Wind back Belly, wind back.

A person can believe in climate change, not agree with the ETS, and not agree with Mr Rabbit's solution either.

You seem to have this habbit of putting words in everyones mouths and making grand conclusions based on your own imagination. There are many seperate issues

a) Is the climate changing
b) Are humans responsible, if so are they *significantly* responsible
c) Will an ETS have any effect on cutting our contribution to the problem, especially given the $40 a tonne figure
d) If Australia reduces its 1% of world emissions, will it achieve anything?
e) Will the economic damage of using more expensive fuel hamper efforts to deal with AGW if it exists
f) Is Mr Rabbits 'plan' even relevant considering any person with even the slighest powers of observation knows he doesn't even belive in AGW and most of his party don't either.
g) Is Cate a Hypocrite, and do you support the celebritisation of politics.

You seem to want to throw everything into a funnel of our team/your team ETS or TAX, when most people aren't cheering on a team like you and Shadow Minister. Wind Back! Wind Back!

Tony intends to do nothing about climate change, and Julia is only greedily anticipating the tax bounty.

Shadow Minister,

You won't get an argument from me. Why use the budget reply to present a meaningful alternative to the government's policies when you have a "vision" for Australia. It's not the privatisation of our utility and service industries that causes the cost of living to go up across the board - it's the carbon tax that's coming in next year on the polluters - and we know the government is lying when they tell us that we will be compensated cause that's what governments do - right.

I'm really looking forward to your next post.

Banjo I have developed a soft spot for you bloke but gee, you often sound like the proverbial old woman.
First junk comment about religion, no way it has any thing to do with the subject.
There is no God.
You say, goodness mate do you get your info from the paper hanging on the dunny door? it is unproved.
It is my view a combination of mans foot print and events like volcanic eruptions is behind climate change.
Abbott, bad example, says he thinks so too.
Look at the rednecks with in his party who tell us they do not think so.
The combined IQ would be less than any farms best cattle dog.
Now Houlie, no will not, see I post what I think.
And OWN MY MISTAKES do you?
Noted your bit about getting at me in another thread,easy bloke you did not ruffle a hair on my head.
I love a laugh but do not share your humor ok.
Good thread you started but has every one gone shy we need more input, please say something controversial so we can argue some one SM?

Belly,
You BELIEVE in human induced climate change, just like a born again christian BELIEVES in christ. That mate is religous fevor!

Now you say mans footprint. Where? and volcanos? Yep, now you are talking about natural causes and they do put out a fair bit of gasses, we cannot control. That is better than blaming it all on humans.

As i understand it, the vast majority of CO2 is produced by nature and humans only a small percentage, yet humans are to blame for climate change? Then Aus puts out only 1% of the humans part, so we are to be taxed on that? Where is the list of other countries the PM refers to? She claims we are dragging the chain.

I won't get into a slanging match with you about the IQ of either Libs or Labor as I don't think much of either. But I could quickly point to a few failed schemes in recent times that reflect poorly on Labor.

Anyway You have a right to your opinion and me to mine and Cate to hers, but I remain unimpressed and I now think a little less of Michael Caton, silly sod.

Why do Australian citizens have to pay tax when we are one of the smallest polluters in the industralised world. The Carbon tax will send our jobs overseas where they are not burdened by taxes. Australia will be the looser.

Philo I don't have the references but I saw material recently suggesting that we were one of the highest per-capita for CO2 emissions which in terms of the AGW debate is classed as pollution.

The size of the population vs the size of the continent, our physical distance from other countries, the lack of nuclear power, a generally poor public transport infrastructure, our relative prosperity etc all give that claim credibility.

R0bert