Labor's carbon tax lie

[noco]

Smurf, there's not much around as I suspect it's an embarrassment to the AGW and carbon tax cause. But here's a couple of articles - first one by Andrew Bolt. I understand the desal plants in various states were built at great tax payer expense based on these dire warnings:



Read more: It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change

and



Read more:Prof Tim Flannery's waterside getaway

Flannery seems to be pretty quiet these days - perhaps enjoying his waterfront property...

And his $180,000 Federal salary courtesy of the Australian tax payer. Brrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kavla1970]

The problem with Politicians nowadays is that everytime Mother Nature decides to smack us on the rear, we end up paying a tax on it. Fear is being used to control our lives rather than explaining that S**T happens and it's the way of the world.Carbon is needed. Carbon in history has been more than triple the rate it is today.

That doesn't mean I(and I am sure others) don't think other measures should be put in place to correct the errors of our ways. Our Government should be looking at safer alternatives to offer the taxpayer(not paying off inventors who create cars that run on water) not tax existing industries. That's just going to increase the cost of living because we still need to USE these resources.

In twenty years time there will be too much oxygen and we will end up getting taxed for it.

 

[noco]

The problem with Politicians nowadays is that everytime Mother Nature decides to smack us on the rear, we end up paying a tax on it. Fear is being used to control our lives rather than explaining that S**T happens and it's the way of the world.Carbon is needed. Carbon in history has been more than triple the rate it is today.

That doesn't mean I(and I am sure others) don't think other measures should be put in place to correct the errors of our ways. Our Government should be looking at safer alternatives to offer the taxpayer(not paying off inventors who create cars that run on water) not tax existing industries. That's just going to increase the cost of living because we still need to USE these resources.

In twenty years time there will be too much oxygen and we will end up getting taxed for it.

Yes and add to that the 1000 + bureaucrats that have been engaged to administer this stupid carbon(dioxide) tax. Sorry carbon price.

 

[Logique]

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/10/17/269655_most-popular-stories.html...Here we go, the first step toward closing the Australian aluminium industry is now being taken...
...Those who have seen this scenario play out in other industries will know how it goes. FiAnd the great irony of all this is that Bell Bay was built where it is specifically to take advantage of hydro-electricity, still the world's major source of renewable electricity. Oh how the Greens and Labor have screwed this state and increasingly this country...

I understand your bitterness Smurf. I've often said, take a look at the Green utopia of Tasmania, that's our future, unless we act at the ballot box.

 

[joea]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

Hi. An interesting site. I do not know if it has been added to this thread before.
joea

 

[joea]

If all these articles I posted haven't been retracted or corrected for errors, why shouldn't they be believed?

They were easy enough to find with a google search. I have noticed Flannery has gone very quiet of late. If you join the dots together you get the picture of predictions that haven't come true and a prophet who got his message wrong. Nature has it's own ideas and is not conforming to AGW predictions.

I suppose he was not coming up with the goods.
Now the government has installed its own propaganda "spin unit" in Canberra at a wages cost of $630,000, year plus running costs.
It was probably done this way to upset the opposition, every time they walk by.
Well its either that or Combet wants somebody to be an audience when he practises his speeches.
joea

 

[noco]

Herewith is a good interview with some real scientist. Note the comments that goes with it.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...t_report_global_warming_special/#commentsmore

 

[noco]

And now for the Green/Labor scoialist left wing propaganda machine goes to work to sell the carbon dioxide TAX, the five highly paid bureaucrats at from $115,000 to $170,000 plus the advertising costs.

Costs over budget by $4 million already.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abors-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226170412504

 

[noco]

It would appear from the link below Peter Garrett may have told a porkie back in 2009 and is trying to retreat from it. Of course what is new with this Labor Government.

LIES,LIES AND MORE DAMN LIES.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/not_drowning_but_wavering/#commentsmore

 

[sails]

According to the latest news poll, 59% (up 6%) oppose the new carbon tax legislation. Australia clearly doesn't want this tax:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rt-fall-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226175717066


And it seems the coalition are confident they can repeal carbon tax quite quickly after a new election:

Tax can be gone in a year at most

 

[sails]

I guess you weren't kidding.

How do you know it's a transcript, or what it's a transcript of, or who conducted the interview, or when it was conducted, or whether anything has been omitted. There's literally nothing in the article to tell a mere mortal any of those things. I don't say the article is wrong. I say it's a light piece published in an ephemeral magazine driven by the need to fill a certain amount of space between advertisements. Would you give such credence to an article on any other subject from such a source? I doubt it.

And here is another Flannery transcript for you Ghoti - This time from ABC's Lateline from Feb 2007..

