FYI: Tax rates going up

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Sent you a PM Sudzy to say I never received a report today nor yesterday but you have decided not to receive PM's so don't know what button you are pushing but if you feel that way about the post I will delete it .......

.

Ok, thankyou.

However, when I try to access the pm view, it says has been disabled by the administrators.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by WMD351

The old grey mare she ain't what she used to be
My real point is that we're living in a democracy but we never seem to get what the majority want.

We get what the majority want every time I get what I want

[cheap]

I would like to keep discussing this ludicrous tax from a financial and social aspect and it is difficult to not discuss CO2.

I can not see how someone can prescribe a certain ppm CO2 as being the ideal CO2 level, wouldn't dear old mother nature need to comply with this demand?

Also historic CO2 levels when overlaid with historic climate records, they do not exactly match, explain why?

If someone wants to discuss science fine, just back up your facts and stop the deliberate obfuscation, it is a tactic which Getup droids use to close down debate, I'm certain no one here wants to be labeled as bottom feeding low level belligerent Getup pretender.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by naddis01

So the way I read that, diesel fuel will be taxed. So I would assume that diesel fuel used in a private vehicle will also be taxed? Has anyone definatively (not guessed) worked out how much it works out to be per litre?

The Transport industry claim a diesel fuel rebate of X cents/litre.
That rebate they claim, will be reduced by 6 c/L.
Everyone still pays the same at the pump.
The tax is applied by having a smaller rebate for business that can claim that rebate.

[SEZ213]

An interesting article I found regarding the 'carbon tax' - it's not particularly academic, but an interesting read nonetheless...(well it was for me anyway...)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegr...king_a_nation/

Not since the notorious Loans Affair contributed to the Whitlam’s government’s timely downfall has there been a fraud attempted on the scale of Julia Gillard’s great carbon tax con.

Before working out how much you might make or how much it might cost you, remember this: no other nation on this planet is attempting to implement an economy wide carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
Then think on this: the giant tax will not affect the climate at all.
And ponder the question: why are we to suffer this new and stifling layer of bureaucracy?
The facts speak for themselves.
Money is being taken from you for no real reason.
Some will be handed back as a sweetener and indeed, some people might even believe they are (slightly) better off.
That will be an illusion because the national economy will be worse off as businesses lose their competitive edge and export their jobs to kindlier countries.
No-one can be better off as the nation falls further behind its competitors.
The material released yesterday clearly demonstrates that Australians will be buying their carbon credits from abroad.
That is, they will be exporting money which should have been spent in Australia investing in Australian businesses and Australian jobs.
The totally useless Gillard-Greens tax will create a permanent permit-stimulated deficit.
In her speech, Gillard revealed herself to be everything she has claimed her opponents are.
It is Gillard who denies science, it is Gillard who doesn’t understand economics and it is Gillard who doesn’t have a clue about the environment.
Her Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is just as ignorant.
On Sky television, Swan was asked a simple question by interviewer David Speers: will Australia’s domestic emissions go up or down?
That question is at the heart of this whole con because Gillard and the Greens and the Independents are about to embark on a massive campaign to convince the public that the national and the global environment depend on this tax for their future.
Swan said emissions would definitely go down.
He was wrong.
The modelling released Sunday plainly shows that from 2010 to 2020, emissions are forecast to increase from 578 million tonnes to 621 millions tonnes, a 43 million tonne increase in domestic emissions.
Swan later conceded this in a text message to Speers.
His initial response demonstrates either a complete inability to understand his own tax – which is perfectly understandable as he is possibly the worst Treasurer the nation has ever had – or that he failed the honesty test – which is also understandable given his remarks before the last election about the introduction of a carbon tax being “wildly hysterical”.
But the strongest support for the carbon dioxide tax is coming from the Independents - who know they have the most to lose.
They are more supportive of this mongrel of a Labor policy than Labor MPs themselves because the Independents know their electorates will murder them at the first opportunity and they cannot afford to go to an early election.
The Labor MPs know that they will take a shellacking but the Labor Party in some form will continue.
NSW will be the first state hit with some 3000 job losses in the Illawarra, the Hunter. Central Queensland and Victoria will also get slugged.
Our power future is in jeopardy.
Do not believe for a minute that any solar or wind or hot rock development can replace base load power now or in the foreseeable future.
Nuclear is the only option and Labor and the Greens will not countenance any discussion of this prospect.
As Opposition leader Tony Abbott asked: “What’s the point of all of this?”
“This is a redistribution pretending to be compensation. It’s a tax increase pretending to be an environmental policy. It’s socialism masquerading as environmentalism. That’s what this is.”

I don't particularly like Akerman's views sometimes, but this rings pretty true in my ears.

