I have never seen anyone commit suicide. It is not something I have ever aspired to. It is even worse when you realise it is not just some misguided fool, but a whole tribe doing it.

Yes Labor is about to commit suicide, by introducing the carbon dioxide tax into the house next week.

Just who is this delusional fool who thinks she can get away with it?

Does she really think that all will be forgiven, once the deed is done?

Does she really think that you can double coal exports, but by taxing our coal use it will reduce CO2 emissions? Can anyone really be that stupid?

Does she really believe that our CO2 controls the global temperature?

Who are the fools going along with her to oblivion?

Has she decided that she is shot, so vindictively, wants to take us with her?

Is this really just to buy Green support to sleep in the Lodge?

Could it be she, like Rudd before her, hopes to buy a nice UN job with this betrayal of Oz?

How much longer will it take for some sensible Labor members to realise she has become unhinged?

How long will it take for some of them to grow a backbone, & call enough?

Have our Arts Law courses got so bad they give us this stupidity?

So many questions, but what else can you have when the whole pantomime makes no sense at all.

I really frightened that we will see Labor reduced to less than the Greens at the next election. For heavens sake, wake up some of you.

Everybody is alowed their opinion, and it is just that. A clean energy future is what it is all about. A future for the ones coming behind us.
Some just don't beleive the world is changing.

579, I've got this bridge for sale you might like!

some people run the numbers
and the spin is in[the numbers]

we got the oceans warning
but hey japan/isreal/usa/china
has been heating the water with nuke power stations

we have global warming..just like we had been warned
of the hole in the ozone...said it would

but the numbers reveal its also cooling
so we get a new spin word''cli-mate change'
to suck the small change from our pockets..into the pockets of the elites who deflated the value of the coin with excess paper note oprinting

who stole the gold and silver from our coin
who have set a 'market price',..for carbon
HALF of what the juliar is setting it

juliar is propping up the rich
just like labraters at the state levels stole from the state
sold off our assets..[or rented them by 99 year lease]...the issue stinks

but it dont matter that the union stays mute or worse supports this new tax impost [of 'only'750 average]..ON THEIR MEMBERS

who also have been PAYING for the 60% increae
in sevices cost..over the last 5 years
while their slave masters orffer them 2% wage increase

mate the sheeple sleep
they are too tired to think
maybe from working at the 2 de job
to cover their iNCREA$ED costs of living

lol
they are so clever at putting in over 120 new federal rules
plus god alone knows how many NEW state laws
to plunder more taxes

but just wait
i hear the unionists comming out to support THE PARTY...line

lol

Hasbeen,
I agree with you.

If the result is no lowering of CO2 in the atmosphere or an effect on temperatures, why do it?

If there is no benefit to Australia and Australians why handicap ourselves with another tax? It just doesn't make sense when the big emitters of CO2 carry on regardless. There is no evidence that lowering human output of CO2 will affect world temperatures anyway.

The whole rationale is crazy, no wonder many think it only a means for government to grab more money from us and to waste on more useless schemes.

I'm with those that don't think Gillards tax will help the environment at all. It's a new tax base and opportunity to redistribute poverty.

"There is no evidence that lowering human output of CO2 will affect world temperatures anyway." - that may be semantics about evidence. I've got concerns about the way the debate is played but I do think that there is enough informed opinion suggesting that the human contributions to CO2 are a real risk that we can't and should not dismiss those views.

R0bert

some are silly (or deceitfull) enough to believe that wind farms and solar power will give us the same standard of living as we have now. Our life expentancy has increased, standard of living increased and the man made climate gurus exposed as largely charlatans. And all this while we use 'dirty' energy. The PM would have a lot more respect if she stopped deceiving herself that somehow this new tax would be good for our country. Everyone knows it is to appease the human hating Greens who are full of idiotic ideology. We are moving backwards not forward with the worse Government Australia has seen. Where are the independants who promised open and accountable Government? How sleazy can one get? No wonder the public has warmed to the unpopular Mr Abbott. He was thought to be unelectable 2 years ago. Now except for a few blinded Labour diehards people know a bad Liberal Government would be far more competent than the current rabble.

Hasbeen, I agree with what was posted in The Age:

The carbon tax has nothing to do with reducing global warming but instead is about Australia transitioning to a lower carbon economy and to foster innovation and investment in alternative energy sources.

The carbon tax is meant to help reduce GHG emissions, but not for the simplistic reason of reducing global temperatures. Regardless, societies across the world really do need to move towards more sustainable energy sources and management practices.

The Australian government (not sure about the Opposition) and most (if not all) member states of the UNFCCC, and all scientific academies and institutions on the planet that have made their position on climate change known, and the vast majority of scientists that understand the science – know that we have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world – see research by Susan Soloman et al, and others.

The aim is to limit average global warming to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100. The aim is NOT to reduce global warming (we can’t) as naysayers assert. It is a nuanced distinction you have difficulty in understanding, exemplified in your first post.

The point of the carbon tax is to reduce (the rate of increase in) GHG emissions. However, stabilisation and reduction in GHG emissions won’t happen for decades.

To answer some of your other questions, see here:

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

Don't take it personal, it's a natural human defence mechanism.

