Every one has the right to opinions.
It would be good, if those opinions touched just now and again, on reality.
AB I doubt farmers pollute in any was, as much as others.
And too, that yabby 6% extra cost is near true.
In fact farmers may well, and should benefit over all, maybe not in current plans.
But should as increasingly, they bury carbon on their farms.
Sorry Rechtub, disagreed with nearly all that.
LEADER SHIP of this government was/is the subject.
But as carbon pricing has intruded.
CSIRO in the head lines in todays East coast papers.
After researching models, say cost to us of Carbon tax.
Will be NO MORE THAN THE RISE IN COST OF LIVING BOUGHT ABOUT BY SHORTAGES OF BANANAS.

Andreas,
I think you would find that the wrong diagnosis story I linked to involved more that ONE physician, getting it wrong ONCE. There would have had to have been a whole series of tests and examinations by different experts, all of which seemed to confirm the diagnosis -- confirmation bias?

You misrepresent the climate change debate: << Similarly, most scientists related to environmental issues have agreed that human activities produce threat for environment and, as a consequence, for very human life itself>>

I don't know of anyone who would deny that human activity has an impact on the natural environment. And I would add to that very few people –certainly no one on this thread-- is opposed to minimizing pollution or developing alternative energy sources.

Where we differ is on the question as to whether the climate change we are seeing is the result of, or even largely the result of, human greenhouse gas emissions as has been put about by the “Global Warming campaign(ers)”.

In considering the answer you need to look past blurb like this:
--"Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels"

To this figure: 3.207%

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor)."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

A figure very similar to this, 3.4%, was quoted in the first IPCC report as an obscure footnote --but in subsequent IPCC reports has become even more obscure --for reasons one can only guess at!

The other area where we part company is –as point out by Hasbeen-- the “Global Warming campaign(ers)” wont to employ fear and guilt and exaggeration to sell their case. The latest being Ban-Ki-Moon during his visit to the University Of Sydney:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/09/ban-ki-moon-clueless-on-climate/

*In fact farmers may well, and should benefit over all, maybe not in current plans.*

Geez thanks Belly. Now if the TWU/AWU were going to pay 6% of their
incomes, they would be shutting down the country.

Now you know why WA farmers dislike Eastern states city slickers,
for they are simply treated as milking cows by those so called "Wise men
from the East".

Its once again a question of the tyranny of the majority and then
some people claim that the Govt is doing a good job. Pfft.

Yabby the childlike xenophobia you and some from WA have irks me.
Prove to me, please do your 6% figure.
Are you aware we farm in the rest of Australia?
The Queensland vs NSW squabble,equally childlike, fails in comparison to the wise man from the east bigotry of some from WA.
Over looking until mining and Alan Bond we carried you.
If you can prove to me, your farmers, as a result of federal government actions,will pay 6% more.
And, judging on your slur against I take it the rest of the country farmers, they will not, I will eat the chair I sit on.
Unions? taking up farming are they? or is it them who will say if Gillard or Rudd leads Labor?
How far will you wander from the subject/track to piddle on the ALP?
Unions, Eastern states, me,.

Belly,

I do fully agree with you that we have to keep along the lines of the discussion topic. Otherwise, touching on so many interesting and important themes, we are risking to say nothing about everything or everything about nothing, which is the same.
Please, let us discuss things in relation to our topic.

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=145882&

There ya go, Belly.

Now start eating your chair :)

I remind you that WA farmers export most of their production, unlike
ES farmers. They compete with subsidised farmers from places like
the USA and EU. You blokes really have no idea what is happening
over here.

*Over looking until mining and Alan Bond we carried you.*

WA was always and still is an export state. 10% of the population
produces 50% of the exports, to stop you becoming a banana republic.

When WA did get some assistance, they were equally forced to buy
crappy, overpriced ES manufactured goods as payment. So they got
no free lunch.

I say it again. You claim its a good government and the carbon tax will cost no
more then increased banana prices. Not so for WA farmers, but then
we don't run the Govt, as the unions do. Don't ever tell me that
the ALP fights for the working man. More like feathering their
own cosy nests.