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: The social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally, and no government can protect an industry from that sort of thing occurring. We’ve seen it with asbestos. We’ll see it with coal. The reason is that, when you look at the proportion of the damage being done by coal now, it is significant, but that grows greatly in future. We have to deal with that issue if we want a stable climate.

And while Flannery doesn't mention rain, he states in the transcript there may not be any arctic ice left by 2012-2022. We have almost reached his first 5 year mark and there is still arctic ice:

Tony Jones speaks with Tim Flannery

And now Flannery has this to say about coal:

Professor Flannery, who is one of the Gillard government's national climate commissioners, also said mining and its products were "utterly necessary" to modern life, and predicted the Australian coal industry would enjoy robust growth for perhaps the next 25 years.

Tim Flannery backs coal-seam gas and mining industry

 

[Julia]

According to the latest news poll, 59% (up 6%) oppose the new carbon tax legislation. Australia clearly doesn't want this tax:

I haven't looked at the poll yet but ABC radio reported that The Greens were up, I think, 3 points.

There's a peculiar disconnect here, i.e. that the carbon tax is so unpopular, the Coalition's vote is down, and The Greens' is up.

 

[sails]

I haven't looked at the poll yet but ABC radio reported that The Greens were up, I think, 3 points.

There's a peculiar disconnect here, i.e. that the carbon tax is so unpopular, the Coalition's vote is down, and The Greens' is up.

From what I understand, Coalition is down 3% and greens are up 3% on primary votes and labor stays the same.

I believe there is up to a 3% margin of error, so it will be interesting to see if this continues to show up on future polling or if it is a glitch.

I agree, it seems strange that coalition voters are going to green and the fact that there has been an increase of 6% against carbon tax legislation makes this apparent shift to the greens from the coalition even more mysterious.

 

[Knobby22]

And it seems the coalition are confident they can repeal carbon tax quite quickly after a new election:

Tax can be gone in a year at most

it won't be that simple, AGL and Origen (for example) and other smaller businesses will want compensation for building efficient gas plants that will then be unable to compete with coal.

I wouldn't put my house on the Libs completely repealing the tax, there are many business forces acting and Abbott said it is signed in blood but he didn't actually put it in writing and as he himself says, if I say it and its not in writing then it may not occur.
I also can't see him raising taxes so he can implement his direct action policy.

Something will give - I will bet a slab of beers to anyone who believes it will go as Abbott says.

 

[Calliope]

There's a peculiar disconnect here, i.e. that the carbon tax is so unpopular, the Coalition's vote is down, and The Greens' is up.

It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."

 

[sails]

It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."

I know Abbott isn't perfect, but honestly, who else in the coalition would have the fortitude to so relentlessly stand up against the unwanted policies of this government? I know he is powerless to stop legislation going through, but he has at least given the majority of Australians a voice.

Gillard can clearly be a nasty foe and I don't know how Abbott has put up with her screeching tirades in parliament as long as he has. He is accused of being negative, but Gillard can come across as very nasty and bitter and yet that is not spoken about too often.

 

[joea]

I know Abbott isn't perfect, but honestly, who else in the coalition would have the fortitude to so relentlessly stand up against the unwanted policies of this government? I know he is powerless to stop legislation going through, but he has at least given the majority of Australians a voice.

Gillard can clearly be a nasty foe and I don't know how Abbott has put up with her screeching tirades in parliament as long as he has. He is accused of being negative, but Gillard can come across as very nasty and bitter and yet that is not spoken about too often.

Sails.
I just think your statement sums up what millions of people are thinking.
And you have put it very well!
joea

 

[IFocus]

occur.
I also can't see him raising taxes so he can implement his direct action policy.

Add all the other populist promises Abbott's made to the equation and I think your slab of beer is a safe bet.

 

[drsmith]

What voters will remember first and foremost at the next election is that Julia Gillard and Labor lied about pricing carbon this term at the last election.

 

[Julia]

It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."

I agree. It's stuff like this that turns voters off. We could never imagine, e.g. John Howard, saying something like this.

Sails: yes, Tony Abbott has been a very effective opposition leader, but there's a huge difference between being an opposition leader and a Prime Minister. So far, with a few exceptions, Mr Abbott imo has not come across as an authoritative figure with sincere convictions that he's not prepared to change according to what he thinks people want to hear.

An exception was a few months ago when he went up to the Northern Territory where he literally sat down in the dirt and had sincere and serious discussions with aboriginal leaders. He has been in discussions with Noel Pearson for many years, and it's quite clear his convictions about the way forward for indigenous people are thoughtful and sincerely held.

It was noticeable that his popularity rating in the poll subsequent to this visit showed a clear increase.