Hasbeen you are far from alone.
But your my way or nothing opinions, are evidence man will be ruled by a one world government one day.
You, without evidence,, say those like me, who hold different views should wakeup.
Your certainty leaves no room, for the very real chance, it may be you who slumbers.
Our inability to even consider an insult free open debate on this subject.
Shouts we one day will have no right , no say, in directions others plan for us.

Sorry Bonmot, your talking past tense.

Have a look at the latest Nature. Yes, that one that has championed AGW for years. They have finally woken up & published the latest peer reviewed research that has totally, & finally debunked all the rubbish climate scientists have prattled on about for so long.

It ain't CO2. It ain't never been CO2. Co2 could give, perhaps 0.10 degrees increase in temperature this century. That from real scientists, the physicists

Now, please explain why we need to transition away from CO2 emitting fuels. If, as you folk believe, these fuels were all once plants, grown at a time of much greater CO2 in the atmosphere, it is probably a damn good idea to put it back where it came from.

Why would a low carbon economy be a good idea, unless you want less humans, we are after all a carbon life form?

If you can't handle that one, how about the stupidity of taxing our coal use, while increasing coal exports to Asia? How will that help AGW? Come on mate, get real, & try.

Belly I have no problem with any view you hold. I think you should try some more informative sites for your AGW info, but what you believe is your business, & good luck to you. What I do have a problem with is that many of you know this woman is killing your party. I know it, you know it, & thousands more know it.

That's what I want you all to wake up to. Mate, even if your right, & I'm wrong [unlikely as that may be] about AGW, everyone knows the tax is a con, & payment to Brown & his Greens. The resentment is going to continue to build, & all of you will be included, if you sit twiddling your thumbs as it happens.

For gods sake, go out & take the love of your life, your party, back to those who built it, & get rid of these half baked lawyers.

"redistribute poverty" Please explain, R0bert.

To others, as it stands, the tax will be a direct cost to major emitters. Exporting enterprises competing in world markets adversely affected by the CT will be compensated to the extent that they export (but not for domestically directed produce). The tax redistributes what it collects into this compensation as well as compensating those who earn no income and towards those earning income through the provision of large income tax cuts.

Why not stop focussing on the taxation aspect and look at the whole package. Otherwise you simply adopt the "big new tax" mantra and may as well just stay out of the debate.

Also, on the mining tax, what is the problem with Australians having a market-linked interest in extracting the best deal for the nation's mineral assets? Please, I am interested in a coherent reply instead of "proof by bald, paranoid assertion" of that some think passes for debate. If your argument is about states rights, let's hear that too.

PS Anthropologically caused climate change is real, the science is correct. Australia will have only little impact on this through a carbon tax, agreed, but it will establish itself as a nation that does not shirk its role as a contributor towards an attempt at a solution. We must move away from our reliance on fossil fuels as they run out anyway, so why not get started with a tax that is a positive addition to the general tax base as well as a step towards inevitable changes needed? After all the (bull)dust has settled, The CT and MT will be seen as great reforms, as was the GST, floating the dollar, and compulsory super.

bonmot..please re-read your own words

""The carbon tax has nothing to do
with reducing global warming""

now this

""The aim is to limit average global warming
to 2 – 3 degrees C by 2100.""

lol in the next breath

""The aim is NOT to reduce global warming..(we can’t)""'

lol

""It is a nuanced distinction
you have difficulty in understanding,""

cause its a circular bit of spin..!

is everyone asleep?

Lucifer, Did you try that latest Nature. If not, Why not, if you want to make dogmatic statements, you should be up with the latest.

I've got a bridge for you too. It is the same one, but you sound an easy mark.

If this government wants or reckons it needs more money from us, why don't they be open and honest and raise it by upping the GST or income tax?

But no, They have to try and con us by making out it is for the benefit of the enviroment and they are saving the planet. Con me once and your a crook, con me twice and I'm an idiot.

The scientist in the UK and USA showed us that AGW was a con as they were fiddling the figures and now the wheels have fallen off their big band waggon. They had it good for a long time.

Funny how some people have taken AGW on as a new religion.

One Under God

You obviously haven't read Solomon (not the biblical one), or have understood the supporting science that even real sceptics acknowledge.

I certainly am not surprised by your religious or ideological stance - it is not uncommon, Andrew Bolt has the same difficulty.

Hasbeen,

What latest Nature piece, this one published yesterday?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110907/full/477148a.html

You haven't been specific so it is impossible to respond. Could it be a case of:

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

For example: coal mines are expanding, number of coal loaders are being added to, and coal exports are increasing - as you say. So why are you blind, dumb and deaf to Tony Abbott touring Australia telling Australians the Government is about to shut down the coal industry?

Hasbeen,have looked for it, or at least an abstract, online (1 Sept and 8 Sept). Have you a url?
What's this "bridge" you want to give me? Apart from domestic blindness I may be suffering "cultural deficiency syndrome" (possibly age related). Is it something to do with selling the Brooklyn Bridge again? Sorry, I'm grasping.

well i should say here we go again, however, it is becomming quite obvious ther are less puppets out there offering thier loyal unconditional support for this fool and her party.

i say this as thier way of voicing thier opinion is to not offer an opinion.

i doubt you will find many disagreeing with you on is one, as its. no brainer.

