Labor's carbon tax lie

[white_goodman]

If you want to join the chorus here repeating what Abbott and Bolt says fine......or you could actualy reasearch the numbers or if not at least start reading George Megalogenis and actually come to grips with the numbers one thats a real problem and thats falling revues......AKA budget deficit black hole.

yes a budget has both expenditure and revenue, yes revenues are falling, yes we are in a deficit, the fat to which I refer in the large amount of expenditure... The easiest way to reduce a deficit is on the expenditure side not the revenue side

 

[white_goodman]

Nothing intelligent IMHO in calling the Gillard government left wing when is further right than the Fraser government, less centralist than Howard but hey keep the mantras going what the heck.

so am I wrong in saying she isnt in the Labor left?

or are you having another brain fart?

 

[sails]

so am I wrong in saying she isnt in the Labor left?

or are you having another brain fart?

Gillard has communist party ties in her past. Don't know how IF comes up with her not being left...

 

[Julia]

e.g. In Qld. we have Newman attempting to solve the problems with debt, but some people still not
happy!
joea

Can you clarify the above? Do you mean Cando is trying to solve the debt problems, or he is using debt to solve problems?

 

[IFocus]

so am I wrong in saying she isnt in the Labor left?

or are you having another brain fart?

Read the policy's she supports on asylum seekers, her position on gay marriage tell me what are they left off?

 

[moXJO]

Read the policy's she supports on asylum seekers, her position on gay marriage tell me what are they left off?

Its wealth redistribution you need to be looking at, not the smokescreens.

 

[Aurum]

I did some number crunching on the carbon profile of Australia. I found it very interesting.

Area of Australia	        7,700,000	Square km	http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories.html
Percentage Forest	        21%		http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/env_for_are_of_lan_are-environment-forest-area-of-land&ob=ws
Area Forest	                1,617,000	Square km	=7,700,000*21%
Forest in Acres	                404,250,000	Acres	=1,617,000*250
Carbon Absorbed per Acre	2.6	        Tons	http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm - carbon
Total Absorbed by trees	        1,051,050,000	Tons	=404,250,000*2.6

Population of Australia	        22,500,000		http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opendocument
CO2 emitted per Person	        18	        Tons	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Total Emitted	                405,000,000	Tons	=22,500,000*18

So, just taking the forest into consideration, Australia absorbs 2.5 times as much carbon as it produces. I'd love to know the figure when other foliage is included.

Where possible I've included a link to the source of the data.

Edit, sorry about the formatting. It looked ok in the preview but has now wrapped the links onto new lines.

Have fun.

Mike.

 

[white_goodman]

Read the policy's she supports on asylum seekers, her position on gay marriage tell me what are they left off?

is she not in the labor left faction?

 

[sails]

I did some number crunching on the carbon profile of Australia. I found it very interesting.

Area of Australia	        7,700,000	Square km	http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories.html
Percentage Forest	        21%		http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/env_for_are_of_lan_are-environment-forest-area-of-land&ob=ws
Area Forest	                1,617,000	Square km	=7,700,000*21%
Forest in Acres	                404,250,000	Acres	=1,617,000*250
Carbon Absorbed per Acre	2.6	        Tons	http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm - carbon
Total Absorbed by trees	        1,051,050,000	Tons	=404,250,000*2.6

Population of Australia	        22,500,000		http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opendocument
CO2 emitted per Person	        18	        Tons	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Total Emitted	                405,000,000	Tons	=22,500,000*18

So, just taking the forest into consideration, Australia absorbs 2.5 times as much carbon as it produces. I'd love to know the figure when other foliage is included.

Where possible I've included a link to the source of the data.

Edit, sorry about the formatting. It looked ok in the preview but has now wrapped the links onto new lines.

Have fun.

Mike.

Thanks for posting your research, Mike - it's very interesting. I didn't realise our forests soaked up more co2 than we produce. It clearly makes an even bigger mockery of carbon tax.

 

[noco]

Thanks for posting your research, Mike - it's very interesting. I didn't realise our forests soaked up more co2 than we produce. It clearly makes an even bigger mockery of carbon tax.

+1. Nothing more than the biggest con job ever to enter the Australian parliament.

 

[MrBurns]

Family slugged with 'carbon tax fee' for funeral


A Melbourne family who claim they were slugged an extra $55 "carbon tax charge" when burying a relative were told "even the dead don't escape the carbon tax".

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8496121/family-slugged-with-carbon-tax-fee-for-funeral

I'm sure we will see articles like this on a daily basis from here on, shame Gillard shame

Frankly it's good to see them suffer in their own stupidity and arrogance, they deserve it.