I am interested to understand why the science keeps 'changing' dependent on who you speak to.

Which scientist, academic is better informed? Who should really be trusted, and can we fully trust that person knowing that they receive cash benefits from government departments...can money buy the opinion of esteemed scientists and academics...? Arguably yes, I think ltd said it best...I have a big problem with someone 'selling' a movie and then going on to 'sell' carbon credits - whilst still jetting around.

I am (and always have been) all for reducing, but given that emissions are not going to decrease but increase...I'm failing to see the logic.

I'm also failing to see the logic in taxing someone for something and then providing assistance to those same people (I'm not talking consumers, I'm talking the filthy 500)...there is no LOGICAL reasoning for this - it's bad business...and from where I sit, it seems that it's a little backwards...

I do however, think, that if you're going to try to 'sell' something to the public, you should at least be fully informed on the subject, something which neither Swan nor Gillard are currently able to do...their justification is poor, at best.

[mik]

apart from the Carbon Tax having a highly questionable end result other than a wealth transfer (imo)................. and i`m being kind in my words here, my gripe is some of our leaders yet again will paint the picture black and tell the general population it is in fact white!!
i mean.......... some of our leaders get caught bare faced lying through their teeth and they don`t get the kyber pass instantly(not pointing any fingers here), if i did it in the work place i know i would get the kyber instantly, as most of us would,
if big players in industry and or banking did it we/they would have the ACCC on them faster than jaws on chief Brody ...................while there might be repercussions in 2 years time if the population with short memories does`nt forget as so often seems the case in Australia.
some one else said it, "where is the outrage" .
if this post is too offensive please delete mods, i think i have been civil with it but you decide.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

Also historic CO2 levels when overlaid with historic climate records, they do not exactly match, explain why?

Im guessing your question is concerning that in the past the temperature has risen and then co2 levels have risen: conclusion: co2 cant drive temperature? modern day scientists are stupid/corrupt etc

Im sure that you could see what the science says about this if you wanted to?

Here's a link that perhaps is about your concern: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...termediate.htm

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I do however, think, that if you're going to try to 'sell' something to the public, you should at least be fully informed on the subject, something which neither Swan nor Gillard are currently able to do...their justification is poor, at best.

but you have no problem with Tony Abbott singing along with the mining industry crying poor, with his 'climate science is crap stance' based solely on his bed time reading of a mining industy advocate's book of lies.

He also refuses to listen or attend sessions conducted by Australian scientists that took the time to explain the basics to parliament.

The man refuses to be fully informed on the subject!(its called head in the sand)

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...8/s2748161.htm
TONY JONES: I hear what you're saying about the earth having been hotter in different periods in its entire global history, but let me ask you this. Have you read the science that we're talking about here - for example, have you read the IPCC's report?

TONY ABBOTT: No, I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources.

But look, I think I am as well versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be.

TONY JONES: But you have read Ian Plimer's book.

TONY ABBOTT: I haven't yet finished Ian Plimer's book. I have started Ian Plimer's book.

TONY JONES: But you have quoted it from time to time.

TONY JONES: I've quoted a couple of passages, and I confess I'm probably more familiar with the book through people who've written about it than I am through having read it myself.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...8/s2765721.htm

TONY JONES: Very briefly, have you sought the advice or counsel or have you asked for any kind of meetings with the Australian scientists, there are many of them, who are lead authors on the IPCC's final report?

TONY ABBOTT: I am taking counsel from a range of sources at the moment.

TONY JONES: Including scientists?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.

TONY JONES: But why wouldn't a politician want to speak to scientists about this issue in order to inform themselves?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, Tony, I am very happy to talk to everyone who has worthwhile input into the best way of responding to this.

TONY JONES: But not scientists?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by cheap

Furter madness..

The chief of Macquarie Generation, Russel Skelton, said in Tuesday’s Australian that it would take 3,500 turbines to replace the generator at Bayswater, NSW.

I had a look at the consequences of replacing Hazelwood, in the Latrobe Valley, with wind power, a measure being contemplated by the Government as part of its direct action plan for CO2 emissions reductions.

The figures are mind boggling. First is the cost of the buyout of Hazelwood. Probably about $3b.

Second is the cost of the replacement turbines. Hazelwood is 1470mw. ( say 1500mw for simple sums ). A standard 3mw turbine costs about $7m. ( windustry.org ) That would be 500 towers for nominal capacity of 1500mw. But, given that the average output of these devices is only 1/4 of the nameplate capacity, (or less ), a total of at least 2000 towers would be needed to replace Hazelwood.

Bayswater is bigger than Hazelwood, so Skelton’s figure for Bayswater is probably right.

