our two key independents were in fact ‘independent’ then things may well change.

Trouble is, one is a lunatic and the other doesn’t want to rock the boat as he is about to retire.

Come July 1 this may change. We can only hope.

Lexi,

I have neither the intention or space to reproduce the entire report. The excerpts as per basic economics show that consumers inevitably pay 100% of the tax, and the 50-65% compensation they do get will not necessarily go back to the economy.

If they have a choice between a higher priced Australian made item or a carbon tax free import, guess where they will spend their money? The boom might be driven by mining, but the manufacturing sector still employs far more people.

The question will be: Are you better off with a carbon tax, and the answer will be overwhelmingly NO.

As the old saying goes; getting burnt once is an accident, getting burnt twice is careless, getting burnt a third time is stupid. let's see what australians go for at the next election.

Individual, hope it helps, maybe you should not sit on the BBQ?
Rechtub, sorry no, the whole world awaits Australia's actions.
It seems the ugly nature of the packs is reversing the reason most took up smoking,to look cool.
As for your line about oranges and apples, bloke you do not believe that? no you could not run a business and think that.
It clearly is not going to be easy to wake some up.
They are deeply in a coma.

SM,

You don't have to quote the entire report. Nobody is suggesting that you do. However you should cite the full quote - not just a selective portion - was the point I was making. A partial quote does give people the wrong impression - but then you know that.

Ross Garnaut is an avid supporter of climate change action. His nuggets of truth are buried amongst explanations that all will be OK.

These nuggets include that

1 the man in the street will in one way or another pay for the tax,
2 without a global agreement there will be no visible change for Australians. All he can offer for this global agreement is that he hopes that Australia has some influence.
3 Jobs will be lost in the carbon intensive and trade exposed businesses.

I could go on. I challenge you to refute any of what I said.

SM as you are aware some who will be fined only export ,so we will not pay for them.
in the long run I do not feel like constructing a defense,you are very near right.
The idea as you know, is to progressively force nonpolluting fuels and methods on polluters.
No ETS TAX or fines for clean industry drives better out comes.
Save some of your ammo, see little doubt exists, your side here and in your HQ tea party Republican America,changes will see a change adopting an ETS a conservative wish,,,again.
Give you some ammo, question why a tax on clean LPG, why stop solar industry's for the second time,plenty of good true stuff about the tide is turning on this one ok?

Belly,
Poor sod, you just cant't stand it when someone shows more sense than you can muster.
Last time I sat on the BBQ I thought I'd noticed something move in the ember, t'was you was it ?

Individual have another look at your post in fact mate at your last say ten.
Are you having any issues? I hope not true, but do it for me old mate.
Have you noticed you tend to put every one down.
Not just me I can take what I dish out.
But this poor sod, me,is willing to bet my house against your cat or dog, my IQ is better than yours, no bluff.
You leave no room to retreat, no room to Say sorry I got it wrong.
Face to face we would not say those words, you would,within a sentence understand it is no way to talk to a man.
On the phone it would be the same.
Here in print a beckon shines just as it does in body movements we know as body Language.
Yours is pomposity.
My thoughts views and ideas are mine I own them,believe in them.
Remind even you when I am wrong
Individual my poor old mate, consider this.
Life has told me this,those like you,who consider them selves always right others always wrong are to feel sorry for, and rarely,your posts prove it ,right.
Wake up mate you are looking at your phone number not your IQ

SM,

Are you simply stirring? We've already covered all of this ground - can't you come up with anything better? I mean come-on. If you've actually read Prof. Garnaut's report you should know that houeholds will have their compensation for a carbon tax ramped up over time after the plan is introduced. The money raised by taxing big polluters will go to households through generous tax cuts and benefits payments. As he stated, "It makes sense from equity and efficiency perspectives for households to ultimately receive the vast majority of the carbon price revenue."

There will be a huge change for Australia - with new tenchnology and investment in renewable energies - creating more jobs and a cleaner environment. Benefits for us all.

Finally, there will be - "structural adjustments" for workers and communities in coal regions or other high emitting regions that will be affected by the new tax - Prof. Garnaut recommended about $1 billion over four years to be set aside to help those communities.

