Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new
wayneL said:
And what, in your opinion, are those proportions? Upper and lower limits please.
Click to expand...

The simple answer to this, is the amount they would be without any human interference. I am unwilling to get into a global warming debate, as it is simply ludicrous. You may as well be arguing that the earth is flat.

wayneL said:
Argumentative fallacy. If you want to be taken seriously, refrain from this. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Not half as bad as yourself and many here.

wayneL said:
Which degrees do you have relative to the discussion?
Click to expand...

None - this is why I yield to the consensus of scientists not being paid by the fossil fuels industry.
 
Starcraftmazter said:
The simple answer to this, is the amount they would be without any human interference. I am unwilling to get into a global warming debate, as it is simply ludicrous. You may as well be arguing that the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

With regard to "the amount they would be without any human interference", we are, even now, at the lower margins of co2 concentrations sans human interference.

I thank you however for this answer, because it shows how little you understand.

The old "Earth is flat" pejorative is just kindergarten stuff. If you are not prepared to stand up for your beliefs by arguing for them, just believe them and STFU, otherwise it is useless clutter on the forum.

Not half as bad as yourself and many here.
Click to expand...

You cannot criticize others for argumentative/logical fallacy when you have shown yourself to be the most enthusiastic and puerile proponent. I want to forgive of of this because your young age, but most people I know in their early twenties have either grown out of this, or never will.

Honestly, you seem to be hear primarily to anyone to the right of Mao Tse Tung.

None - this is why I yield to the consensus of scientists not being paid by the fossil fuels industry.
Click to expand...

All scientists are paid by somebody. Where there is money, there is an agenda; but because of your biases, you are prepared to accept biased conclusions from one set of scientists, but not the other. Once more, you (and others) are prepared to write of unfavourable conclusions by assigning "oil money" funding where there maybe be no such thing. Don't forget, oil money also funds much pro-AGW research.

Ultimately science itself suffers from such nonsense, of which you are a willing party.

All-in-all a non-answer from you, which supports my above hypothesis.
 
wayneL said:
With regard to "the amount they would be without any human interference", we are, even now, at the lower margins of co2 concentrations sans human interference.

I thank you however for this answer, because it shows how little you understand.
Click to expand...

This is quite ironic, as you do not understand the sort of changes our planet has gone through in it's existence, and the changes that have occurred in solar radiance overtime. This is precisely why I do not care to argue about global warming, because the other end of the argument is always some right-wing nut that has zero idea about anything scientific, and simply regurgitates crap being fed to them by fossil fuels companies.

wayneL said:
STFU, otherwise it is useless clutter on the forum.
Click to expand...

How about you take your own advice.

wayneL said:
All scientists are paid by somebody.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between scientists being paid by governments and corporations, and then which corporations as well. There is not only a difference to where their salary comes from nor it's continence, but also their motivations for working in their job. This should be obvious, but I guess not to some.
 
Starcraftmazter said:
What exactly has this got to do with global warming?
Click to expand...
You do understand that this thread is about a carbon tax? That the theory of AGW is about CO2?

Perhaps you could outline the tertiary climate science qualifications of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, David Suzuki, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Julia Gillard, Lenore Taylor and Tony Jones?
 
Logique said:
Perhaps you could outline the tertiary climate science qualifications of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, David Suzuki, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Julia Gillard, Lenore Taylor and Tony Jones?
Click to expand...

So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?
 
According to Money Morning any one with super will be helping the feds buy renewable energy products.
Your 1,3 trillion will be taken over my the Feds because they can't manage your money better than any one else and spend it wisely..... ( cough.... like there are doing with the economy ) ...
 
Starcraftmazter said:
So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?
Click to expand...
My argument is that a proposed new tax on everyone, ought to be commented upon by - everyone.

My other argument is that the carbon tax (being such good policy) would surely receive a ringing endorsement from voters, hence why the negativity from the Gillard government about calling a general election on this proposed new impost?

No, no, no, that's all Labor/Greens say, so negative.
 
Logique said:
My other argument is that the carbon tax (being such good policy) would surely receive a ringing endorsement from voters, hence why the negativity from the Gillard government about calling a general election on this proposed new impost?
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait, are you implying most voters are not completely uninformed, uneducated, short-sighted blobs of stupid?
 
An exercise in futility here. A couple of wise proverbs come to mind about arguing, which I will heed until further notice. :rolleyes:
 
Starcraftmazter said:
So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?
Click to expand...

I think a drover's dog could do a better job of running the country - so maybe it's not such a bad thought to let scientists have a go. Good chance it would be a big improvement.

At least they would be methodical and take all possible factors into consideration.

And, unlike the current mob who seem to shoot first and then look around to see if they did any damage. If not, then the policy is OK, otherwise shoot from the hip again.

And scientists might be rather insulted at the idea just plonking on a carbon tax for something as complex as their climate and atmospheric science.
 
Starcraftmazter said:
So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?
Click to expand...
Labor lied about this tax at the last election. This, first and foremost is why they should not proceed with it.

Lying about such a major policy is a wholesale abuse of democracy.
 
Found this on Bolt's site, but for the Bolt sceptics, he give links to other sources. It looks like Gillard chooses to use power plants no longer in use for her advertising. We saw in the Cate and Caton TV ads where the old decommissioned coal fired power plant was used in the ad with dirty looking stuff coming out of the chimneys (which it seems was added to make co2 look dirty when it is actually an invisible gas).

Why it is necessary to use these sort of illusions to market something as important as a major tax change is beyond belief, imo. Surely, something this major should have all the cards on the table with no deceitfulness necessary. If it's so good for the country, why does Gillard have to resort to these sort of tactics?

So, now on the Clean Energy Future government web page, they have a picture of another decommissioned solar power plant. It was apparently closed because the town got connected to the grid, and coal-fired power is not only cheaper but it stays on at night.

Here is a Wiki link on it: White Cliffs Solar Power Station
And here is the link to Bolt's info on it at the Herald Sun: Gillard’s future - decommissioned already

Renewable_energy1.jpg
 
Bob Carter - Part 1 of 2 (remarks @5:50 is interesting...)


Bob Carter - Part 2 of 2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sails said:
I think a drover's dog could do a better job of running the country - so maybe it's not such a bad thought to let scientists have a go. Good chance it would be a big improvement.
At least they would be methodical and take all possible factors into consideration.
Click to expand...
Would they? Be careful what you wish for, sails.
Given the predictions of some scientists that we are facing an imminent catastrophe if drastic action is not taken immediately, why do you think they would have any appreciation of the economic and social factors that accompany their professed desire to completely alter our present lives?

And, unlike the current mob who seem to shoot first and then look around to see if they did any damage. If not, then the policy is OK, otherwise shoot from the hip again.
Click to expand...
Whilst I share your despair about the current government, I think it's a mistake to imagine that absolutely anything would be better. Personally, I would hate to see a bunch of academic scientists running the country.

And scientists might be rather insulted at the idea just plonking on a carbon tax for something as complex as their climate and atmospheric science.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they would be insulted about this? Many of them seem desperate to see governments apply any action at all, regardless of its actual effectiveness.


drsmith said:
Labor lied about this tax at the last election. This, first and foremost is why they should not proceed with it.

Lying about such a major policy is a wholesale abuse of democracy.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. Totally agree. And it is why no one is even listening to Ms Gillard.
It is quite what she deserves with her tricky, sycophantic hypocrisy.
 

Similar threads

sydboy007
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
3K
sydboy007
sydboy007
piggybank
Are Australian freight going the same way as our car industry?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
The Mint Man
Labor Tax Policy, where is it?
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
21K
greggy
G
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top