And 2000 turbines at $7m each works out to $14b! This is 40 windfarms with 50 turbines each, scattered around Victoria.

Thirdly, since the wind farms will spend half their time supplying less than their average output ( by definition), the system will need open cycle gas turbine backup. And backup for even 1/3 of the windfarms capacity will require at least a 500mw of gas turbine generation. This will cost maybe $1.3b, or more. Origin just built one at Mortlake.

Then comes the cost of the gas supply infrastructure, and connection costs to the electricity grid. In total, close to $2b.

Finally comes the cost of the grid connection for the 40 dispersed windfarms. At least another $1b.

So the final cost to replace Hazelwood with wind and gas is 3+14+ 2+1= $20 billion! This is more than the whole Latrobe Valley generating system is worth! Where on earth is this sort of money going to come from? And what will be the price of power with such a monumental amount of capital to service?

And here’s the kicker. The cost of abatement. Assuming that the 16mtpa of current emissions from Hazelwood are foregone, (and not counting the gas that will be used in the scheme anyway), the cost of abatement is $1,350/tonne! This is all madness.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So a mere $20,000,000,000 ($20 billion) to replace just one nasty coal power station. Lets hope he's include maintenance costs for 2000 turbines or those inconsequential bird strikes in his calculations.

Originally Posted by cheap

I had a look at the consequences ........

Well, no you didnt actually


It would be courteous and honest to everyone to actually reveal that you just have copied and pasted this from Andrew Bolt's denialist blog:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a..._power_lights/

or perhaps the other alternative is you are Andrew Bolt, which would be in line with your general line of questioning which I noticed earlier:
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...0&postcount=56 and
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=142

[landau460]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

An interesting article I found regarding the 'carbon tax' - it's not particularly academic, but an interesting read nonetheless...(well it was for me anyway...)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegr...king_a_nation/



I don't particularly like Akerman's views sometimes, but this rings pretty true in my ears.

I am interested to understand why the science keeps 'changing' dependent on who you speak to.
Which scientist, academic is better informed? Who should really be trusted, and can we fully trust that person knowing that they receive cash benefits from government departments...can money buy the opinion of esteemed scientists and academics...? Arguably yes, I think ltd said it best...I have a big problem with someone 'selling' a movie and then going on to 'sell' carbon credits - whilst still jetting around.

I am (and always have been) all for reducing, but given that emissions are not going to decrease but increase...I'm failing to see the logic.

I'm also failing to see the logic in taxing someone for something and then providing assistance to those same people (I'm not talking consumers, I'm talking the filthy 500)...there is no LOGICAL reasoning for this - it's bad business...and from where I sit, it seems that it's a little backwards...

I do however, think, that if you're going to try to 'sell' something to the public, you should at least be fully informed on the subject, something which neither Swan nor Gillard are currently able to do...their justification is poor, at best.

Agreed would be nice to see a debate 100% with scientist for and against.
either way it would also be nice to be able to vote as we have a right to, which was taken away in the last election and a tax now forced upon us now.

By the way does anyone get the feeling that people get the word CARBON and the words CARBON DIOXIDE mixed up seeings the word carbon gets used so loosly as the prob but the words carbon dioxide is what the tax is about.
One refers to a crappy looking black substance and the other to a clear odourless trace gas that life depends on! Just sayin

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by sudszy

TONY JONES: I hear what you're saying about the earth having been hotter in different periods in its entire global history, but let me ask you this. Have you read the science that we're talking about here - for example, have you read the IPCC's report?

TONY ABBOTT: No, I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I'm a politician. I have to rely on briefings - I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources.

But look, I think I am as well versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be.

TONY JONES: But you have read Ian Plimer's book.

TONY ABBOTT: I haven't yet finished Ian Plimer's book. I have started Ian Plimer's book.

TONY JONES: But you have quoted it from time to time.

TONY JONES: I've quoted a couple of passages, and I confess I'm probably more familiar with the book through people who've written about it than I am through having read it myself.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...8/s2765721.htm

TONY JONES: Very briefly, have you sought the advice or counsel or have you asked for any kind of meetings with the Australian scientists, there are many of them, who are lead authors on the IPCC's final report?

TONY ABBOTT: I am taking counsel from a range of sources at the moment.

TONY JONES: Including scientists?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.

TONY JONES: But why wouldn't a politician want to speak to scientists about this issue in order to inform themselves?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, Tony, I am very happy to talk to everyone who has worthwhile input into the best way of responding to this.

TONY JONES: But not scientists?

and people see this rocket scientist as an alternative Prime Minister , good old Tony (R)Abbott

[The Monty]

Why does this have to turn into name calling of the leaders? Can we not just stick to pros and cons of the actual tax itself, otherwise we may as well just close the thread. The last 5 pages have been nothing but tit for tat my choice is better than yours.
Ill re-ask my previous questions that I asked on the first couple of pages that got ignored..

