I think a lot of the problem with a carbon tax / levy or what ever you call it, there is a lot of bad history in taxes and spending of taxpayers money in a way that didn't please the majority of the population. With the lack of accountability and consultation of the spending.
An election every 3 years should not be an assumption that the elected party has a free rein to do what ever they want. (They are the servants of the people aren't they?)
Let me mention a few...
House insulation, River Murray levy, fuel / road tax (hows the roads near you?), funding or lack of it for schools and hospitals, and the upcoming Broadband Network etc etc.
Love how Gillard shed a tear when telling her story about her watching the yanks send astronauts to the moon and thinking they were so great. How much damage to the atmosphere were those big rockets doing? She doesn't mention that while she plans a carbon tax.
There is some UK bureaucrat/expert out here telling us we are backward and stupid for not having a carbon tax. I think the less we follow the practice of the UK/EU when it comes to government interference in the economy the better we will be off. So the head of Westpac supports a carbon tax. That is a big reason to question it.
Gillard thinks putting a price on something means we will use less of it. Umm, how does that work? She is confusing taxation with consumption. Our activities are based around carbon one way or another. Working with carbon is something we can't avoid. Perhaps Gillard is saying if they tax carbon dioxide we will have less money, be poor, thus will consume less. That will work.
Gillards tears were not real, it was just an irritation from one of Obama's pubic hairs stuck in her throat.
Yes, it is a copy and paste from an email.
Sorry I am not that good a keyboardist.
I believe what is said in the text is true but I am unable to confirm it so I guess that puts me into some sort of insane box.
Maybe somebody on the forum can confirm or refute what is in the text.
Here it is:-
Entertaining - isn't it?
Everyone should read this and pass it on before our stupid Government hits us with a huge new tax and ruins our export competetiveness with the rest of the world who ain't introducing a carbon tax.
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet, all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress, that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.
I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your (Australian) government just promised you by the middle of 2011 a whopping carbon tax on the basis of the bogus ''human-caused'' climate change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention ''Global Warming'' any more, but just ''Climate Change'' - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme (that whopping new tax) imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
So who is telling lies, Ian Pilmer or the money hungry pollies.
From page 1 of this very thread:
) that the cancellation of flights due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption stopped so much CO2 emissions, that the eruption actually had a positive effect on the environment.
"who's telling lies, Ian Plimer or the money hungry pollies". Today Tonight will be back after these messages.
) that the cancellation of flights due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption stopped so much CO2 emissions, that the eruption actually had a positive effect on the environment. 
) that the cancellation of flights due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption stopped so much CO2 emissions, that the eruption actually had a positive effect on the environment.
Ann Coulter on fox news,
Radiation Is good for you!
so carbon dioxide is BAD and RADIAION is GOOD?
will the mindless masses fall for this doublespeak?
Duck bits, I won't wpretend to be an expert on this, I work in electricity markets .. I am not a climate scientist.
However, I understand volcanoes emit sulfuric dioxide, when they reach the stratosphere it acts as an aerosol reflecting solar radiation before it hits the earth. This partly or fully offsets the increased global warming from the CO2 emitted in the same eruption.
The role of aerosols is understood and can be modeled, and explains the short term global cooling trend in the 70's. The were no restrictions in sulfur dioxide emissions in that era, and temperatures dropped. Since restrictions on SO2 emissions, which by the way industry opponents used the same 'sky is falling' drama employed over todays GW policies, man-made aerosols have decreased and the effect of global warming gases are more pronounced than they would otherwise be.
But hey, ask a climate scientist... I think triple j has a link to real climate scientist that will give you peer-reviewed information.
In the history of our planet we have had dinosaurs, Ice Ages, cave men, oceans rising and falling, continents pulling apart etc etc.
Does anybody else find it borderline idiotic to believe that now that we are here with our Interweb, houses and modern technology that the world would stop living around us. Why would this planet change all of those times but stop now to remain the same forever from now onwards.
It is changing, the climate is changing. It always has and always will. In 20 million years another related race may be looking back at us just as we do the dinosaurs and study how we lived etc.
The issue is not climate change. Funny how the term 'Global Warming' has fallen out of favour over the last few years.
The issue is a proposed tax. This carbon tax is described as an economic reform. Clearly the word reform is being misused here. A regulation is not a reform.
A reform is something like removing the responsibility of a PAYE tax payer to not have to make an income tax return every financial year, thereby allowing people to spend time on more productive or enjoyable pursuits plus releasing an army of accountants to work on issues besides telling the ATO information it already knows.
This proposed tax will have the heavy hand of government fiddling around in many areas of human endeavour. More regulation, more forms to complete, more bills to pay.
It looks like we will have a few volumes of more law and place it on top of all the other laws that make Australia the sort of place to do business.
The government tried to get the Productivity Commission to produce a report to show the proposed changes would burden Australian industry compared to other countries. The commission could not make the report as it was too complicated.
So we are going to get a raft of changes that are complex and costly. According to the federal ALP parliamentary minority this is a reform Australia needs......
Do we all remember when those stickers came out on electrical products like fridges washers etc. The same sort of thing will happen with carbon tax. the price will be dependant on how much carbon is emitted by the manufacturing etc.
It's Carbon DIOXIDE people! Yes that odourless, colurless gas that is essential to life on the planet and makes up a tiny 0.038% of the atmosphere 
. Best we tax it hey coz the ocean is rising and a tax will stop it rising!
Did you realise that the oceans are the biggest producer of CO2? Is Ginger Beaver going to tax the oceans, maybe the oceans users?? Tax on swimming and windsurfing??
Also it has been proved (ice sampling at the poles) that the raise of CO2 in trailing the global warming not causing it.
Just an article I saw by a Brazilian climat expert obviously not on the same side of science as Mr "do as I say not as I do" Al Gore
You have to remember that Al Gore hold very lucratif interrest in companies selling green solutions to the world.
So on face value who is the most credible????
Al Gore is not a scientist of any description. He's as credible as you or me... so if he is quoting credible people then he's also credible. If he's just making unsubtantiated claims then he's not credible.
So.. Who was your Brazilian climate expert? Where did this information get published? Does he have lucrative interest in non-green companies?
don't know, don't remember, don't really care.....just read an article on the net with a link to an utube video, read a lot of mumbo jumbo about global warming and made up my mind..... not trying to convince anyone....... that is what I believe and ....... anyway it is all over in 21/12/2012 so why worry? just enjoy what is left....... Peace man!!!
