Will Climate Change Impact on the Election?

As always with climate change we must rely on the models. These tell us that there is “consensus” by “97% “of the experts in this field. These models predict that CAGW (Catastrophic Australian Gillard Wipeout) will occur on or before September 14, 2013.

This is also confirmed by “rising opposition levels” that threaten waterfront properties owned by ALP MP’s. Severe “Melting” support for the ALP is accelerating whilst the extinction of many ALP political life forms is also predicted.

The “end of the world as we know it” projection from Tim Flannery is “forecast” to produce “droughts” of ALP votes, “severe storms” for the Trade Unions as the “mean surface temperature” for a Royal Commission rises.

Professor Phil Jones believes that ALP has no “statistically significant” probability of support increasing, he points out that the ALP’s chance of retaining office are “indistinguishable from zero” and asserts that it may need “30 to 40 years” in political exile to confirm this.

The ABC, much of the MSM, academics, NGO’s continue to support the “resurrection” theory of continued political “warming” for the ALP. Meanwhile the “experts” that predicted the ALP warming have now confirmed that their “models” no longer reflect the “empirical evidence” provided by the Australian electorates and the Bookies”.

Some of the greatest difficulties faced by the ALP are exaggeration, lies, failed policies and enormous waste of public funds spent to mitigate “their” change in climate.

It is clear therefore, that the “Change of Climate” will most certainly impact upon the upcoming election and not at all favorably for the ALP. We can also expect the “commentariat” to insist that “consensus” exists and that everyone except them is of course, wrong.

Gillard did not say

"We have no intention of implementing a carbon tax" or

"We promise not to have a carbon tax" she said

"There WILL be no carbon tax under the government I LEAD"

This was a stone cold promise to guarantee that there would be no carbon tax. Breaking this promise 3 weeks later meant that she lied about her intentions.

Only a handful of airheads are sufficiently self delusional to think that her iron clad guarantee can be passed off as an election puff piece.

If she can lie about this then there is nothing that comes out of her mouth that can be trusted.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Once again we need to state the facts.

In a pre-selection interview with The Australian's
Paul Kelly, the PM stated quite clearly that,

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a
Carbon polution Reduction Scheme, a market-based
mechanism. I rule out a carbon tax."

Labor's carbon pricing scheme is arguable NOT a tax
at all. However it has become the iconic political
lie of all times.

It's ruthless exploitation by the Abbott Opposition
has spawned a political craze in trying to expose
so called opponent's lies even if one has to stretch
the truth to do it.

But what about the Opposition's penchant for stretching
the truth on the impacts of the carbon pricing scheme?

George Brandis's assertion that the carbon tax was
responsible for 1,900 job cuts at Fairfax was a cracker,
but only a national extension of dubious claims that
the carbon tax would wipe towns off the map, spark
mass shut downs of industry and send families to the wall
under crippling power prices.

The collapse in trust in politics is a defining feature
of our current political culture driven largely by the
kind of negative politics that have characterised the carbon
debate.

Worse than a liar is a liar who's also a hypocrite and the
Opposition slots into that description very well.

The answer to this thread is simple: JOHN HOWARD IS A CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC.

But besides that, people will be voting for Liberal in order to get rid of the carbon tax. The carbon tax is top of the agenda for voters in the September election.

Apart from that, most people have lost interest in the debate on global warming. So let's just keep overpopulating the world, eating every other species into extinction, and driving cars to keep warming the atmosphere. The gig's up: something could have been done 50 years ago but now the window of opportunity is lost.

Dear Mr Opinion,

We've certainly got a lot to complain about.

Imagine, Australia still pays high wages and has no
desire to head towards the cheapest wage levels of
Asia or even the US. We have one of the most
enviable lifestyles in the world - but we're still
not satisfied and want more. And as Nobel Laureate
economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote last week -
Australia escaped the global ravages of the GFC
so well - we barely registered a blip.
Therefore as Virginia Trioli points out in her
article in "The Weekly Review," perhaps
when we leave the supermarkets
this Easter
"We should make a note - that
the air we breathe is clean and no bombs fall."

What twaddle Mr O. Only an idiot could equate a sure knowledge that CO2 is not in any way harmful to life, & is critical to it, with some fool desire to increase either the Oz population, or the planets.

I guess that makes you an idiot, if that is your premiss.

I want all immigration stopped. I believe we should stop all aid to any country with an increasing population.

I guess that will make me a redneck to all these global warming fools, who think we should help all these people breed, but not use fuel.

God it will be nice, in just a few years, when all the global warmer nuts have slunk off to pretend they never believed the con. They can join the Y2K addicts in rehabilitation perhaps.