I hope this clarifies things for you (again - sigh).

Hi Lexi,

You used the "structural adjustments", which tends to bring a person like me out in hives....'tis a freaky phrase, as structural adjustments have been employed by the IMF and World Bank to take advantage of third world economies....hopefully it has an entirely different meaning in our case.

http://www.essentialaction.org/imf/saps.htm

Lexi,

I am perfectly clear on what Garnaut means.

I am also perfectly aware of the implications. Coming from the manufacturing sector, I am acutely aware that all manufacturing uses energy. And all manufacturing competes fiercely with products from China, Indonesia, etc none of which are going to be subject to a carbon tax.

For example, a mill that buys waste paper from councils and produces boxes competes directly with China, South Africa etc. Bulk energy makes up 10% of their total cost, and is set to double with the carbon tax. Mills in Sydney and Melbourne are set to close, and one in Perth already has.

There is now a market to sell the waste paper to China, and net emissions will not change.

SM, this is the problem that many don't see. It's not their fault as the majority of them have never created a single job, they have simply been provided with a job.

You see, the emissions are not going to go away, as long as the demand for paper etc continues and it will.

The emissions, along with the 'jobs' will simply leave our shores and go elsewhere.

I go back to my original possition of years ago and say, we need to deal with carbon, rather than try to reduce it.

Carbon capture should be at the forefront of research.

Using plantation timber for building is one way, the carbon is captured for ever. Or at least for the life of the house.

Perhaps we can lock carbon up in items such as bricks and concrete.

Perhaps it can be used in road surfacing, or car panels. Who knows, I am not a scientist.

However, what I do know is that so long as demand remains to grow, it will be impossible to reduce emissions while feeding this demand and, if we don't feed the demand, another country will while omitting the same emissions.

CO2 is a 'wolrd problem' not and Australian problem.

They say that Australia's CO2 output (globally) is likened to one single hair on the gateway bridge.

This is a global problem and until every nation takes action, only the 'good guys' will loose.

When is this government going to loose its obsession for holding trophies, most of them failures.

Lexi Shadow Minister under stands his job however is to be a brick wall to truth.
Rechtub probably does not.
Butcher old mate you sound, no truly,like you are dressed in bib and brace over alls straw hat on your head.
Standard redneck stuff.
A worker who never created a job?
Boss must be a real dill employers employ to produce.
Good workers produce including jobs.
As I advised SM the tide has turned 74% say they believe in man made climate change.
One day, not a long way away, you side will adopt it too.
ONE wish if I could get just one,every climate change denier who like your self based their views on no understanding ,would have to wear a clapboard saying so one day a week.
Abbott's would read so I lied whats new.

Belly,
obviously IQ has got nothing to do with spelling. You think I'm putting everyone down ? Well I'd call it stirring them to wake up. You see one of the major causes for dysfunction in our society is the handing out of accolades at every whim. People who happen to do once in a while what their job dictates become heroes. People who die in accidents become heroes. People who can run faster than anyone become heroes. People with education (but no sense) become pillars of society. Crook Judiciary & politicians become honourable. The list of people who think they're clever but do a lot of damage is long. In fact it has become so long that the average non-thinking football watching beer guzzler accepts this dreadful situation as normal. You just let these half-baked academics walk all over you without any qualm. That's why Belly, I stir. To make them think !

im yet to hear the science
think of it a bit less hysterically

c02...is one carbon
with two oxygen

water is h20
now h is hydrogen..[2]
oxygen one

how better than to put c02
[or rather the 0...for the water...up in the sky]

we say rainfall has slowed
but as chibna gears up it suddenly has increased
AS THEIR C02 INCREASED...a few years lag..we get rain*

think about it
when more effective western methods cleaned up the 'polution'
of the skies..less carbon...[and thus less oxygen]..to make it rain
[was released..thus reduced rain/droudt..etc...[cause of the ozone hole?]

recall thatcher started this
when she said the earth was going to cool
when the earth got hotter..[less clouds/smoke..allowing more heat]
it then became lets tax carbon..cause its heating...

then when that was refuted...
it became change....

