SA Footy

Sky Pilot wrote:

Gozu wrote:Abbott's such an idiot, who the hell does he think is going to buy lines like that?

One good thing since Rudd has come back in is that Abbott has looked like a complete joke since.

How did that work out I wonder?

Was no accident that they kept Abbott as quiet as they could as long as they could, he can't say two sentences without umm errr, or stumbling over his words, or saying something downright stupid

pafc1870 wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

Gozu wrote:Abbott's such an idiot, who the hell does he think is going to buy lines like that?

One good thing since Rudd has come back in is that Abbott has looked like a complete joke since.

How did that work out I wonder?

Was no accident that they kept Abbott as quiet as they could as long as they could, he can't say two sentences without umm errr, or stumbling over his words, or saying something downright stupid

All of which makes you think he must be darn good at doing the actual job. Never been a great media performer, but every job he's been given in his parliamentary life he's succeeded at.

Grahaml wrote:

pafc1870 wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:

Gozu wrote:Abbott's such an idiot, who the hell does he think is going to buy lines like that?

One good thing since Rudd has come back in is that Abbott has looked like a complete joke since.

How did that work out I wonder?

Was no accident that they kept Abbott as quiet as they could as long as they could, he can't say two sentences without umm errr, or stumbling over his words, or saying something downright stupid

All of which makes you think he must be darn good at doing the actual job. Never been a great media performer, but every job he's been given in his parliamentary life he's succeeded at.

Spot on. It's not a popularity contest as KRudd and his followers found out.

Tim Flannery no longer sucking on the public teat as climate change commisar. Good news.

Ronnie wrote:Tim Flannery no longer sucking on the public teat as climate change commisar. Good news.

It'll be great when that pesky environment goes away so we wont have to argue over it anymore.

Any examples of achievements by Flannery and his department of Chardonnay socialists spring to mind?

Are you blokes really still in denial about climate change? With all the peer reviewed evidence being put forward, all the climatic data which supports the evidence and hypothesis, the overwhelming consensus amongst climatologists and scientists in related disciplines and the large body of physical evidence that has given rise to this consensus.

Have you heard - the earth is actually flat and all this spherical talk is just a load of nonsense designed to trick us because the big bad government guys want to really control our lives and stuff. I heard Alan Jones say it so it must be true.

You have too much faith in consensus Roxy, it has been wrong before.
(And sometimes it is driven by vested interest.)

That said, I do agree that our present CO2 levels are higher than they have been over the last 500K years at the previous peaks in the Milankovitch cycles, and that, because it is coming from the excessive human population, we should do something active about reducing that, and all the other forms of pollution we put out.

For example, I am disturbed, but not surprised, that we are ignoring the carcinogens in diesel fumes still, 12 months after the WHO declaration they are as much a health risk as Asbestos, which we take very seriously.

I just don't think a tax or trading scheme that just raises the cost to the end user is active enough.
We need to require industry to actually reduce pollution, not just pay a price for going on doing it and pass that cost on to the customer.
That sort of scheme is just political window dressing.

Well, at least our electricity bills will be slashed when the carbon tax is repealed...

...won't they?

Q. wrote:Well, at least our electricity bills will be slashed when the carbon tax is repealed...

...won't they?

Never seen the price of anything come down, except when woolies or coles can rip off farmers.

Exactly, so not only will we not have a price on carbon, but repealing the carbon tax won't even affect the ordinary citizen. Things will be peachy for our largest 500 companies though.

Just think of all the new jobs those 500 will be able to create.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:Just think of all the new jobs those 500 will be able to create.

Ha!

Psyber wrote:You have too much faith in consensus Roxy, it has been wrong before.
(And sometimes it is driven by vested interest.)

That said, I do agree that our present CO2 levels are higher than they have been over the last 500K years at the previous peaks in the Milankovitch cycles, and that, because it is coming from the excessive human population, we should do something active about reducing that, and all the other forms of pollution we put out.

For example, I am disturbed, but not surprised, that we are ignoring the carcinogens in diesel fumes still, 12 months after the WHO declaration they are as much a health risk as Asbestos, which we take very seriously.

I just don't think a tax or trading scheme that just raises the cost to the end user is active enough.
We need to require industry to actually reduce pollution, not just pay a price for going on doing it and pass that cost on to the customer.
That sort of scheme is just political window dressing.

I am happy to have faith when there is a greater than 95% confidence interval. This is a standard statistical and scientific benchmark of acceptance as rarely is something absolute. In this case there are still some credible scientists who are sceptical of or undecided upon the science (about 2 or 3%) but they are simply outliers to use the statistical lingo.

How do you force business industry to reduce pollution without an economic driver?

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote:Are you blokes really still in denial about climate change? With all the peer reviewed evidence being put forward, all the climatic data which supports the evidence and hypothesis, the overwhelming consensus amongst climatologists and scientists in related disciplines and the large body of physical evidence that has given rise to this consensus.

Have you heard - the earth is actually flat and all this spherical talk is just a load of nonsense designed to trick us because the big bad government guys want to really control our lives and stuff. I heard Alan Jones say it so it must be true.

yes

Is that you Andrew Bolt?

Roxy the Rat Girl wrote: How do you force business industry to reduce pollution without an economic driver?

I'm not sure of the legal requirements to make it work, but the offer of grants to assist changing the processes and equipment could be the carrot and legislated penalties or levies for not reducing output could function as the stick. Not being able to pass the penalties on to the consumer would be a motivating factor in decision making.

I can't see simply pushing up the price of energy to the consumer doing anything to reduce output as we need certain minimum amounts of energy to run our lives as we wish to live them. So, we just pay whatever it costs, and only those who can't afford to keep paying suffer. Under the system we just experienced, the energy used cost more, but was generally still used, the pollution from the main energy sources remained much the same, and only where the money was held changed. A trading scheme doesn't actively force change either - the supplier can buy credits from people who grow trees elsewhere and go on with the same technology as it costs nothing - the end-user pays the bill.

A Carbon Tax may have worked if the money were raised from the companies (not the consumer), and was isolated from general revenue and used to financially support those companies who were prepared to upgrade their production systems. I think both the Greens and the Democratic initially proposed something like that, but the Greens compromised the details with the ALP in exchange for other benefits to themselves as a political party.

A rocket has just lifted off from florida to study the reason why the planet mars went from an apparent water covered surface, to its current state of dry dust.

There is no need to spend that amount as I already know the reason why! THEY DIDNT HAVE A CARBON TAX !!

Bully wrote:A rocket has just lifted off from florida to study the reason why the planet mars went from an apparent water covered surface, to its current state of dry dust.

There is no need to spend that amount as I already know the reason why! THEY DIDNT HAVE A CARBON TAX !!

I think Al Gore was involved too mate.