Forums

Australian

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5453 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 3 of 137  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 137 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,453
By:
Canberra bookie
When: 04 Dec 10 09:22
LaughLaughLaugh

Wish'n ......Hope'n........Pray'n.

Thats what this carbon tax is based on.

Hope for best with this fanciful scheme because "we have to do something".
By:
Aussie Punter
When: 04 Dec 10 15:36
Womble: It's the citizens who cop it in the ar..   with the tax.... on the one hand the gov'ts of Aust are opening up coal mines and gas ventures all over the joint and then want to tax the public who end up paying higher cost of living...

I agree with Jez and Canberra Bookie on this tax....legislate as opposed to tax on everything if they are fair dinkum....they are quite happy to do it for pokies ffs.... 15% of club and pub workers are gonski when that goes through
By:
wur
When: 04 Dec 10 16:22
2010 set to be warmest or second warmest year on record, globally


19 countries set new national high temperature records.

No country sets new national low temperature record.

Lowest Arctic Ocean ice volume on record and 3rd lowest ice area on record. Russian and Canadian ships circumnavigate the ice for the first time in history.

3rd highest number of named storms recorded in Atlantic hurricane season.

2nd 'once in 100 years drought' in Amazonia in just 5 years.

One fifth of Pakistan under water and 20 million people displaced.

Record temperatures throughout Russia results in unprecedented wildfires and crop failures.


Well, we can't say they didn't warn us. It's here, folks, and it's only going to get worser.
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 00:39
It's just the natural pattern wur, nothing unusual - no need to worry, it will be colder next year so it's all good [smiley:crazy]

AP - yes in the end the consumer will pay, because in the end the consumer always pays BUT the only way people will react these days is to a price trigger - that's why we need to put one in place.

As to the pokies, they are a blight - one of the worst decisions ever was to put them into pubs - should've just left them in the clubs.  Yes the changes will cost jobs in the industry but hopefully with the dollars that aren't going through them it'll generate jobs in other areas
By:
Aussie Punter
When: 05 Dec 10 03:10
Def Womble:  Clubs should have a cap of 100 tops imo.Get rid of them all...the job loss mention was just a factual figure...someone has to take a "haircut"

Question here is ...what will the states do to replace the income?

They are addicted to it...
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 03:14
very good question AP - they'll need to get the money from somewhere - my personal preference would be as part of a major tax overhaul but that's still a little way away.
By:
Aussie Punter
When: 05 Dec 10 03:15
Womble : offer two alternative energies:  coal or renewable at same cost and Im sure 90% of population would go to cleaner alternative for sake of  the planet.

If it's passed onto consumer ...how does it make companies deliver alternative energy at a competitive rate?

The problem still exsists of going renewable against the might of Big Oil and Big Miners
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 03:19
I'm not sure they would AP - plenty just don't care

The big hope is that as the dirty energy gets more expensive it makes the cleaner stuff more competitive and drives investment in it, good old economies of scale then see the cleaner energy become cheaper and the old stuff vanish
By:
uncleee
When: 05 Dec 10 03:28
some on here can't see the forest for the trees, of course it will screw over the consumer, they are the ones that need to be pushed into buying greener products
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 03:40
exactly uncleee - need a price rise to change behaviour, it's not rocket science
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 03:59
hmmmm womble good to see reply to me last post last page, just more of the same argument which doesnt add up unless you are entering retirement and expecting a huge rise in the pension , just for once see if you can break down my concerns and answer them ONE BY ONE?Love
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 04:04
post them again secong and i'll have a crack
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 04:06
just look how upset people get about the carbon tax, seems pretty bloody obvious that people will do whatever they can to not pay it and the simplest way to do that is to reduce your energy use

ffs look what you wrote who in the hell likes paying more tax womble????

and do you seriously think even if we do reduce our usage that the cost wont go up to compensate lost revenue + THE CARBON TAX ITSELF to pay for misguided overspending governments??

i'm  not for polluting but as been written here elsewhere get all the renewable energy schemes going and make it viable to use them instead of opening NEW coal mines all over the shop

income tax must come down to compensate and then at least only the heavy users will be paying more NET tax overall whereas those that use the unavoidable minimum for the basic necessities dont pay more

get the whole argument right before implementing otherwise we may as well do a big cut and paste for this thread transfer it to the tax tax tax and more tax thread
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 04:07
i await..........
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 04:21
just look how upset people get about the carbon tax, seems pretty bloody obvious that people will do whatever they can to not pay it and the simplest way to do that is to reduce your energy use

ffs look what you wrote who in the hell likes paying more tax womble????

nobody, that's the whole point - i.e. why they will avoid paying it by changing what they do

and do you seriously think even if we do reduce our usage that the cost wont go up to compensate lost revenue + THE CARBON TAX ITSELF to pay for misguided overspending governments??