[add in the spin/buzzword climate...[lol]..
it became..

c-lie/mate change]

its only china...hitting its big carbon peak
thats bringing back the rain

so we make less c02
our farmers go back into droudt
our damms get empty

we need more co2 than kyoto
not less c02...as this lie is currently doing

we ned a balance
the ignorance has spread too far

if we can handle the rain
maybe the co2 level..of 2009
is the true limit

but sciebnce has gone into shame/blame
legislate /trade mode
and the decieved
have gone deaf

bring it on

we have to stop china poluting*
to bring back the droudt*

Deat Individual,

You have to admire academics.
They hide their lack of talent so well.
Unlike some people who don't have one
single redeeming defect.

Unlike some people who don't have one
single redeeming defect.
Lexi,
My sympathy. Don't give up yet.

OUG sorry you can no longer expect me to read or respond to your posts,get well.
Individual we have been here before.
I do not agree with you.
Yes you stir, and yes I can not spell, have little idea of sentence composure.
Not idea of grammar.
But if this is a swimming pool you seem to be trying to do a triple somersault from the low board at the shallow end of the pool.
And to have done so often.
If you research, just in this thread look at your post before the BBQ sarcasm of mine.
Now see your all knowing all encompassing slur? you know its aim was to fire me up don't you.
I did well to use humor and the lowest form at that.
Your view every Labor voter is a lessor being weary me.
The slanted nature spotlighting Labors faults , but refusing to contemplate Abbott's failures too.
If you cast your bait over the waters you must in time expect it will be bitten off.
Did you look, at those ten posts? good now read the last ten of OUG and tell me what its all about.

Belly,
A couple of things here. Tony Abbott's failures ? I didn't know he was already elected ?
Regarding OUG, I don't read those posts because I lose concentration trying to get the gist.
What exactly is slanted about pointing out a political parties failed policies, especially when I am personally affected by them ? My view about Labor voters is that I hardly know a single one who is not selfish & opportunistic. I would be one of the most vehement labor supporters if Labor were Labor. Sadly, in my view they've become nothing but a self-serving academic yuppie club supported by people who are not much better of character. If you want me to give a more positive opinion then ask them to lift their game rather than just tax us into the ground to pay for their failed policies.

Dear Individual,

I won't give up on people - especially one's who think they
know everything. That points clearly to a political career.

Belly,

The tide has turned? While most believe in man made climate change, as I do, the majority are against taking unilateral action before our trading partners do.

Given that this was clearly stated in the Newspoll study, I would suggest that Belly is definitely a stranger to the truth.

Belly, you are so one eyed that it is blatantly obvious to everyone. Your unerring support of failed Labor policies, without even the fig leaf of reasoned debate, exposes you as a hollow puppet of the idiot left.

SM,

I won't accuse you of being narrow-minded in your political thinking.
However, as I've stated previously - you're the only person I know who can see through keyholes with both eyes. So your remarks to
Belly can't be taken seriously old chap.

Shadow Minister some thing tells me you are an intelligent man, not obviously your words here.
You constantly knowingly defame me, Individual does too, but some thing tells me he knows no better.
Yes, thank you for agreeing with me man made climate change is real.
If only we can together,look under the blanket that covers your sides plans to fix it.
We can not, partly because of Rudd's idiotic act of cowardice in not going for both a double dissolution and ETS,powered by Gillard and her lead weight faction, no one wants to.
No one cares while Labor has painted a bulls eye on its chest.
But shock jocks, media biases but consumed without looking are running out of room.
America and big money fund the scare campaign, but eyes are opening.
And understanding is taking place.
Be honest mate!even Abbott's figures say 4 billion dollars funds his scheme.
Those figures funded by tax payers call for EVERY INCH OF EXISTING FARM LAND TO BE PLANTED IN TREES
They play a roll we should forever plant more than we cut down but we must grow food.
The wanted out comes for the fight against climate change , it seems too late but we must try or die, is reduction in use of dirty fuels.
Development of clean energy.
The introduction of a tax better ETS puts us on a war footing, at such times we progress much faster,you SM know all that.
If it was possible this very day, I would promote a double dissolution election.
My party right now would not win, greens however may get it in the neck,an out come I want before I die.
Your party, gee the lies the non core promises the targets Abbott has set but never intends to carry out warms me in the coldest night.
Australians, intent on not looking deeply need the wakeup, the earth quake, such a mistake would bring.
But we are not far away from the day Abbott is unmasked for the fraud he is.

