Mobydisc said...

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.

I don't understand why this is difficult. If the price of something goes up in comparison to another thing then the consumer will generally go towards buying the second thing. Generally the price of something ........... oh for **** sake, this is so dull and so incredibly nit picky and pathetic. The government are trying, earnestly to do something to address the possibility that we may have influenced our climate. THIS IS A MAJOR THING. It is not some silly debating point as to weather rockets that went to the moon in 1968 influenced global warming or not....... OK, you know what they did and you won the argument OK and Gillard is a Liar and Bob Brown is a Homosexual, OK. Now is it possible to think about the possibility that humans have influenced the climate and the real possibility that we may have to do something about it .

hills said...

To support this theory, Dr Karl on JJJ told me personally (plus a few million other listeners that were eavesdropping) 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.

nebbian said...

From page 1 of this very thread:



Sulphur Dioxide, which is a negative-greenhouse-effect gas (it helps to cool the planet down).

maxm said...

Physicist training camp in petermacworld:

Mobydisc said...

The Federal parliament's ALP parliamentary minority with the help of a few independents is planning a new tax on carbon. Without carbon life is impossible. There is no evidence life without carbon is possible. Despite this parliament is planning a tax against on carbon, on life. So we have to pay tax on life. No longer are taxes on income or consuming is enough. A tax on life is needed. With this tax how can we afford to live? How will we afford to buy the wind toys we need to enjoy life?


Middle ages European kings taxed windows in houses. Home owners boarded up their windows. Today PMs and presidents propose to tax the gasses we exhale. A tax on something we can't see, touch or hear. The ultimate tax.

This is not a referendum on whether we have carbon or not. It is a tax to try to modify consumers behaviour to buy a product that is cheaper because the more expensive product is high in Carbon out put.

felixdcat said...

Also it has been proved (ice sampling at the poles) that the raise of CO2 in trailing the global warming not causing it.