the cost will obvious go up and yep the government will pocket some extra revenue - however the reduced usage will also drive the big energy produces to move to renewables and new income streams

i'm  not for polluting but as been written here elsewhere get all the renewable energy schemes going and make it viable to use them instead of opening NEW coal mines all over the shop

I agree but it's not going to happen if we just sit and wait - the carbon price will speed things up

income tax must come down to compensate and then at least only the heavy users will be paying more NET tax overall whereas those that use the unavoidable minimum for the basic necessities dont pay more

agree again, well sort of - those of the lowest incomes need to be compensated through increased pensions and using other credits until a major overhaul of the tax system happens - there is no way those earning above average wages should benefit from the compensation though

get the whole argument right before implementing otherwise we may as well do a big cut and paste for this thread transfer it to the tax tax tax and more tax thread

how long do we wait???
By:
Thebas
When: 05 Dec 10 04:41
its good to get as many viewpoints as you can on such an emotive subject ... to tax or not to tax

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 04:42
you agree of sorts but the answer is well lets just tax willy nilly FIRST without providing alternatives , and btw those on above average wages do that by way of hard work (unless of course a big 4 bank chief)and more than likely have mortgage of similar size (already under stress from repeated interest rate rises), why should he be penalized even if he/she only uses the bare minimum?

thats why a complete overhaul of the taxation system needs to be in effect before implementation! NOT just a BIG NEW TAX by itself, imo THE GOVT HAS NO RIGHT TO PROFIT FROM THIS TAX to pay for past and future fcuk ups
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 04:44
how long do we wait???

as above get everything in order first! foolya was in no hurry prior to the election and no one was complaining...apart from bob and his ferals
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 04:45
btw thankyou for the reply [:)]
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 05:03
people that have over committed to mortgages they can't afford it's not up to the government to look after them IMO

business needs certainty, that's the other reason to act sooner rather then later

no problem [:)]
By:
angelo2
When: 05 Dec 10 06:23
Everyone is concerned about the environment but no one wants to change any of their behaviour or heaven forbid pay anything.
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 06:27
not asking for mortgage relief for those involved i agree thats their problem but those that do have one regardless of the size of it shouldnt need to pay more tax without some reward , as i said if they or anybody reduces usage lets sat for urguments sake by 25% and pays extra 10% in carbon tax to the gummint , the loust power companies prices will somewhat mysteriously rise by 25% to compensate lost business , therein lies the problem its not that easy, it has to be sone properly or not at all, and with the level of labor competance re BER and the insulation scheme one must worry about the future and being able to live, water charges +22 YEARLY up here? why LABOR incompetance and that is an inescapable FACT i'm afraid
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 06:28
shocking typos their secong Mischief
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 06:28
and not just mortgage holders ANY householder , be it renter/owner
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 09:20
fair points secong, there should be rewards for those that do the right thing as well

as to water prices etc, that's governments of both colours over a number of years burying their heads in the sand
By:
doubleagent
When: 05 Dec 10 09:33
Have the sea levels dropped yet?It's just that Mr Obama said that his rise to presidency would mark the time when the sea levels would begin to drop.Just wondering if that's happened yet.I expect he's a very busy man so maybe he hasn't got around to it yet.
By:
merveille
When: 05 Dec 10 09:51
Professors Dr Klaus Landfried of Heidelberg and Dr Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig hold a seminar University of Leipzig:

The seminar is titled:  ”Where’s The Climate Change?…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xRszuxcyJjg#!

At the 7:10 mark Dr Landfried slams any peer review process run by a good ol boys network.

'In the world of science it is unavoidable, as humans are involved, that there are always attempts to portray truths as unacceptable, or to try to suppress them using methods that have nothing to do with science, and perhaps to even slander persons in an attempt shut them up. One method used here is to claim that everything that is good must go through peer review.'

Dr Landfried delivers his speech forcefully, slamming peer review processes that involve a cartel of ideas, where some participants are excluded, and the others focus on concentrating their power. He reminds us that the misuse of peer review has always been a problem in science…

At the 13-minute mark, Dr. Werner Kirstein starts his presentation. He addresses three main topics:

1. Are the IPCC model-based climate projections something to be taken seriously?…

2. Sea level rise and glaciers


- Satellite photos show that Bangladesh is actually growing 20 sq km per year…

- Rahmstorf projects 140 cm rise, Fred Singer 18 cm, the GFZ 2mm/yr, Mörner max. 20cm by 2100

- North German coast: no detection of any acceleration in sea level rise.

- For the Pacific Micronesia, tectonics are at play.

- Observations vs models, nature vs IPCC....

