This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
Weatsop said:
You really don't understand, do you? Are you even trying?

She said she WOULD bring in a carbon price, and WOULDN'T bring in a carbon tax.

YOU say a price is a tax. Tell me then, what could she do and NOT lie?
Click to expand...

My friend you are the one who does not understand or does want to understand.

Rudd wanted the carbon dioxide tax and Gillard prevented him from going a head with it.......Gillard make it clear before the 2010 election, there would be no carbon tax/price or what ever you want to call it.

I can't see the difference between a tax and a price...it still cost working families an extra $550 per year in living costs......do you really think those who were imposed upon with the carbon dioxide tax would would wear it or pass it on to the consumer?......the consumer has to pay in the end.....it is a bit like when the lefties changed from quoting Global Warming to Climate Change after they realized there had been no warming for 17 years.

Your argument just does not hold water no matter how hard you try to cover it up.
 
Weatsop said:
You really don't understand, do you? Are you even trying?
She said she WOULD bring in a carbon price, and WOULDN'T bring in a carbon tax.
YOU say a price is a tax. Tell me then, what could she do and NOT lie?
Click to expand...
Historical revisionism surrounds Gillard, the usual suspects are behind it.

I watched the TV interview live to air. "There'll be no carbon tax under the government I lead", said Gillard in a contrived sing-song voice. That's as unequivocal as it gets. I remember thinking..as if! But it was towards the end of the campaign, and Labor were starting to panic.

She's no Matthias Cormann.
 
noco said:
I can't see the difference between a tax and a price...
Click to expand...

In terms of money:

Price is what you pay for something. In Australia, this is normally inclusive of all taxes and other costs as well as that of providing the goods or services in the first place.

Tax is money taken by, or on behalf of, government and not necessarily in conjunction with anything being bought, sold or otherwise physically done. In the Australian context, a collection of a tax is usually not directly linked to how the money will be used - it all just goes into one big pot.

It's a technicality from the perspective of the average person certainly. But I'd argue that we had a carbon tax, rather than a carbon price, since it (1) was imposed by government with all funds raised going to government (2) was not directly associated with anything being bought or sold as such (3) was levied as a rate per unit of quantity and (4) was not negotiable in terms of rate, being a rate decreed by government.

To me, that has the usual characteristics of a tax rather than a price.
 

I'm just picturing Tony and Greg spruiking Direct Action to China and the USA, explaining how it works, really getting into the policy detail.

I'm pretty confident Xi and Obama will be left with as much understand as the Australian public had from Tony and Brandis' attempts on explaining metadata and the proposed data retention laws.
 

Actually they will probably be still seeing us, as the pizz ant country on the bottom of the world, with an identity crisis.
That keeps trying to big note itself, in the Big Legue, while destroying its economy.

No doubt they have a real laugh. IMO
 

You must feel like a bit of a dill now with the US and China agreeing to do a deal in Paris at COP21

A right dill. you and all the other deniers.
~
[video=youtube_share;16UJOyB3yHc]http://youtu.be/16UJOyB3yHc[/video]
 
Weatsop said:
Look at the first link you presented, to Fact Checker.



You OWN link tells you that she could reasonably be right in saying a price is not a tax.
Click to expand...
Yes but it also says that she would face counter arguments like from the experts in the very same link I sent.

But most of all, your second video - above. At the end, what does she say? She's going to work towards "putting a cap on carbon pollution".

What do you think a cap on carbon MEANS?
Click to expand...
I think it means what we had been told to that point which was that Gillard promised a citizens assembly on climate change to gauge feeling of the community on its attitude towards putting a price on carbon. If she intended on pricing carbon then why would she promise a citizens assembly to look into this very issue?


I think you're seeing what you want to see here, again wouldn't the citizens assembly be considered working towards implementing a price on carbon? I would have thought she wouldn't say working towards but rather that she would put a price on carbon if she intended at that stage to introduce a price on carbon.

Like I said she has done herself no favors here, in that very question why would she not say that she will put a price on carbon instead of working towards a cap on carbon?

Lets say you're right though and this was her intention, Gillard did a terrible job at conveying her intentions to implement a price on carbon and you cannot do that when you have an ideological position the opposite of the Murdoch press as they will eat you alive which they did.
 


Ya gotta laugh or go mad but just promted the shirt front approach to Putin when it looks like the Tory instilled Ukrain guv shot down that plane.