Belly,

As Lexi says, you should not be taken seriously. Are you enjoying your tea party with UOG?

Lexi,

Given your unbridled support of Labor policies, you could also look through down a rifle barrel with both eyes.

But we are not far away from the day Abbott is unmasked for the fraud he is.
Belly,
you're jumping the gun here aren't you ? It would be different if you'd said he could turn out to be. But no, you choose to accuse without evidence up front.
I am not at all out to defame anyone, I'm merely encouraging them do it themselves.

Whereas Juliar has already been unmasked as someone who will promise anything and ditch it as soon as it is inconvenient. Climate change and asylum seekers are two cases of where she is doing what she promised not to.

Can anyone tell me what this woman stands for? Really.

Belly, I do not deny that there is man made climate change, never have. So I don't know where you came to that conclution.

What I do know is that your party, along with its 'puppets' simply don't get it, so I will try in vien to explain it to you.

JOBS WILL BE LOST - FOREVER!

Why? Because our trading competitors don't have a carbon tax.

They already have a huge advantage with their low wages and poor working conditions so it is simply a mater of GAME-SET and soon to be MATCH!

Now it's not your fault as you lot don't create jobs, you simply try to save them at all costs.

The recent pay rise is a perfect example of not understanding the needs of all concerned.

Now as for OUG, I have not read a single post for as long as I can remember as I find it hard to deal with someone who talks in riddles.

At least he/she has refrained from the multiple links, at least to some extent.

Gentlemen, thanks in those posts after mine you show the white flag.
Shadow minister says Lexi thinks I should be ignored,SM do you stand by that?
I get no joy from targeting OUG, he has issues but self help works best.
Actually have read most of what he posts and a brain exists there not always on display.
Is it my right to say that,do I need to?
Unsure but as his insults got worse toward me and my party and further from any reality I said what I had been thinking for some time.
I will not rebut the targeting of Gillard , you know I want her gone, take Fitzgibbon/ Crean and a few others with her, Clean out the Mark Latham cupboard.
All this is true, yet THANKS ONLY to Tony Abbott we are a very real chance of winning the next election.
The man is a fraud, a confrontation on bicycle wheels looking to pick a fight any fight,first punch is to the head of honesty.
A kick in the guts follows.
Tony Abbott is still very much the mad monk.
SM start another thread, one about how useless you think our actions in global warming will be, REMEMBER ,keep it honest your thread fail to fire under the fire blanket of your miss use of titles and truth,I will come,armed only with honesty,a deadly weapon for you there.

Belly,

I believe that you believe what you say when you post your opinions. However, this does not make them the truth. When I post my opinions backed by links to polls, political commentary, you don't even try and rebut, only slag me off personally.

You are so set in your ways that I believe that you wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit you.

SM,

Can you please tell us what Tony Abbott stands for? And how is he going to do better than Labor on any of the problems that the country is currently facing? You see no matter who's elected - the problems still remain.

As for my being a Labor supporter? I don't have a choice in the matter at present. In a true show of big business support Mr Abbott wants to directly tax Australians. He does not want to put a cap on gasses, he does not want to reduce pollution and he doesn't want polluters to pay for anything. In fact he wants us to pay them. This in itself is a clear indication that the corporate sector is steering the political stances here. It's also evident of late, how any serious detail to the oddities of Mr Abbott's plans are ignored.

If you question the legitimacy of why I support Labor - you need to look at the reasons for why a supposedly intelligent man like yourself - does not? Unless of course you're driven by greed. Then say no more.

Shadow Minister you are at it again, the insult was needless bloke.
Think back find it in your heart to see I am a counter puncher never a king hit man.
In front of me, on the wall are the standard a 4 photo frames holding certificates and awards.
I am most proud but not big headed about those from my workmates and members.
No one, bosses to ever called me a lier.
You do often.
I could blast in to heated rebuttal, but not needed.
You in your blindness rebut your self, yes I do not post links,still no expert never had a formal lesson.
SM I would love to see the out comes of our views in ten years I learn from my mistakes you bury yours as a dog does a bone.
You,no joke, no taunt,need to understand your self confidence is truly miss placed your understanding nonexistent.
You would fit in well on Abbott's front bench, no talent no pride and no idea
Shadow Minister it is such as you who will help Labor be returned crying wolf is not policy making.
Australia is wakening I thank you for your help and inability to see reality.
But in time you will come to under stand this.
My words, unlike yours are balance, you never ever say a bad thing about your team.