How much will we be paying extra per year? I dont beleive for a second that its only $9.90 a week.
How much will this cool the earth by? IIRC, last night we were told if everything works perfectly, 4 one thousandth of a degree.
Will the increase in CPI (0.7%) and the extra tax we wont be paying (?) impact on our interest rates for houses? More money in, more money out, CPI going up, interest rates go up. So the carbon tax could possibly push interest rates higher. Again. So will this be compensated as well?
And lastly, whats the use of having a tax, where everyone is mostly compensated, that is not certain to do anything, and that will cost jobs (thats a fact)? It doesnt make sense to me.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Why does this have to turn into name calling of the leaders? Can we not just stick to pros and cons of the actual tax itself, otherwise we may as well just close the thread. The last 5 pages have been nothing but tit for tat my choice is better than yours.
Ill re-ask my previous questions that I asked on the first couple of pages that got ignored..

How much will we be paying extra per year? I dont beleive for a second that its only $9.90 a week.
How much will this cool the earth by? IIRC, last night we were told if everything works perfectly, 4 one thousandth of a degree.
Will the increase in CPI (0.7%) and the extra tax we wont be paying (?) impact on our interest rates for houses? More money in, more money out, CPI going up, interest rates go up. So the carbon tax could possibly push interest rates higher. Again. So will this be compensated as well?
And lastly, whats the use of having a tax, where everyone is mostly compensated, that is not certain to do anything, and that will cost jobs (thats a fact)? It doesnt make sense to me.

First part of your question:
Because it is the agenda of left-wing droids to obfuscate, nit-pick, frustrate people, so that moderators need close down all debate. This happens so often with the same people involved. GetUp must have deemed fordforums a threat and assigned several agitators to the website.

Second part:
It is impossible to know exactly how much extra you'll be paying. The consequences of this tax are so far reaching and the government has miscalculated so many items. Rest assured we will be taxed more than we will be compensated, by default because we're more poor, we will have even less spending money, business turn-down, unemployment up and the economy will go into a tail spin, Australia's CO2 reductions will be a consequence of economic decline rather than smart policy. Meanwhile the Chinese/India (and most of the world) keeps on keeping on emitting CO2 unabated.

If you don't believe me, look at a small sample of the track record of the people promoting this tax: Fuel watch, Grocery watch, laptops for schools, cash splash(s), securing water resources, super contributions cut, boat people + Malaysian solution, ETS, Ruddbank, digital set-top, BER, pink batts, NBN, mining tax, Henry tax plan... there is a proven FAILURE track record.

As Winston Churchill once said, "a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"

[gunner]

I've been reading these posts for a few days now and they've been quite entertaining, although it would seem there are a few that won't change their opinion regardless of what facts are thrown out there.

One "fact" that keeps popping up is that Australia is doing it alone, or no large economies / countries are doing anything about carbon emissions. This is false. Europe, India and China account for approx 40% of the world's population and they are all (or will shortly) be pricing carbon. Australia is not alone in this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-international

China

Plans have been announced for emissions trading systems to be rolled out in six regions by 2013 and nationwide by 2015. China's ambitious strategy to cut carbon emissions by 40%-45% by 2020 has been praised by those who claim the commitment from the world's biggest source of CO2 emissions shows up the US's indecision on carbon caps. But there are worries that the true impact of China's increasing number of coal-fired power stations is being masked by the cooling effects of these plants' sulphur emissions.

US

Despite being the second biggest CO2 total emitter after China, the US has no national carbon tax policy. A bill to introduce a carbon cap was abandoned a year ago by Democrats when it met with opposition from both sides.

Europe

The European Union emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the largest multinational emissions trading scheme in the world and obliges large emitters to produce no more than their particular European unit allowance. Otherwise, they must buy surplus units from other emitters or face severe penalties.

Six years after its launch, the ETS faces criticism for failing to reduce carbon emissions in some cases, failing to spur non-EU countries to adopt cap-and-trade systems, and encouraging fraud and profiteering. As EU members debate the parameters of the next phase, from 2013 to 2020, campaigners are calling for fundamental reforms, or for it to be scrapped in favour of potentially more effective measures, such as carbon taxes. But the system has resulted in overall carbon emission reduction, and the EU has been praised for establishing a wide-ranging climate initiative.

India

India sets emission levels for 563 of the country's biggest polluters, such as power and, steel mills and cement plants, allowing businesses who use more energy to buy carbon certificates from those who use less. Trading will start in 2014.

Nationwide, it has a carbon tax (1 July 2010) of 50 rupees/tonne ($1.07/tonne) of coal produced in and imported to India.