And Climate, coming on board when too late in my view.

Who' hysterical
 
Before we get too congratulatory toward the USA and China, not to mention Australians devoted to the cause of climate change, let's remember that
1. This is a goal
2. It is aspirational, non-binding
3. It has a very long time frame: China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
4. Most important of all: anything Obama agrees to, however notionally, is virtually irrelevant, given he is now a lame duck president. The Republicans are less than enthusiastic about measures to deal with climate change, so I wouldn't be holding my breath about any heroic achievements as a result of today's announcement.
 

Very good points Julia.
 
Lots of news on acceptance of the issue,

but deadly quiet on this thread.

Mr Rabbit's ears flopped as Mr Hunt misses the mark, hey.

Grape growers urging action as crops being destroyed by unusually hot weather the last couple of years.
 
I have mentioned it before and I will say it again......the alarmists issue on Global Warming is a con job.......The IPPC tailor make reports to suit the UN Climate Change committee so as they they can push their barrow for an emissions trading scheme.

Their reports are 2 years old and have not been reviewed since 2012.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/g20-can-coldfront-climate-lobby/story-e6frg6zo-1227121009652

G20 can cold-front climate lobby

MICHAEL ASTEN
The Australian
November 13, 2014 12:00AM



THE climate lobby will be working the corridors of the G20 *meeting in Brisbane this weekend, using the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report and Climate Council *commentary.

Curiously, neither has updated the underlying observational *science relating to climate change; the figures are subsets from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, where data and literature review stops at 2012. Observational data and climate model predictions are presented separately, concealing the uncomfortable truth of the global temperature *hiatus, which challenges the fundamental *assumptions of the models. It is a challenge that gets stronger every year as increasing atmospheric CO2 content is unmatched by predicted temperature increase.

How would Joe Hockey fare if he went to the G20 with economic data that was two years out of date?

While scientists published in top journals treat the temperature hiatus as fact, activists still deny its existence. Thus the Climate Council (once a proud group of government-*funded scientists in the Climate Commission, now a privately funded lobby group) claims, “Myth: The Earth has stopped warming since 1998”. Use of the word warming is imprecise, being interpreted as “temperature” or “heat content” dep*ending on the argument of the moment.

The “heat content” approach hypothesised that warming of the deep oceans was compensating for lack of global surface warming. This has been studied in a series of important papers, most recently by William Llovel and co-workers at the California Institute of Technology who used quantitative observations of global ocean mass and temperature profiles to show that the deep ocean has in fact cooled slightly in the past decade.

Failure to include this in updated assessments by the IPCC and Climate Council is inexcusable.
 

I agree, and certainly not feeling smug.

In my humble view it will all be coming together far too late according to the melt and release of methane (20 times worse than coal burning) from Greenland and Antartica.

And why would not one be hysterical on the destruction of this beautiful but very fragile planet.
 
Yes, let's hope the "great pause" continues.

From NASA.

As of 2014, 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880 according to NASA scientists. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. Earth continues to be hotter than it was several decades ago.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/
 
Julia said:
It has a very long time frame: China still intends to keep on increasing emissions in the next few years.
Click to expand...

In relation to the recent announcement between China and the US, note the following in a ABC news article from June last year,

China has no targets to reduce absolute carbon emissions and government officials have said they will continue to rise until around 2030.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-18/china-launches-its-first-carbon-trading-scheme/4763770

My bolds
 

Most important of all is that for the very first time the Chinese (the new Chinese govt) has made a commitment to "push forward" the Paris COP21 talks, the Chinese were the hold outs last time..so now everyone is on board, the chances of a BINDING agreement coming out of the COP21 talks is now very high.

A new Climate change TREATY and commitment period (Kyoto 2) coming out of Paris is now almost a certainty.

That's the most important thing of all.
 

Maybe South Australia's loss is Tasmania's gain ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-growing-hotspots/5889828?WT.ac=statenews_tas
 

Absolutely, now the Big Boys are in the game, rather than the little boys, trying to form their own legue.lol
 

Julia, I think there is a bit of window dressing going on ATM......I am not sure what has brought on this sudden inspiration between the USA and China and as you say there is nothing binding so remains to be seen what comes out of it.

Maybe it is the G20 meeting.

Nevertheless, the Greens took of like a rocket with the news and are now passing over the moon....lets hope their rocket keeps heading towards the Sun.......so long as they get at night fall it won't be so hot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...