Clean out the Mark Latham cupboard.
By throwing him out they got rid of the last vestige of labor.

god bless osmosis

individual/quote..""I am not at all out to defame anyone,
I'm merely encouraging them do it themselves...""

i tend to agree
and belly should know im angry at his party
NOT him*

its them i call larats
not you..but now i said that 3 times allready
[and considering individuals 'osmosis'..and sadiomasic minester's statements.,..opposing your's..with inverse affect]..well enough said

the issue continues...lexies statements..mainly indiate dissatisFACTION..with sm...on the grounds of tonies stand
[tony is a phoney lexie..but so too..[worse]..is juliar.

its her bringing in the wrong solution
to the wrong problem..

but as you claim to be one of the group..
its futile to write it again

BIG BUSINESS..isnt paying the tax...!
the midle income workers will be paying it to the 1000
who then pass on the money...first to govt..then to the bank

to say ONLY ONE THOUSAND WILL PAY..is a lie..!
we ALL shall be paying..SOME will get cash back..others will loose cash

BUT WE ARE ALL PAYING*

i presented basic science
that rebuts us causing the climate
we are subject to a huge fire in the sky
that heats us during the day

AT nmight...that cools ...about ten degrees
if night is longer..it gets so cold..we get ice
or so warm as to slow cook an egg...the climate also varies..according to how far from the fi8re in the sky we are
[the orbit is oval shape...hus when we are further..we get cooling trends

and closer we get warming

to any who think
light a fire..at night
it rises up into the sky
till the freezer...[outer space]..cools it down

se hot air rises
cold air falls
thus ice on mountain tops

the tax does nothing
but take from you..to give to others

just like the guilty
with day time heat trapping thingies..[solar sells]
on their roof...bought /paid for by govt...

who in blinding them
got their loyalty..cause they drank the cool-aid
let them pay the new tax..i couldnt care less
but if any read they heard me say that often

In fact he wants us to pay them.Lexi,
There is no fairer system than user pays. We, the consumers are the users. As a consumer all we have to do is ask for less & the polluting will lessen. Any village idiot can grasp that concept. If only the intellectuals could rise to the common sense of a village idiot, we'd be ok.

OUG...You truly are a strange individual indeed. I found this clip from you tube and I was wondering if you could translate the text for [me].

god bless osmosis

individual/quote..""I am not at all out to defame anyone,
I'm merely encouraging them do it themselves...""
Ezekiel 25:17

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujm9BLzaaBo&feature=related

I don't like your god very much, he seems like Violent man words to me:)

If the human race waits for God to show us the way.....it will too late. Think! OUG 7 billion people then 8 then 9 billion....and the earth is going to be all better, isn't it......OUG you cant be that foolish.

LEA

Dear Individual,

Tony Abbott is the Mark Latham of the Libs - and eventually he will end up the same way (a fireball of crazy - when he doesn't get to be PM).

The whole point is - not that you use and you pay - but that you eliminate pollution. You give polluters incentives to find alternative means of producing cleaner energy. Without taxing the polluters there is no incentive for them to seek alternative technology. And believing that the user should pay only encourages the polluters to maintain the status quo. By putting a price on carbon pollution we ensure the big polluters pay for the pollution they release into our air. By taking action we can build a clean energy future based on renewable energy like wind and solar. BTW - the Coalition's so called "Direction Action scheme has a $30 billion budget black hole. This means the Coalition would need to spend additional tax payer dollars to purchase 75% of the required abatement from overseas at a cost of over $20 billion and they want us to foot this bill. So Tony Abbott's arguing about the so called "carbon tax," can't be taken seriously because what he's offering will end up costing the taxpayer much more over a longer period of time. The Coalition would also repeal any proposed tax cuts linked with the carbon tax if elected.