 

[white_goodman]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8496121/family-slugged-with-carbon-tax-fee-for-funeral

I'm sure we will see articles like this on a daily basis from here on, shame Gillard shame

Frankly it's good to see them suffer in their own stupidity and arrogance, they deserve it.

but I feel so much better now that im saving the earth

 

[derty]

I did some number crunching on the carbon profile of Australia. I found it very interesting.

Area of Australia	        7,700,000	Square km	http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories.html
Percentage Forest	        21%		http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/env_for_are_of_lan_are-environment-forest-area-of-land&ob=ws
Area Forest	                1,617,000	Square km	=7,700,000*21%
Forest in Acres	                404,250,000	Acres	=1,617,000*250
Carbon Absorbed per Acre	2.6	        Tons	http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm - carbon
Total Absorbed by trees	        1,051,050,000	Tons	=404,250,000*2.6

Population of Australia	        22,500,000		http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opendocument
CO2 emitted per Person	        18	        Tons	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Total Emitted	                405,000,000	Tons	=22,500,000*18

So, just taking the forest into consideration, Australia absorbs 2.5 times as much carbon as it produces. I'd love to know the figure when other foliage is included.

Where possible I've included a link to the source of the data.

Edit, sorry about the formatting. It looked ok in the preview but has now wrapped the links onto new lines.

Have fun.

Mike.

Very nicely presented train of logic there. Very nice except for one little thing. Your model of the carbon cycle has only considered the inputs. You make no allowances for the output of C02 that occurs during respiration and decay.

The carbon cycle in established ecosystems is largely in balance. i.e. no significant sequestration (unless it is a peat bog or the like).

Your calculation would have been fine if 21% of the area of Australia is new replanted forest. But it is not. Based on the net sequestration forestry figures, your calculation is in error by just over 300 times or 30,000%. http://adl.brs.gov.au/forestsaustralia/facts/carbon.html

Nice little exercise to show how people will blindly support a model, no matter how simple or flawed, because it supports their ideological position.

 

[sails]

...Nice little exercise to show how people will blindly support a model, no matter how simple or flawed, because it supports their ideological position.

Derty, you have just explained so clearly why warmists blindly support modelling over historical facts....

 

[white_goodman]

Derty, you have just explained so clearly why warmists blindly support modelling over historical facts....

"models never fail" - LCTM

 

[derty]

Derty, you have just explained so clearly why warmists blindly support modelling over historical facts....

Sails I am fully aware of my comment and it's implications for both sides of the argument.

The main point was the hypocrisy displayed where models that have been iteratively designed for 30-40 years, have been run hundreds of thousands of times and are of a degree of complexity and resolution that supercomputers or distributed computer networks are required to run them are summarily dismissed as GI-GO and part of the global climate conspiracy but are more than happy to accept a terribly flawed 9 line model.

 

[wayneL]

Nice little exercise to show how people will blindly support a model, no matter how simple or flawed, because it supports their ideological position.

A delicious irony there derty.

 

[sails]

Sails I am fully aware of my comment and it's implications for both sides of the argument.

The main point was the hypocrisy displayed where models that have been iteratively designed for 30-40 years, have been run hundreds of thousands of times and are of a degree of complexity and resolution that supercomputers or distributed computer networks are required to run them are summarily dismissed as GI-GO and part of the global climate conspiracy but are more than happy to accept a terribly flawed 9 line model.

Despite the work put into AGW models, the dire predictions of no more dam filling rains, etc, etc have not panned out. I would say there is something seriously wrong with such models.

And yet those embracing these unproven models seem happy to ignore that the weather/climate is much the same today as it has been for hundreds of years? Extreme weather has also been part of our climate history.

Years ago, adult brain plasticity was poohooed by mainstream science. One scientist dared to believe differently and took years of actual proof before mainstream scientists finally took notice. It tells me that mainstream science and modelling don't always get it right.

"The Brain the changes itself", by Dr Norman Doidge shows the amazing plasticity in the brain.

 

[MrBurns]

And we're off............................

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says it has received 630 complaints and enquiries about the carbon tax since it came into effect 10 days ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-12/watchdog-hit-with-630-carbon-tax-complaints/4125268

 

[sails]

Wasn't this tax supposed to slip in unnoticed?...

FAMILIES and businesses are facing a surprise "tax on a tax" as the GST is applied on top of the carbon tax to power bills, appliance repairs and other everyday costs.

Baffled consumers are questioning inflated repair bills received since July 1 as the carbon tax combines with the GST to add hundreds of dollars to invoice costs

Read more from the Heraldsun: Tax on a tax with GST inflating carbon costs