And his $180,000 Federal salary courtesy of the Australian tax payer. Brrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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...
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.
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.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...
If all these articles I posted haven't been retracted or corrected for errors, why shouldn't they be believed?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 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.
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.
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.
I haven't looked at the poll yet but ABC radio reported that The Greens were up, I think, 3 points.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.
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
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."
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.
occur.
I also can't see him raising taxes so he can implement his direct action policy.
I agree. It's stuff like this that turns voters off. We could never imagine, e.g. John Howard, saying something like this.It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."
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?