Obviously the Opposition leader has decided to maximise his advantage on "economic management" by invoking the glorious "Howard Age," and avoid commiting himself to anything substantive on economic policy in the here and now. As a public tactic this is clearly designed to keep the focus on the government and to change the subject without addressing the questions posed about savings as well as to of course maintain the constant election frenzy that Abbott likes to conjure up. You don't necessarily have to be any sort of
"intellectual" to not buy into this vacuous rhetoric. You simply have to not belong to the bunch of greedy-bloody-minded, ethically bankrupt
sheep that historians will view the Australian people circa 2011.

and closer we get warming

to any who think
light a fire..at night
it rises up into the sky
till the freezer...[outer space]..cools it down

And yes, that's normally true, however its happening at such a faster rate.......sensitive life forms are dieing, and in the last century alone, has been the fastest extinction rate ever recorded in the history of the planet.......care to explain?

And humans have nothing to do with it...lol.....go and pray. Iam sure only the righteous one's will benefit.

Your cycles usually takes millions of years, not with-in a hundred.

I too will lay down my vengence for the helpless creatures of this earth so saith me the lord:) See! OUG the bible can be interpersonal with-out being religious.

LEA

Lexi,
I'm afraid I see your reply as shirking responsibility. You say the producer should look for cleaner alternatives. I say make the consumer look for sources which use cleaner methods of production. You can not & shall not expect others to find solutions for problems which are there purely on your behalf. You want, you pay & do your bit. No Multinational outfit will continue for a day longer if the consumers stop frequenting their outlets. The consumer is the cause of pollution. Without the consumer you have no producer. No producer no pollution. So far as your budget projections are concerned , they're merely meaningless speculation. You want to reduce pollution then stop breeding, demanding & using. Don't blame your supplier, blame yourself.

Gday Individual its me the village Idiot, nice choice of words
Just thought I would drop in, lets see,so if anyone thinks different than you they are wrong?
And 40% of Australians are village idiots.
Climate change, man made has near two thirds beleiving in it from a poll in ninemsn today.
More village idiots.
The truth, thankfully is we all can get it wrong answers can come from totally different directions.
Its not an idea developed in Australia, but a world wide one, not one to prop up or make anyone rich.
Civil debate long ago died on this issue not just in Australia but the world.
I wish however to highlight Little man Abbott once said it was real, supported John Howard's taking an ETS to an election.
He then said it was not real, unproven,maybe a fraud, now changed again.
He says it is true but proposes a different, fraudulent fix.
Mark much the same for Joe Hockey, but watch him firm up as a believer once Abbott is gone.
Turnbull,a statesman like man never wavered he will not vote against a tax.
I am content.
To be judged on my post history on this subject against you and Shadow minister, on the tax ETS.
And more than confident this issue is too important to be used as it has a politics play thing.

"The consumer is the cause of pollution." And I wonder who set this world up like this in the first place? Thats right the greedy-rich. If one makes a system, then their are responsible for its maintenance, and with the Greedy rich at the top and the poor kicked in the face workers at the bottom, who do you thinks responsible.....US! get bent. Who ever runs this planet, pays for its mess. Dont put this all on the poor consumer, they have nothing to do with it:(

The carbon tax stands!

Indy! I cant believe you said that.

LEA

Lexi,

What does TA stand for, simply look up the liberal website. It has been published for some while and is not changed on a weekly basis.

As far as the problems today:

Boats - Pacific solution
Carbon tax - Gone
Wasteful spending - Gone
etc.

Dont put this all on the poor consumer, they have nothing to do with it:
Quantumleap,
I can't believe you said that !

I'm starting to get a complex here. Somebody please help.
I'll try again.
If 20 million Australians pay carbon tax but 2 billion chinese & indians don't & they do all our manufacturing for us then how does our tax reduce pollution ? Is Australia somehow not affected by Earth's climate by paying this tax ?
What am I missing here ?

Lexi, I am not sure whether or not TA being a worthwhile replacement is the real issue here.

The real issue as I see it is when do we all say, enough is enough.

Enough of the waste and missmanagement

Enough of the failed policies

Enough of the lies and decpetion

Enough of the boats.

