![]() |
|
![]() |
#211 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
However, when I try to access the pm view, it says has been disabled by the administrators. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#212 | |||
.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,197
|
Quote:
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#213 | ||
Wirlankarra yanama
Join Date: May 2006
Location: God's Country
Posts: 2,103
|
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#214 | |||
FG XR6T trayback
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N-W NSW
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#215 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
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/ Quote:
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.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#216 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
|
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#217 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
![]() 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 |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#218 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
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? |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#219 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 Last edited by sudszy; 15-07-2011 at 03:47 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#220 | |||
BA MK2 GT
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FOMOHO
Posts: 304
|
Quote:
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
__________________
A lot of people think i know f#@$ nothing but in actual fact i know f#@$ all! I'm collecting Landau pics Fords I've owned 80 escort panelvan, 73 Landau, 73 xa fairmont, 74 Landau, 75 Landau, 75xb falcon, 67 falcon, 80 xd falcon, 94 ed falcon, 05 mk2 GT |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#221 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,692
|
Quote:
and people see this rocket scientist as an alternative Prime Minister ![]() ![]() ![]()
__________________
I reserve the right to arm bears
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#222 | ||
Just slidin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 7,791
|
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.
__________________
MD Mondeo - For the family
NP Pajero - For the adventure |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#223 | |||
Wirlankarra yanama
Join Date: May 2006
Location: God's Country
Posts: 2,103
|
Quote:
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" |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#224 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 50
|
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 Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#225 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#226 | |||||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Filling up
Posts: 1,459
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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?
__________________
VIXEN MK II GT 0238 with Sunroof and tinted windows with out all the go fast bits I actually need ![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#227 | ||||
Force Fed Fords
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Enroute
Posts: 4,050
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to power an ants go-cart a half a lap around a Cheerio - Ron Shirley Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#228 | |||
SZII in Silhouette
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Darwin NT
Posts: 600
|
Quote:
__________________
. . Strangers have the best candy....... |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#229 | ||
Petro-sexual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,527
|
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#230 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by sudszy; 15-07-2011 at 11:01 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#231 | ||||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
Quote:
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...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#232 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#233 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#234 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() 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? |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#235 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ipswich, Qld
Posts: 1,354
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
----------------------------------------------------- 2012 Focus ST Tangerine Scream Continually having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Sez ![]() Photo's by Sez |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#236 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Filling up
Posts: 1,459
|
@ Sudszy any thoughts on post 226, I am still curious as to why those that support the tax beleive it will reduce emissions.
__________________
VIXEN MK II GT 0238 with Sunroof and tinted windows with out all the go fast bits I actually need ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#237 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
Now you want to take your bat and ball and go home, understandable. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#238 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Barellan Point
Posts: 571
|
There's a couple
Quote:
__________________
Current Ride - 2013 Ford Ranger, XLT 4x4, ARB kitted brick Former Current ride - 09 XR6T in Octane, with a pinch of Sports pack Weekender - Ford Cortina 1969 coupe Project - 1968 Ford Cortina 4 door |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#239 | ||
Trev
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Was Perth, now country Vic
Posts: 8,017
|
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/
__________________
Trev (FPV FG II GT-E thus the fully loaded burger with the lot as standard +Alpine/Dynamat fitout - 2 of only 4 ever made GT-E factory 9" rear rims - Michelin Pilot Supersports - Shockworks Suspension) |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#240 | |||
.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,197
|
Put some scale into what we're talking about here...
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |