Labor's carbon tax lie

[sails]

A few facts are like a hot knife through butter in all this.

On ABC Insiders on Sunday, Bolt brought Lenore Taylor back to it again and again, by how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps? Lenore simply could not or would not answer, finally telling Bolt, on air, to 'piss off'.

Not very 'audit' of her.

So let me get this straight. They want to bring in a tax that Swan and Gillard said wouldn't happen in this term. While it won't hit us directely, it is likely to hit us hard via higher costs of living - so it is technically a tax like GST which will affect everyone.

Then, when questioned, labor have no idea (or don't want to tell how little) this will reduce carbon emissions. They seem to have no idea how much it will cost the public, no idea on how people will be compensated. I suspect they have no idea on how long people might be compensated. After all, labor has shown that any election promises are not worth the paper they are written on or the TV airing time.

IMO, Labor really should sort out this policy properly then take it to the people to decide by referendum or election. It is has way too much potential to damage the economy in it's present unknown state and the people should know for what they are voting.

I don't think I can ever remember such a vague and dishonest lot in federal government. Hawke and Keating would run rings around our current wannabes.

 

[wayneL]

On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.

Not very objective of him.

Either way, the question remains - how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps?

 

[Logique]

On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.
Not very objective of him.

Came across as a teeny bit aggressive, I'll grant you that Ghotib, but Bolt is always outnumbered two to one (minimum) on ABC panels, and speaks for (what I believe is) the majority of Australians on this subject, so he gets some allowance for that.

The stakes are high here. We could all see that Lenore was going to evade or dissemble on the carbon tax. The question could hardly have been a surprise to her.

 

[Julia]

Lenore simply could not or would not answer, finally telling Bolt, on air, to 'piss off'.
.

On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.

Not very objective of him.

You're both right. Andrew Bolt was less than polite, but this was in the face of Lenore Taylor (who never, ever acknowledges anything negative about the government) simply refusing to answer his question. Because she couldn't.

Either way, the question remains - how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps?

Zackly. This question has now been asked many many times on this forum and no one has ventured a single comment in reply.
Must be a bit embarrassing for the fans of the carbon tax.

 

[sails]

...Zackly. This question has now been asked many many times on this forum and no one has ventured a single comment in reply.
Must be a bit embarrassing for the fans of the carbon tax.

Oh, if only they would admit some embarrassment.

They just seem to moooove foorwaard and ignore anything negative and fight on about how it will save the earth even in the face of increasing conflicting scientific argument that the earth might not be suffering quite so badly, and even if it was, they ignore that our little contribution is like a spit in the ocean. And quite happy for the cost of living to go through the roof to make this didly squat difference to carbon.

And they think we're nuts...

 

[Calliope]

Either way, the question remains - how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps?

Perhaps I can help. The answer is;

nothing, nil, nix, nada, null, aught, cipher, cypher, goose egg, naught, zero, zilch, zip, zippo

I other words...diddly squat

 

[wayneL]

Perhaps I can help. The answer is;

nothing, nil, nix, nada, null, aught, cipher, cypher, goose egg, naught, zero, zilch, zip, zippo

I other words...diddly squat

Yeah but I want to hear that from the Fabians, though I suspect hell will freeze over first.

 

[IFocus]

On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.

Not very objective of him.

Bolts behavior was a shocker like many here if you don't agree or go along with his opinion then he has to bully to the other side.

His continued political rants and lack of any form of insightful comment is just painful.

 

[IFocus]

Oh, I thought you might have meant 'idiots'.


No. The finger pointing was absolutely intentional. You are the one making stupid generalisations so you are the one to whom my comment was directed.
Stop making silly remarks and no one will challenge you on them.

Sigh....................silly remarks............challenge HTFDYTYA.

 

[orr]

Earlier in this tread there were some big fans of the Koch brothers, Todays article By P.Krugman talks to the "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project" funded by The Koch's in his Nytimes Opinion piece and gives an interesting take on the realism of their intended audience. Upton Sinclair's quote toward the end of the article sums up my take on many of the regular contributors to this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html

The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
(why do i bother?)

 

[sails]

...The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
(why do i bother?)

