Story submitted by Richard Abbott
At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”. To form a minority Labor party government three elected independent members sided with Labor and to ensure upper house control of legislation change the Greens offered their solidarity provided a carbon tax was introduced.
Currently Australian parliament is debating the carbon tax bill, which has emerged with a rather bitter and poisonous pill. The carbon tax legislation’s emission right is to be treated as conventional property rights, therefore making it almost impossible to repeal once enacted, because of the enormous compensation that the Australian government of the day would be required to pay to the 500 polluting companies being forced to purchase carbon emissions permit credits.
Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal when global climate change is found not to be caused by industrial man. The poisonous pill added was to prevent the Liberal opposition party repealing the carbon tax legislation at the next federal election in 2013. Not surprisingly the prime minister’s popularity at the last media poll was 28% and with this announcement today likely to drop further. Sadly because of the Independent’s own personal guaranteed agendas and Greens with their agenda Australia is now guaranteed a carbon tax far removed from climate change.
Prime minister Gillard said when she announced her change of mind that we would now have a carbon tax, as Australia needed to set an example for the world to follow. (Albeit Australia contributes 1.4 % of the total global emissions.)
Yes, we will be the laughing stock of the world, seen jumping head first off a cliff into a shark infested sea, as we will have no way back, because we were sold a tax that has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Kim well thanks, because it allowed me to publicly show the deceit in Pielke’s article.
Now I could go on to debunk every other challenge that you have brought up (e.g. CO2 doesn’t change temperatures) but where would that get us? Every time I did that, you would automatically say that you tricked me into doing it, then go on to bring up the next already debunked challenge. I’d be happy to do it in some ways, unfortunately I just don’t have the time.
But more importantly, it just tells me that you are only here for the process of arguing, because you see it as an end in itself, not a means to an end.
And you have that trait in common with every other contrarian I have ever met.
@Blvr says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
@Kim well thanks, because it allowed me to publicly show the deceit in Pielke’s article.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What article are you referencing, please? I didn’t send you to any of Dr Pielke’s articles.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
@Blvr says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
Now I could go on to debunk every other challenge that you have brought up (e.g. CO2 doesn’t change temperatures)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Would you please provide evidence that I ever said the above?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
@Blvr says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
But more importantly, it just tells me that you are only here for the process of arguing, because you see it as an end in itself, not a means to an end.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
If I were in it for the process of arguing – I would do like you – and not provide you with links.
I am debating – using logic and references for support.
You have made statements and I have challenged those.
That is the nature of logical debate.
Blvr:
You have clearly established your credentials as a Troll, of the worst kind. I will use the scroll wheel to pass your comments in future. Well done, it only took one thread! GK
Very few of the so called “climate scientists” we hear so much about are not even qualified in this field and the ones that are appear to be on the governments payroll or getting massive taxpayer funding they don’t want to lose (I’m not only talking Australia here) Most “qualified ” independent scientists either dispute global warming (yes it was called this until cooling started setting in) or are dubious as to whether either warming or cooling are man made. To me this is just another ponzi scheme to further enrich international bankers who have created enough misery worldwide already. IF there is any truth at all in man made climate change why does this pathetic bunch of bankers lackeys refuse to hold a royal commission into the science this crap is based on.
Very few of the so called “climate scientists” we hear so much about are even qualified in this field and the ones that are appear to be on the governments payroll or getting massive taxpayer funding they don’t want to lose (I’m not only talking Australia here) Most “qualified ” independent scientists either dispute global warming (yes it was called this until cooling started setting in) or are dubious as to whether either warming or cooling are man made. To me this is just another ponzi scheme to further enrich international bankers who have created enough misery worldwide already. IF there is any truth at all in man made climate change why does this pathetic bunch of bankers lackeys refuse to hold a royal commission into the science this crap is based on.