- In the last 10,000 years, glaciers have been smaller than they are today 2/3 of the time.

- Arctic ice is also within boundaries of natural variation.

3. The controversy and politics of climate change


Many meteorologists say about climate science: “ That’s political and has nothing to do with science.”

Dr. Kirstein: “Climate change? – That’s political and has nothing to do with normal science, it’s post-normal science.” With post-normal science, politics is at the forefront and science is just a tool to promote and drive “good” policy” by spreading fear and sticking to a dogma. In the early 1980s, “scientists” projected that all trees would die in Europe by 2005.



  Logged
By:
doubleagent
When: 05 Dec 10 10:05
I take it as a No then? What a shame he seems such anice young man.Maybe our Julia can control the oceans.She does look very stern sometimes.
By:
doubleagent
When: 05 Dec 10 10:10
I was wondering.When our Julia puts on the carbon tax which is actually a carbon dioxide tax they just can't be bothered to say dioxide.Well, when the climate stops changing will they stop the carbon dioxide tax then?
How long after we start paying the tax will the climate stop changing?Just wondering.
By:
merveille
When: 05 Dec 10 10:27
An interesting weather stations study....

Anthony Watts: The project summary is basically this; the majority of stations are out of compliance with the Weather Service’s own siting rules, and while the compliance itself is clear and no-one denies that, the question then becomes how has that affected the temperature record. Dr Pielke, his research group and myself are now in the process of finishing a paper for submission to a peer reviewed scientific journal that illustrates what we found in the way that siting difference has affected the US temperature record. And I can say with certainty that our findings show that there are differences in siting that cause a difference in temperatures, not only from a high and low type measurement but also from a trend measurement and a trend calculation.

So we believe that the United States temperature record is biased by this problem, and that the problem also extends worldwide…

Michael Duffy: In which direction does the bias lie? Are you suggesting that the temperature has not got as hot as the American official historical record suggests?

Anthony Watts: That’s correct. It’s an interesting situation. The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases, but we discovered that that wasn’t the case. The vast majority of them are warm biases…


To be submitted for peer review, the outcome will be interesting - although, hold the phone, the debate is over...forget it..
By:
merveille
When: 05 Dec 10 10:33
LaughLaugh[:D]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/maldives-plans-for-drowning-by-building-huge-new-airport-next-to-the-ocean/
By:
merveille
When: 05 Dec 10 12:35
I'm no longer a sceptic, now i've seen this, i believe..
bring on the TAX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4

and this sickens me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

who thinks like this?? sick
By:
wombleoz
When: 05 Dec 10 20:59
I don't believe the extreme science BUT once again the Tony Windsor argument is the one - what does it cost us if the scientists are wrong and we do something compared to what it costs us if they are right and we do nothing

But we are on a punters forum so that probably why more are willing to gamble - personally, and I like a bet - this is one bet I'd rather not make
By:
Thebas
When: 05 Dec 10 21:29
it is important to hear as many opinions as possible ... the last 4 paragraphs if you cant be bothered reading the lot

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
By:
Thebas
When: 05 Dec 10 21:31
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech

/article-1335798/  Global-warming-halted-Thats-

happened-warmest-year-record.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


just join the 3 'broken' links
By:
secong coming.
When: 05 Dec 10 21:32
windsor is a wombat with a short future.......

its inevitable but like i say it must be done properly, incentives required because as i say the price of everything will go up and the govt should not profit
By:
Thebas
When: 05 Dec 10 21:46
and the yanks current statement below ... was in the UK paper dated ... yesterday
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 06 Dec 10 07:25
A very good article from the Daily Mail.  Its food for thought.

I think we have good cause to question what exactly is going on in terms on "climate change".

That aside, what wombleoz fails to acknowledge is this carbon tax is based on wish'n hope'n and pray'n.  Its a stab in the dark.

Plenty of climate change campaigners out there who acknowledge the brazen ineffiency and uselessness of a tax on carbon.

But hey, the crusaders chant "we must do something".
Inefficient, useless, pointless, economy-destroying?
Uh well, we'll cross our fingers and hope for the best[smiley:crazy]
Even if it costs jobs, the economy, families and the country.

wombleoz and his socialists don't want any questions asked of them, they just want to get their hands on this great big new tax on everything.

Real action.  Thats what I'd like to see on the environment.
By:
wombleoz
When: 06 Dec 10 10:09
Real action.  Thats what I'd like to see on the environment.

And who will pay for your "real action" Jez???
By:
chief wiggins
When: 06 Dec 10 10:50
Weird climate change or lack of discussion on a punters forum.


You guys should stick to sports or at least realise with some basic math that a tax is goig to make no difference but if you want to pay it i'll be happy to spend it when i get into parliament.Laugh
Page 3 of 137  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 137 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com