Why should Australia bother? We are responsible for just over 1% of world carbon emissions while America and China are responsible for around 40%. Even if we reduce our emissions by 5%, it will make diddly squat to any rising temperatures while putting the Australian economy at risk and hurting people with further rising costs of living.

And then to compensate people seems to be rather self defeating as it will further dilute any "good" this may do in preventing rising temperatures (or reducing them - whichever way you want to look at it.

It seems that thoughtful people all over the world are questioning the seeming stupidity of such a tax. It is those who think they will be compensated or are easily brainwashed and led by the nose that seem to accept it, IMO.

World carbon emissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

[orr]

The best criticism of the proposed Carbon tax that I've heard enunciated yet was by Geoff Carmody(ex Treasury).If you lower yourself to to listen to the interview with Philip Adams last Wednesday there may be some better 'Amo' than your current feeble bards. As to being led by the nose just go through for me the CV's of Sydneys 2GB's shock jocks(oh please)

 

[Logique]

...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html
The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
(why do i bother?)

This misses the point, as did the ABC overnight, circling the wagons in defence of high priest Flannery, who of course only meant to say, we are told, he just meant lets not make it any worse, which conveniently sidesteps the need to come up with any scientific proof.

The point is the warmists don't have any scientific proof, and they know it. Just ivory tower moralizing. Carbon is bad, hence taxing it is good. They cherry-picked the science, and have been caught out.

Our living standards and national prosperity are at stake. The obvious question from Bolt is somehow fatuous? How does that work?

 

[medicowallet]

The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
(why do i bother?)

Why do I bother???

Can you please explain how accurate the models have been in predicting the warming, or lack of it to occur since 1998?

The models said up, carbon went up, temp remained normal. And people who have never looked at the science expect us to believe these models which are inaccurate, and make assumptions which are clearly wrong.

www.solarcycle24.com

 

[sails]

Looks like the thinking people of Australia are being heard:

Full story from the Australian: Carbon plans take toll on Labor: Newspoll

SUPPORT for Labor has crashed again, collapsing to an eight-year, two-party-preferred low as Julia Gillard fights the Greens on "traditional values" and sticks by a carbon tax.

When will labor get it that Australia is tiny in world carbon emission percentages and that all the effort and financial hurt planned will make a "spit in the ocean" difference:

From Wikipedia - Australia: .......................1.28%

 

[moXJO]

From Wikipedia - Australia: .......................1.28%

And the figure we are trying to get to is 5-10% less than that isn't it
Wow cash vaule

 

[trainspotter]

Yeah but I want to hear that from the Fabians, though I suspect hell will freeze over first.

Not without a carbon tax it wont.

 

[orr]

As to the veracity of the arguments, you don't have to rely on me, Go to to the Koch funded Berkeley study quoted by Krugman(nobel Laureate). As to Bolt(Murdoch foot soldier), go to Upton Sinclair's quote down the article. As to the effects on lifestyle the historical evidence as applied to regulation of Sulphur Dioxide you may find soothing, read Naomi Oreskes" Merchants of Doubt" pg. !00 to 106.
Cost to Industry. I look to Germany as a case study, any of there products on your wish lists?
As I stated earlier Geoff Carmody's proposals hold a lot of virtue, as a future model. You do reading.


Or Listen to Chris Smith this afternoon, a man who likes to get drunk hang out his penis and goose women, And maintain your ranker .

 

[nioka]

From Wikipedia - Australia: .......................1.28%

Maybe the last straw that breaks the camels back. Remember it is not size that counts, its what you do with it.

 

[trainspotter]

As to the veracity of the arguments, you don't have to rely on me, Go to to the Koch funded Berkeley study quoted by Krugman(nobel Laureate). As to Bolt(Murdoch foot soldier), go to Upton Sinclair's quote down the article. As to the effects on lifestyle the historical evidence as applied to regulation of Sulphur Dioxide you may find soothing, read Naomi Oreskes" Merchants of Doubt" pg. !00 to 106.
Cost to Industry. I look to Germany as a case study, any of there products on your wish lists?
As I stated earlier Geoff Carmody's proposals hold a lot of virtue, as a future model. You do reading.

Or Listen to Chris Smith this afternoon, a man who likes to get drunk hang out his penis and goose women, And maintain your ranker .

Pure GOLD right here.

BTW ....... it should have been "rancour" :