So she is the lefty version of Andrew Bolt who you continually cite.
I tried to find out the credentials of Jessica Marshall but did not have much luck.
She obviously is a Greenie Alarmist and appears to be expressing an opinion without any evidence..
The 50:1 project begins with Christopher Moncktons absolute load of crap trying to say dealing with CC will cost 50 times more than any damage that will be done
When you start with a load of lies there is nowhere else to go. They are all drinking the same toxic Kool aid.
And clearly I did visit the site to check out your reference.
Interesting vitriol basilio.
Interesting as you condemn, from a position of zero integrity yourself. And you are so polarized in your belief system you find it impossible to concede a single point, even as the facts stare you in the face.
Astonishing hystrionics, just astonishing.
Wayne you are simply an autocratic humbug with a power fixation whose complete incapacity to understand a scientific argument means you string together a meaningless menagerie of pseudo scientific drivel to debase any rational discussion on climate change.
On top of that you ruthlessly use your position in this board to destroy discussions and undermine any chance of a thoughtful conversation.
If Uncle Clive and his heard of cats play ball as expected, July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.
What a tragedy, a carbon tax replaced by a doctor tax, a clean energy finance fund replaced with a medical research fund.
That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.
The AFR yesterday (page 5) in relation to the carbon and mining taxes,That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.
The government wants these taxes cancelled as soon as the Senate sits on July 7 so the repeals can be made retrospective to July 1.
Smurf, there's a report in today's paper to the effect that the carbon tax will cease being applied to electricity bills from 1 July.That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.
One can only hope that they don't try back dating to 1 July to suit the financial year accounting. The problem with such an approach, primarily in the electricity industry, is that the presence of the tax itself alters market outcomes sufficiently to make back dating in an efficient manner virtually impossible.
Is the Abbott Government lying about their ability to use DA to achieve their reduction targets? They're funding at roughly $10-11 per ton of abatement. Is that realistic? What modelling, if any, have they undertaken to give them the confidence that they can meet their target?
PUP has promised to knock Abbott's Direct Action Plan back. Abbott and most Australians will be grateful, and you won't have to worry about it any more.
There is no problem with all Australians pursuing their own carbon abatement plans if they are interested. This includes you and your fellow Greenies.
If you support cigarette taxes to force smokers to help fund their increased medical costs, then how is taxing polluters any different?
That smokers are expected to pay for the cost of their healthcare is widely accepted even by smokers. Most smokers would not have a problem with paying a bit beyond that, but when the government is making a profit (tax revenue minus healthcare cost due to smoking) of $1,771 per smoker already, which will rise to $2,902 with the tax hike, many will turn to the black market and thus no longer fund their own healthcare.
How much longer can we pretend the costly externalities of fossil fuels are free?
What will our options be in 2017-18 when the USA and China both have nationwide carbon reduction schemes? Most of our trading partners by then will have some form of carbon reduction scheme running. They most likely wont take too kindly to our free loading.
CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
You, who are always carping about the"rentier classes" and the unemployed under thirties, are quite happy that the tobacco taxes slug the poor to the benefit of the rich. Increased medical costs is also a myth. Increased medical costs are mainly due to people living longer. You will be pleased to know that smokers die younger before the huge costs of just keeping old people alive set in.
Another stupid mistake you Greenies make is that CO2 is a pollutant.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/cigarette-tax-hike-defies-economic-logic/
Costly externalities? Where did you dredge that one up?
I doubt that they will give a stuff. The myth that anything we do can have an impact (costly externality?) on the world's carbon reduction schemes is a nonsense that exists in the minds of the likes of you, Milne and Hanson-Young, i.e. people who show their ignorance by declaring CO2 a pollutant.
Adults in coal mining communities have been found to have:
Higher rates of mortality from lung cancer and chronic heart, respiratory and kidney diseases.
Higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other lung diseases, hypertension, kidney disease, heart attack, stroke and asthma.
Increased probability of a hospitalisation for COPD (by 1% for each 1,462 tons of coal mined) and for hypertension (by 1% for each 1,873 tons of coal mined).
Wow! That's scaryQuite a few of those conditions appeared on my wife's death certificate and she never lived near a mine of any sort. Still you have given me reason to believe the problem could have been coal. You see her grand-father was a Welsh coal miner and even though he lived to be 86 it seems reasonable to suspect that the effects of the nasty coal could be hereditary.
Did your lengthy un-attributed research throw any light on this aspect?
Smurf, there's a report in today's paper to the effect that the carbon tax will cease being applied to electricity bills from 1 July.
Ah, we are talking about higher incidences, not absolutes. Using your wife's medical certificate has absolutely no relevance.
Yes, it's called satire i.e. "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?