In comparison to many other of its Asian counterparts, India's carbon pricing schemes are ambitious. They reflect an urgent need to curb emission rates from a country that – with four times the population of the US, an economy growing 8-9 per cent a year, and surging energy demand – makes it the country with the third highest carbon emissions.

Although it has refused to accept legally binding targets, India has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 20-25% from 2005 levels by 2020. But there are concerns about how both carbon initiatives will evolve because of a lack of data and trained manpower as well as weak penalties for firms that refuse to comply. Nonetheless, India's tax on coal is one of the first carbon taxes enacted at the national level by any major economy in the world.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

but you have no problem with Tony Abbott singing along with the mining industry crying poor, with his 'climate science is crap stance' based solely on his bed time reading of a mining industy advocate's book of lies.

That's not actually what I said, perhaps you can take it IN context and we'll get a lot further. I never mentioned Tony Abbott trying to sell anything, in fact he's doing quite the opposite...and it pains me to say this, but at least he is actually LISTENING to the general concensus that this tax does not appear to make Australian's better off.

I'll be straight up, the Labour party USED to look after the AVERAGE Australian, in the scheme of things this has slipped by the wayside.

I don't care about the politics, I don't like either of them...and I'd sooner neither of them were in charge of this country

The issue for me is the underhanded way that we were told a lie, and then it was a 'misunderstanding', and then it was 'I was always going to' - well, bollocks - she couldn't have said that in more than a whisper, but she shouted from the rooftops that there was going to be no carbon tax...and here we are...

The science for both sides is actually quite interesting, and as I said earlier, I would like to see the scientists have a debate on this, not the politicians, who after-all tend to usually be just mouthpieces, using senate meetings to berate and act like school children. It's a safe assumption that neither politician knows jack about this current 'scheme'.

I want FACTS, and not the 'I got paid a million dollars to say this' kind of facts either.

I understand why they think it's important, I don't understand the need to try to reverse industrialisation overnight, and I certainly don't see the logic in taxing someone so you can give them back money later on...if it were happening in the 'real world', I would liken it to dirty money and laundering it, but this is not the mob, this is REAL life.

I did a couple days work last week, got paid - turned out I paid 7 dollars tax...now, from working full time - I was getting taxed almost $400 a week - now tell me who the real 'supporters' of this country are...it's certainly NOT the unemployed uni student who does the occasional days work here and there to make ends meet...let's face it, Centrelink doesn't take into consideration your partners financial circumstances when they say 'you're not eligble, your partner earns too much'...well, no he doesn't - but that doesn't matter.

So if the general consensus with those who are paying astronomical amounts of tax already, indicates that the carbon tax is set to rip them off even further...and to get any kind of tax benefits, it appears you need to be sitting on your bum or have a low paying job, then the country that surrounds you was really paid for by their taxes...perhaps we can thank them, instead of telling them they have to pay more to support the pillocks of society...

The thing is, a government should only have exactly what they NEED - none of this blowing out budgets, government departments taking four years to build a road that suits the current population, paying exponential amounts of money to 'preferred' suppliers (who are charging anywhere up to 50% more for services)...we have a problem here, and it's not just in the form of this tax, it's in how the whole system is run...and it really does need to stop.

Now I'm likely to 'win' in this proposal (if I took it at face value). I don't care - I care that there are those out there who WILL be worse off, mostly because the modelling doesn't even come close to REAL WORLD FIGURES...

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Another question to which Im sure you've already heard numerous people give answers to: Ill play the game..........

No I haven't. No one has yet been able to advise me as to why the carbon tax is in Australias best interest or in that fact the global communities best interest. So the question still remains what are the benefits - why proceed with a carbon tax if as you say below if does diddly squat to the world's temp or CO2 levels?

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, reducing australia's emissions wont do diddly squat to the world's temp or co2 levels.

So the carbon tax wont do anything to reduce global emissions, I would go one step further and suggest if anything Australia's proposed carbon tax will increase global emissions. Some Australian business will simply go offshore and import products back into Australia (increased shipping, means increased global emissions) Do you agree with that? To add to that some of the product being produced here, will be produced in countries that are less concerned with the enviroment (ie no EPA, no enviromental policies etc)

Originally Posted by sudszy

By sending a signal that Australians as amongst the highest per capita producers of CO2 and indeed one of the highest standard of livings in the world are prepared to take measures to cut their emissions so the planet doesnt overheat.

But you need to look at the fact behind that figure, Australia has a low population density which increases our CO2 emissions per capita. We also dont use Nuclear power and have relied on fossil fuels for our energy requirements. Now the govnerment can address this and also profit from it, by investing in clean coal technology and renewables we can reduce our CO2 emissions and sell technology overseas.