Luciferase, assuming the low income earners are fully compensated (a proposition I'm pretty sceptical about) my guess is that all or almost all of the cost will land in the laps of middle income wage earners and low margin self employed. Those who can't just jack up their prices, they are not on the boards of the companies they work for so they can't grant themselves a wage rise. They can't afford the team of accountants to work out how to make a profit from the tax.

They may still get a small offset from taxpayers via the government but will wear the full brunt of increased prices. Not just the direct price increases from the emitters but the cost increases from every one else who thinks that they can get away with raising prices/fees to cover the increased costs.

Unless you think that the big players will absorb the extra costs rather than passing them on then the costs can only get pushed down to those who can't push them down further.

Wealth isn't redistributed, the poor are at best a little better off (even in the most optimistic scenario's) but the middle income earners are a lot worse off. Some rich people people will find ways to profit from it but mostly it's poverty that's redistributed not wealth.

Someone has to pay for all of this including all of the money that's not being used to compensate anybody and if the existing poor are being compensated guess who it's likely to be.

R0bert

Try the CLOUD1 experiment at CERN.

Gives a whole new direction to cloud formation, & the way the sun's output controls the weather via cosmic rays.

Oh, that one: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

Where the lead author (Dr Kirkby) says; “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" and he hopes the experiment will eventually answer some questions.

There’s a good write-up about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

As has been said Hasbeen, many people like to believe they have special access to the truth. The reality is they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be.

For example, you find a recent paper “that has totally, & finally debunked all the rubbish climate scientists have prattled on about for so long.”

Who says Hasbeen, you?

If Dr Kirkby has indeed overturned 1000’s of other papers, and overwhelmed 1000’s of other scientists studying global warming, then he surely will get the Nobel for Physics. The sooner the better I say.

But hang-a-mo, science doesn’t work like that - especially on brand new research that will now be further tested, reviewed, critiqued and reported – in the scientific journals.

No Hasbeen, what you are displaying is classic “Confirmation Bias”, “Cognitive Dissonance” and “Motivated Reasoning” which as I have previously said, answers many of the questions you posed in your first post.

http://tinyurl.com/3ecflzo

Come on mate, get real, check it out.

R0bert, I now understand your point. Personally, if it ends up costing me a few bucks, I'll wear it for the sake of my kids and their kids. There is a point in the projections where you are a nett loser, but you need to be earning at least a miner's income!

Hasbeen, I think I get the insult, and you can keep your bridge!

The only stuff I found on climate change in "Nature" was about scientists who claim to be able to link extreme climate events specifically to global warming. Nothing supporting your incredible claim about research turning climate science on its head. The stuff about clouds is a long stretch at this stage, nothing to hang a hat on but, hey, who knows what the future may hold? What about now?

Here is a peer review:

Hasbeen has an opinion but it not supported by enough knowledge to qualify him to have anything but an emotional response. He is not across the science or the proposed legislation enough to talk sense.

Stick your insults and try to play the ball, not the man, and I'll do you the courtesy of the same.

With fond regards, your easy mark,

Luciferase,"There is a point in the projections where you are a nett loser, but you need to be earning at least a miner's income!"

I'm suspecting those projections will be like a lot of government projections. Missing most of the inconvenient bit's.

If the big emitters do reduce their emissions then the tax's they pay reduce as well but we are probably all stuck with the increased costs so the cut off point will drop over time.

If I really thought this would help I'd feel better about it but I'm not convinced that it will do anything helpful for my son and I detest the way the government is bringing it in.

R0bert

@R0bert: my guess is that all or almost all of the cost will land in the laps of middle income wage earners and low margin self employed.

There is no "cost" in absolute terms. Some things are being made more expensive, and some other things are being made comparatively less expensive. None of the money is going to the government. There is the bureaucracy to manage the thing I guess, but that is insignificant.

Yes, there is wealth re-distribution. You may not like it, but I see it as a good thing. Wealth distribution means a lower Gini coefficient. You can see the effect of having a low Gini coefficient here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

This socialistic government intervention may not agree with our politics but the evidence from the first graphic on that page is unequivocal. Your average person is far, far better off living in a country with a low Gini coefficient. That includes the middle income earners, and the low income self employed - the ones who you say will be harmed by this.

Countries only achieve a low Gini coefficient in one way. Government income redistribution. This is what Labor is doing. Under the Howard government our Gini coefficient was creeping up.

In my view a low Gini coefficient implies one other thing: a very healthy, representative democracy. In the US, 20% of the population owns 85% or its wealth. What does that tell you about how well the remaining 80% exercise their supposedly equal political power?

Finally, sealing the deal, the countries with a low Gini coefficient also have a high GDP per capita. Looking at the graphic on http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index/ that with the exception of the US, all countries with a high GDP per capita have a Gini coefficient in the bottom 3rd.

As for the carbon tax harming our economy: if that happens Australia will be the first example. In every other country that has put a price on carbon, it has had either no, or a mildly simulating effect.