Please, tell me, at what point do we say, we've had enough!

Now even the most staunched labor suporter like yourself must admit that your party is pretty pathetic when they struggle to hold ground against what can only be described as a very weak opponent.

And one simple reminder, polotics is ralerly about who wins, it's more than often about who looses.

Now I would love to stay in this debate however I will be away for a few days.

Catch up then.

Consumers consume,that is the basis for Capitalism and our very way of life.
It is why we live in City's, not caves.
Industrialization changed us.
We consumed more,so produced more.
Coal, oil was used much more and production Individual saw a reason for the population to grow.
No guarantees that what we produced did us any good.
We of British stock, introduced drugs to China,they consumed it nearly being forced to.
As a result of population growth we have changed the world more in the last 250 years than its whole history.
You smirk in print, put your self confident paper chin out and express the view,,BA humbug!
On what evidence.
How did you find out those who believe are village idiots.
What insight told you those who consume are guilty not those who produce green house gas.
We all consume dirty fuels,we need new fuels for other reasons too but we need cleaner fuels.
We need coal still each year we burn more why would it not pollute.
Individual inform me,I like to learn how do you know we are wrong.
Yours village idiot Belly

Latest poll results:

A Galaxy poll for News Ltd shows the majority of Australians are against a carbon tax and believe it will leave them worse off financially.

The poll - of 500 people around Australia on June 1 and 2 - reveals 58 per cent are opposed to the tax, with just 28 per cent in favour. The remainder are undecided.

News Limited says two-thirds of voters want Prime Minister Julia Gillard to call an election before introducing the tax, and three-quarters believe it will leave them financially worse off and deliver little or no benefit for the environment.

Only 24 per cent think Ms Gillard has a mandate to introduce the tax.

The poll comes in the wake of Sunday's say yes' rallies across the nation which attracted tens of thousands of supporters who urged the federal government to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

The cause is lost. Tony Abbott will have a strong mandate to remove the tax when he gets into office, if Juliar does manage to get it through. The independents if they have any regard for re election cannot help but reflect what their vote for the tax will have on their re election chances.

Belly,

"It is why we live in Citys, not caves."

I'm constantly fascinated that when capitalism's voracious nature is challenged, that those defending its waste, greed and pollution instantly produce the "cave" as the only alternative option.

Shows a lack of imagination, methinks : )

Poirot

I shake my head when the 'cave' alternative is lobbed out whenever anyone mentions alternatives to unfettered growth. I agree a distinct lack of vision is demonstrated by those who worship unregulated capitalism.

The irony is that if we do not start to conserve non-renewable resources, reduce pollution, recycle products and transition to sustainable technology, we very likely will wind up in the caves that neo-capitalists keep using as a knee-jerk response.

I can't believe that we are still just sitting around arguing about it.

LADY'S PLEASE! me thinks I am a bit older than you, lived all those dreams one world equality and equity.
Live in an area that is known for the fact a couple,timber getter and wife lived in a hollow tree over 100 years ago.
I lived without electricity and dirt floors no transport and no chance.
Capitalism saved me from that.
We see rarely, our forest dwellers still today, new generations of them.
Sponsored by you and me they find new and interesting ways to be paid welfare by the system they dislike so very much.
Socialism did not work, or did it, if we are not largely a mix of it and capitalism what are we.
Compare us with America, in health education transport so very much.
Dream the dream Capitalism is evil, Dennie industrial revolution changed the world.
Talk to me of my blindness but life and the world runs on COMPROMISE.
Getting the best out come that serves the most.
Every one gets a chance to hate politicians as they can never deliver everything we want.
Certainties? none exist but this I truly know,I have a soft spot for you two, but fear you both, not just you.
But a middle class left that ignores perfection is dream,that never understands we must compromise or be ruled by the direct opposite of what we want.

Aw, shucks, Belly, we've got a soft spot for you too : )

Capitalism tends to be more into steamrolling than compromise, don't you know.

Btw, I live in hollow tree - except I've got electrickery and the internet (that's progress for you!)

I hope Poirot that tree is not a fig very smelly with all those fruit bats.
Please tell me of the system you favor.