My concern with the carbon tax, is that it will send jobs and undustries offshore, we all know manufactuirng and farming have been doing things tough. Yesterday we hear that the retail industry is suffering. The carbon tax will only make things that little bit more difficult for these industries. Not to mention Australian households are struggling with cost of living increases, so any further costs will reduce expendable income, which retailers (and tourism) rely on.

So why look at a carbon tax that as you said will do diddly squat for the global enviroment, when we can make an investment in the above and actually benefit Australia but also the global community?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by cheap

First part of your question:
Because it is the agenda of left-wing droids to obfuscate, nit-pick, frustrate people, so that moderators need close down all debate. This happens so often with the same people involved. GetUp must have deemed fordforums a threat and assigned several agitators to the website.

Second part:
It is impossible to know exactly how much extra you'll be paying. The consequences of this tax are so far reaching and the government has miscalculated so many items. Rest assured we will be taxed more than we will be compensated, by default because we're more poor, we will have even less spending money, business turn-down, unemployment up and the economy will go into a tail spin, Australia's CO2 reductions will be a consequence of economic decline rather than smart policy. Meanwhile the Chinese/India (and most of the world) keeps on keeping on emitting CO2 unabated.

If you don't believe me, look at a small sample of the track record of the people promoting this tax: Fuel watch, Grocery watch, laptops for schools, cash splash(s), securing water resources, super contributions cut, boat people + Malaysian solution, ETS, Ruddbank, digital set-top, BER, pink batts, NBN, mining tax, Henry tax plan... there is a proven FAILURE track record.

As Winston Churchill once said, "a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"

Amen brother.
Despite what others have said with their rather professional arsenal of links and quotes to obfuscate, the climate change fraud is failing.

Simply put, the public do not believe it and find it reprehensible that the government is pushing this agenda. This is why the opinion polls are so bad and are only going to get worse.
Further, even for the fence sitters the government has handled this badly.
The carbon tax ad with Cate and Daryl Kerrigan was a failure, although it was syptomatic of the reason this policy is widely seen as a scam. First, the power station used was one which was decommissioned in 1980 at Battersea in England. Has nothing to do with Australia. Secondly it had black smoke pouring out of the smoke stacks, yet carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas. Then we're all told to say yes to a carbon tax. Excuse me, but when are we going to get to voice our opinions of yes or no? The government scuttled the plebiscite the opposition wanted, and they are too scared to go to a poll anytime soon. They'll foist this nonsense on us irregardless of our opinions of it.
The list of failures and arrogance is astounding; so much so, that they've since changed the ad. Added to this is the predictions by climate alarmists like Tim Flannery who said that Brisbane would run out of water by 2010, Melbourne would never see rain, and that the ocean would rise by up to 100 meters by 2050 if we did nothing. None of these things happened, in fact the opposite happened. The sea is not rising, and Great Barrier Reef is healthier than ever. In fact, all of the predictions by the global warming croud have become so demonstrably wrong, that comical references to them are now common in the urban vernacular.
Such things as "the Gore effect" whereby wherever he goes, the opposite to warming happens ie the blizzards in Copenhagen, Storms in Melbourne when he flew in etc etc. The list goes on and on.

The point I make though is this; if the science is settled and is so solid as to permit invoking a new tax on a populace, why are the experts constantly either changing their predictions based on modelling or their predictions are so often proven to be 100% wrong (like the no rain ever again thing of Flannery)?

I think what we need to do here is find out what drives an academic in this issue, what does he/she gain? Let's see, govco stops increases to and starts cutting funding to universities and research projects, although they'll pay handsomely for climate change. So, the bandwagon rolls on. Either have little funding or risk being unemployed, or tow the government line and have a slush fund.
I know and have known several academics, and I've also helped one who took a PAID year off to writea report. He went overseas (on the universities dime) and took his family. After the 11th month of PAID study leave, he finally set about writing his report. It was 18 pages long. The professor who authorised the leave never read it, and filed it away never to see the light of day. Seriously, academia has a disconnect from the rest of the populace.

On a lighter note, those of us against this impost can take heart of the fact that now an estimated 80% are against this tax, and on top of that the biggest advocate of the tax is being frustrated to the point of tears. Serious cracks are appearing and soon it will be a dead duck despite what the propagandists say.

[sarrge2001]

Originally Posted by sudszy

.......The use of the word "inertia" in the english language certainly isnt confined to the physics world, it could be used to describe some people's lack of ability to change their thinking: Intellectual/academic inertia........

Pot........kettle........black!

[MAD]

The funny thing about research papers, is that you generally begin one because you know the outcome already, you just need to quantify it.

