Yes, SOG, government was formed by elected members. This is simple.
Unfortunately, some of those elected members threw away all credibility by completely changing (one foot, one hand triple back loop, followed by a stalled forward is the equivalent in windsurfing) the policies that got them there in the first place - SO - who are they representing? The people who voted for them? Or, their own selfish interests?
Sure, there are still those that want to support those members, and there are those that do not. I think the do nots are represented in the opinion polls. Was that lowest ever satisfaction for the Labs?
Hey pug do you still have the free to a good Malaysian home Dullard 50, is it the model with a red head sail?
Classic!
Yeah[}:)]
I will stop beating up the Labs in response to other posts, as soon as those that keep starting posts and pimping the Labs stuff stop
Oh, and can I keep my ad
Ok my final point: www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess_chapter1.pdf
The pdf describes the reason for the carbon tax, along with the nice disproven CO2 hockey stick... basically they need to reduce our wealth so that more people can live on Earth... simple as that. They describe how a reduction of income won't affect our life expectancy.
P19: Limits to growth in developed countries
first, acceptance of limits by developed countries would make it easier for the world as a whole to stay within the Earth's carrying capacity;
second, acceptance of such limits by developed countries would result in a freeing up of more space for the growth of developing countries, thereby facilitating convergence upward;
third, acceptance of limits by developed countries would also facilitate convergence downward, through a more rapid reduction of the ecological footprint in developed countries;
$23 a ton is the starting point, doesn't matter who you vote, it's a done deal without a World War and disband of the UN.
Welcome to your future...
For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income level of about $10,000
Y'all better hope the US$ goes up.
@SomeOtherGuy: you can start by giving all your money to charity. But you won't, will you... oh and then when your living on the streets, I'll give you a history book and hopefully you'll learn socialism doesn't work.
^^^We may be getting a lesson in the faults of capitalism at the moment as well. Enter the USA
Yessss SOG... I know...
Only representing themselves for their own slice of the action.
Major policy without mandate is dangerous territory. Remember WorkChoices? No mandate there either. And...
^^^^
Yeah, I can understand that cynical viewpoint. I often go there myself. But there's also a certain amount of pragmatism in there... I'd bet any of them in government would tell you that they won't get any of their policies through in opposition.
WHO IS TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING ????
Latest report from Surfers Paradise !! Gold Coast !!!
Waves are freezing right now in mid air 
Looks like the policy isn't too popular with the electorate. Fair enough when many people are already struggling.
I was discussing the carbon tax with some colleagues on Friday. Five minutes of talking was more illuminating than two years of government spin. The main problem is the Federal ALP is extremely poor at selling policy. It gets very confusing with crazy labels and silly advertising.
For example the defunct Super Profits Tax for miners. Who though up that title? To me it does one of two things, firstly the tax sounds huge coz it Super. Secondly it makes you associate it with superannuation as people shorten it to super.
Why not call the carbon tax something else? Get rid of the word tax, call it a tariff or a adjustment levy. Replace the word carbon with something quite negative like pollution.
Struggling? We're about as rich as we've ever been. Yes, some people are doing it tough but surely that is because the disparity in income and possessions between rich and poor is much bigger than it used to be.
If we can't fix things when we're richer than we ever were, when will we fix them?
It's depressing to read the posts from people who disbelieve the scientific consensus. Yes, the consensus is not always right, but it certainly is the vast majority of the time.
The arrogance in people who don't work in climate science but assume that they know better than the vast majority of those who do is not just amazing, but depressing. How far up yourself do you have to be to assume that although you've never studied a field, you know more than the very smart people who have spent decades studying and researching in that area?
I'm married to a scientist (working a different area) and her colleagues are the most dedicated and intellectual bunch of workers I have ever met. They are extremely sceptical as a bunch and love nothing more than challenging each others ideas. The idea that they just agree with each other for the sake of doing so is just crap. They test each other's ideas so that they can reject the wrong beliefs and evolve better ones.
Most people's scepticism about science seems to be founded on ignorance and prejudice, which is just mind-boggling considering our lives rest on its creations. The fuel we use is found by scientific methods and extracted by scientific methods. If we go windsurfing, we use carbon masts, mylar sails, epoxy boards and GPSs - all the fruits of science. Most of us would have died of diseases such as smallpox before we were old enough to write these posts if it wasn't for science - and of course if it wasn't for science we wouldn't have an internet, or computers, or electricity to power them.
To live in this day but reject the scientific consensus without expert knowledge is just illogical
Funny, I was talking with a friend of mine, an astronomer who works for CSIRO and is setting up the ASKAP which is a precursor to SKA... really interesting stuff.
Check this out... A couple of farm houses in Geraldton WA have the fastest internet in the country... I digress.
Well he was telling me that the climate change policy is really good for the entire scientific community because they can divert funding from climate change to astronomy... there's plenty of money for climate change but very little money for anything else.
He was telling me there is no "proper research" in to climate. They have objectives and they need to produce material that supports the objective... no research. You can't propose research questions, which is the foundation of research, you can only work on an already proposed question.
He was telling me that with climate research money they'll be able to get the funding for super computers that will help process his telescope data and that everyone knows CO2/weather predictions are a complete scam because there are simply too many variables... have 1 above average rain day and your model fails. Have a new hydroelectric plant and your model fails. Cut down 200 less trees and your model fails.
He wants the CO2 tax because he says we need to stop the consumer society.
Chris 249: reading your post is quite depressing. You read like so many of our generation unwilling to rationally question the information they receive.
The TV said the scientific community said the world is getting warmer, so it is.
And those who question the information are simply viewed as flat Earther's.
We've gone through this a 100 times on this forum. Those who are paid to say it's getting hotter say it's getting hotter.
Those who aren't paid to say it, say "Hey that doesn't make sense we need to expand the research. What's the Sun doing? What's happening inside the Earth? Lets build some detailed models and start playing with gas ratios. Why is the Earth cooling?"