What insight told you those who consume are guilty not those who produce green house gas.
Belly,
One of the problems is clearly on display here by none other than yourself. No-one's saying we should not have production at all. Why you see such a need to go for extreme examples is beyond me. I'm for moderation in all that we do. Moderation is the key to all solutions & I'm sure you agree on this one. This goes all the way from drinking & eating to sport & recreation. There is excess in everything we do, be it excess greed or excess kindness. I really believe that democracy is bringing out the worst in society because everyone feels entitled to have what they desire but at everyone else's expense. The lack of discipline is such a negative aspect in our society & so much so that we baulk at even the slightest suggestion of doing something for the common good. Even during floods & other emergencies people make a show of how great they are & expect & literally demand recognition by way of medals & public romp & pomp. Everything from wealth to poverty is excessive. The worst aspect of this is that we make heroes out of people who in actual fact are of the worst character & that's why so many of us constantly miss the wake up call.

I truly do not understand what you are trying to say Individual.
It may well be my fault.
But democracy is about as good as any other way,much better than any dictatorship.
You in that post,seem to be finding it hard to except other think differently, live differently than you.
Tough but a reality I would not have it any other way.
In life, politics to what we eat,or clothing we buy we compromise, rarely is perfection on sale.
Others looking in your front window may think you strange.
Still not sure but you do often say you want some form of paramilitary training for our youth , so just maybe it is needed for our generation, with a slant on excepting others right to be them selves.

Belly,
It's about understanding what wake up means. There are simply too many out there now who wouldn't recognise decency if it fell on them. Wake up & look around & see the world we have created. Mayhem on a global scale. Predictions of food shortages due to overpopulation. In 2011 we still have people so hooked on superstitious nonsense that they quite happily turn a blind eye to a whole country starving because of their idiotic religious superstition.
People also need to wake up to how much our governments are fleecing us. One fifth of my earnings goes to tax. Yet I pay for registrations, licenses, everywhere I go I pay to get in, Pay insane fuel taxes the list goes on. Are you condoning this especially as someone who fought for workers rights ? I gave thousands to the AWU but when I asked them to write just one letter on my behalf they turned away. Do you condone that we have to forfeit a defined super fund because the Govt chose to fold up our unit & without any choice handed us over to LG ? Do you condone that bureaucrats receive huge super even when they have been of no use to society their entire life ? Do you belly want this to continue ? Well, I don't & that's why I believe the sooner we rid ourselves of this Labor cancer the sooner things can be put back on track.

belly surely you must be able to see
how individuals can get concerned [when you say things like this]

QUOTE..""we must compromise
or be ruled..by the direct opposite of what we want.""

look at the word...com/promise*
likely developed of co-promise
ie somwething about which we can both compromise

see how labour ran the states...sold-off and made odious debt contracts with mates...did special deals
with solar/mining and services

raised revenue from fines fees levies
licences registrations...in short did most of the vile

the states mate they went bad big time
then the same mob moved into the lodge
with new taxes..more deals for mates

its messy mate
labour wont be running the states for a long while
and after the next election wil be luckey to hangon even with com/bet

if that isnt a wakeup call
i dont know what is

govt cant pretend to care
words wont do it anymore

look at yesterday...swan "released'..a report
but didnt release the detail or the modeling
in fact 'released' his press release at the same time juliar wasnt visiting the real trouble areas up north...[lol signing contracts like he ..opps sorry she..[i think]..

like she*..was bob hawke
more press oppertuinities today...lol
and still no real detail..!

its avoiding giving facts
while demanding tony gives his facts/fully

its a poor policy
it might have worked at the state level
but at fed level ..we see the boysclub scam..in its full acounting next time..we are called to vote.

sure you cant get fat from swallowing lies
would you like lies with that?

or spin
that puts the tail
back on the donkey

seeing the labrating/class*..for what it is
making good people..do the wrong things..

for the wrong [unexplained]..
un-justified

*real
reasons
labrat or librat faceless men/reasons
serving themselves..not the party...worse/..making your party serve them

Been out in the garden one under god.
Do you know I have had that shovel for 45 years.
It has had three new heads
And 4 new handles
Never let me down.
Mate your views are yours mine are mine I fear radicalism, minority's controlling us and am not moving.