Do you know how many papers are 'altered' to meet the predetermined outcome when data is found to be different to what was expected.
Go through a uni library and read up on some student papers that are on a similar topic, I bet you find some very different results and conclusions.

A typical political response is to argue the science with a remark along the lines of "that's already been disproven", again with no back up, then focus on points that are trivial, like Abbott not wanting to debate with a scientist (why would you get in to a debate with a scientist? You ask the scientist questions to learn, not debate with them, because if you are not immersed in the science yourself how can you debate?)
But all along, you were only arguing that the tax is a waste of time and you can bet it is going to benefit someone involved with the Labour Party.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

The science for both sides is actually quite interesting, and as I said earlier, I would like to see the scientists have a debate on this, not the politicians,

There is science in the against position? would you like to tell us what that is?

Debate? Real scientists have already thrashed through and debated what is going on with climate, its done by real scientists doing research - publishing their findings and submitting it for review by people with the knowledge to analyse it(peer review), the process works.

Real science is not established by a high school debate on public television, its not about being good debators. Sure if you want to decide an issue based solely on emotion, such as republic or not, it is relevant, real science where the average person can so easily be deceived, no thanks.

Who would the "against" side field in their debate?

Plimer, Carter and Monckton yes they are public figures against AGW( mining director/ geologist, marine biologist and somethingist), but where are the real climate scientists against AGW that actually do research in the field are suitably knowledgable in the area of atmospheric physics?

Lindzen is a lone voice who has qualifications, yet whose figures and research dont add up according to the other 99% of real climate scientists, but you really want the team sullied by another person who also campaigns for the right of smokers and gets paid by oil and tobacco companies to "speak his mind on the issue"

What would happen in a debate, the Plimer, Carter, Monckton well rehearsed rhetoric would definitely impress the audience with their confidence and assurity.
They would do their normal thing and present falsehoods, dodgy graphs, misrepresentations - character assassinate their opposition, "new research" "fiction research" etc. Of course the real scientists would attempt to point out the lies and deceit but not being great orators or debaters would probably end flustered and not convincing the audience that they were stating the facts.

Of course in the hard light of day when analysis of what has taken place is done by experts and all the lies, "fictional research" exposed the thinking person coud see what Plimer, Carter, Monckton are all about......but these findings wont be plastered across the front page of the Australian or Herald the next day, nor will the average person go looking for it.

Real scientists know this all too well and simply know that such "circus entertainment" would only give oxygen to these scammers and are smart enough not to get involved.

It doesnt always pan out that way, sometimes the scammers just get too confident and get exposed of the lies and bs:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7y6x...?v=VBQCsMJm3Zg

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

There is science in the against position? would you like to tell us what that is?

Debate? Real scientists have already thrashed through and debated what is going on with climate, its done by real scientists doing research - publishing their findings and submitting it for review by people with the knowledge to analyse it(peer review), the process works.

Real science is not established by a high school debate on public television, its not about being good debators. Sure if you want to decide an issue based solely on emotion, such as republic or not, it is relevant, real science where the average person can so easily be deceived, no thanks.

Who would the "against" side field in their debate?

'Real' science?? The peer review process clearly doesn't work - here, let me elaborate what I'm talking about...It may have been missed in the 'tit for tat' that has occurred...or you may have chosen not to read it (I don't particularly care which one - but it's very important in the scheme of this discussion).

Originally Posted by ltd

They've (the UN) been drastically wrong before and a marketing ****fest extravaganza since the IPCC report on climate change has been debunked. Firstly, it was promised that 1700 scientists agreed.

Later it was found out that it was actually only 90 odd scientists, who would peer review each others chapters. Essentially, everyone agreed to agree to agree with each other, and eachother. What they didn't want to tell you though, is that in the final draft only two agreed on the conclusions in the models presented, and people like Robert Mann (of East Anglia and hockey stick graph fame) who couldn't get the models to work in the way he wanted decided to botch them to reach his conclusions. Robert Mann is the last to be trusted.
Still, the UN banged on about it and years later, people spoke out. The scientists who allegedly unanymously agreed on the climate models started speaking of the flaws, then the East Anglia scandal of how to hide the decline in temperature increases broke. Robert Mann at first denied, then admitted the emails were indeed his, and his models were proven to be wrong. Further scientists spoke out about it, including Richard Lintzen. He is arguably the worlds leading authority on climate, and even he says the climate tax will do nothing and that the world has not warmed. Tim Flannery who is the poster boy for the climate change movement has as recently as last week admitted that Richard Lintzen is very credible.

Real science is proving to be in less agreeance than you may have been led to believe.

I'm not interested in the 'scare campaign' that has been sprawled across the news - 1700 'real' scientists...only 2 agree with the outcome...can't get much more 'REAL' than that...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Real science is proving to be in less agreeance than you may have been led to believe.

...

Perhaps the word you are looking for is agreement, but lets not let fictional words get in the way of the more important fiction you are entertaining.

I challenged your view that a debate is needed but you have ignored the major problem surrounding it:

Why dont you get back to everyone when you have three scientists that can speak against(debate) AGW(not circus performers) that actually have some qualifications to do so.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Perhaps the word you are looking for is agreement, but lets not let fictional words get in the way of the more important fiction you are entertaining.

I challenged your view that a debate is needed but you have ignored the major problem surrounding it:

Why dont you get back to everyone when you have three scientists that can speak against(debate) AGW(not circus performers) that actually have some qualifications to do so.

Perhaps you can learn english then...

Main Entry: agreeance
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the act of agreeing
Example: Usage of the site constitutes agreeance with these terms.
Usage: considered obsolete and a bastardization of 'agreement'

Attempting to pick apart my grammar is doing you no favours, particularly when you are now being proven WRONG...

I assume you again ignored what was posted...TWO scientists agreed with the conclusion...not the 1700 that were 'supposedly' there, not the 90 that were 'actually' there...but TWO...

If you can't even get 90 scientists to agree on something that is 'very important' to our world, then you've got problems...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

.
Usage: considered obsolete and a bastardization of 'agreement'
...

own goal

perhaps get back on task and work on naming three real qualified scientists to speak in a debate against AGW, surely there are thousands of them out there?

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

own goal

perhaps get back on task and work on the three real qualified scientists to speak against AGW, surely there are thousands of them out there?

Own goal...? You're telling me it's a fictional word...when in fact, it's not...

You're clearly not interested in seeing both sides, so I'm clearly not interested in discussing with you any further...all you've set about to do is try and discredit words, because you can't discredit anything else...good luck Sudzy, you're going to need it...

[SB076]

@ Sudszy any thoughts on post 226, I am still curious as to why those that support the tax beleive it will reduce emissions.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Own goal...? You're telling me it's a fictional word...when in fact, it's not...

You're clearly not interested in seeing both sides, so I'm clearly not interested in discussing with you any further...all you've set about to do is try and discredit words, because you can't discredit anything else...good luck Sudzy, you're going to need it...

you are busy trying to discredit science but have been caught out not being even able to name three scientists who have real qualifications to have some credibility in speaking against AGW.

Now you want to take your bat and ball and go home, understandable.

[GT69]

There's a couple

Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:

"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[5]

"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[6][7]

"It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1 °C warming due to the fact that it acts as a ‘blanket.’ Model projections of greater warming absolutely depend on positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that will add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing the net cooling of the climate system. ... This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5 °C for a doubling of CO2."[8]

"Motivated by the observed relation between cloudiness (above the trade wind boundary layer) and high humidity, cloud data for the eastern part of the western Pacific from the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-5 (which provides high spatial and temporal resolution) have been analyzed, and it has been found that the area of cirrus cloud coverage normalized by a measure of the area of cumulus coverage decreases about 22% per degree Celsius increase in the surface temperature of the cloudy region. ... The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate ... The response to a doubling of CO2, which in the absence of feedbacks is expected to be about 1.2°C, would be reduced to between 0.57° and 0.83°C (depending on y) due to the iris effect."[9]

Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre:

"There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[10] "The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done."[11]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:

"The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[12]

"It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the foreseeable future."[13] "The political dichotomy about climate change is fueled by gross exaggerations and simplifications on both sides of the fence."[13]

Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists:

"Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[14] "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it."[15]

"Not only do we need to improve the ‘mathematics’ of the models but it is also necessary to improve the measuring devices and their sensitivity. ... Cloud characteristics are very important in order to allow a comparison between model forecasts and experimental data. ... When a proton enters our atmosphere, it acts as a nucleus of condensation for water vapour and thus contributes to cloud formation. ... In the last half billion years, earth has lost, four times, its polar caps: no ice at the North Pole and none at the South Pole. And, four times, the polar caps were reconstituted. Man did not exist then, only the so-called cosmic rays, discovered by mankind in the early twentieth century. The last cosmic ice age started 50 million years ago when we entered into one of the galaxy arms."[15]

[mcnews]

This is a hilarious, but completely truthful take on the debate, that is being peddled to the moronic via NewsCorp and the likes of 2GB (which I listen to podcasts from for the comedy value of Alan Jones)

http://heathenscripture.wordpress.co...n-taxin-mouth/

[Scott]

Put some scale into what we're talking about here...

Originally Posted by Rachel Emmes

Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry. Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller. Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS. Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre. A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide A bit over one foot. 97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia’s contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.