Carbon tax – extra ACT hit

By 5 May, 2012 150

Are different arms & factions of the feds talking to each other? One lot who weighed up the carbon tax politics clearly felt that we’re a safe enough locality to add li’l ACTEW to the Clean Energy “dirty list”. Can it be a coincidence that this will hit supposed safe-Labor-seat voters in the guts?

Confusingly, another arm of the gubmint apparently decided we were wavering vote-wise and in need of pork-barrelling, hence the Manuka Oval lights announcement the other day.

Here’s the regulator’s punishment list.

So, fellow average-income-earners-not-getting-any-compensation, get set for extra nasties and carbon tax cost imposition way beyond the official calculator’s risible “$8 a week”.

Please login to post your comments
150 Responses to Carbon tax – extra ACT hit
#31
HenryBG8:21 am, 07 May 12

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

Wailing about “Surfdom”, “the Antichrist” and accusing Tim Flannery wanting “power over us” are not questions and are not reasonable.

Or was this florid gem meant to be reasonable:

three thousand delegates flying in on CO2-spewing, Gaia-killing, death machines known as “planes”.

The problem with kooks is they take their nutty ideas so very seriously.

#32
pajs9:37 am, 07 May 12

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

The way to understand this is to think about the natural carbon cycle. For example, plants decay and emit greenhouse gases, but new plant growth can take that up. The emissions cycle through the biosphere. Kind of like having a fishpond where the evaporation from the pond matches a trickle in of new water. The pond level stays the same.

What happens when you do things like release fossil carbon into the atmosphere is you add extra carbon that the natual carbon cycle can’t handle, leading to carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere. In the case of the fishpond, you’ve turned up the flow rate into the pond. Sooner or later, the pond overflows.

Australia is part of turning up the flow rate ane we need to do our bit to reduce emissions.

#33
Jim Jones9:56 am, 07 May 12

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?
Question 2: is it being caused by humans?
Question 3: should we worry?
Question 4: should we do something about it?
Question 5: what should we do about it?
Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

The problem with extremist warmists like yourself is that you shut down any questioning or debate by accusing anyone who asks reasonable questions of being essentially the anti-Christ.

The only ‘debate’ is about questions 5 and 6.

Sadly, the ‘debate’ has been hijacked by nutsacks who keep dragging us back to question 1, so nothing gets done.

#34
davo10110:00 am, 07 May 12

PantsMan said :

@HenryBG A rational debate would proceed as follows:

Question 1: is there climate change?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 2: is it being caused by humans?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 3: should we worry?

Yes

PantsMan said :

Question 4: should we do something about it?

Don’t know. This is the point where we leave the confines of science. Science can give us information about the feasibility of trying to do something, how much it would cost, how much it would save, the chance of success, etc, but it tells us nothing about if we should bother to try and do anything.

PantsMan said :

Question 5: what should we do about it?

Once again don’t know. The safe option would be to try and avoid the problem because our understanding of the consequences is limited but equally, perhaps, we could just leave it to future us to worry about.

PantsMan said :

Question 6: should we have a carbon tax?

Bit of a pointless question as the carbon tax is only an interim step on the way to an emissions trading system so it only has a limited life anyway.

#35
rhino12:45 pm, 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Of all the garbage in Australia, Canberra produces 1%.

Of that, *your* street produces 0.1%.

So why do we bother collecting garbage from *your* street?

/scratch head?

If we could reduce our emissions and make Australia immune to any climate issues through our own local action then that would be equivalent. But it’s more like everyone in canberra is dumping their rubbish on your front lawn every day so you try to reduce the amount of your own rubbish that you dump there.

#36
rhino1:00 pm, 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

As pointed out above, the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effects of the already-introduced GST.

I disagree with this. That was based on the CPI at the period immediately after the release of the tax. If you look at the graph of the CPI at the time of the GST release, it spiked heavily for a very short period and then settled back to normality. Is that estimate (with a lower spike figure) a peak spike level or the actual medium to long term estimated increase in CPI? I suspect it would not be an equivalent figure. That spike is fairly irrelevant in the scheme of things, as it is just the adjustment to the new tax, not the lasting effect of the tax.

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system. This made administration for all of the hundreds of thousands of businesses in Australia and the ATO much easier and therefore made conducting business more efficient and so our society more productive. Things like bread and milk are not taxed, which is nice. And it taxes consumption (on things other than the bare necessities of food), rather than just income. It allows funds for the states in an organised manner.

#37
welkin312:08 pm, 07 May 12

CSIRO research in 1992 showed that the Australian landmass absorbed our emissions from industry and land clearing.
“Implications of the Globally Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Temperature for the Australian Terrestrial Carbon Budget: Integration Using a Simple-Model”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm
Quote from the Abstract – [The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined.]

So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.
Nino Cullotta was right.

#38
davo1012:17 pm, 07 May 12

krash said :

Of all the Carbon Dioxide produced, 97% is produced by nature, 3% by human activity. Of that 3%, Australia produces about 1.4% of the Carbon Dioxide.

/scratch head

Instead of scratching your head perhaps you should spend some time reading up on the carbon cycle.

#39
devils_advocate2:22 pm, 07 May 12

The carbon price (under a cap and trade system) is fundamentally different from the GST. This is because the price of a tonne of carbon will be set by markets, not the government.

The real risk associated with carbon trading is when the futures markets become sufficiently deep and liquid, and the speculators get involved.

People whinged and moaned before the GFC when the short-sellers started targeting capital-strapped financial entities and effectively forcing sell-downs. The difference is, equity markets don’t have a *direct* effect on the real economy.

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation).

Hopefully there will be an active market in shorting the carbon credits but often there aren’t enough counterparties to even allow complete hedging for people that need the credits, let alone enough shorters to stop speculative bubbles emerging.

But I just console myself with the fact that if it all goes to hell I won’t be the first one over the cliff.

#40
dtc2:34 pm, 07 May 12

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

#41
VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:54 pm, 07 May 12

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

#42
devils_advocate3:06 pm, 07 May 12

dtc said :

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

Well, not really – my point was that unlike the majority of other commodities, the price can be artificially driven up/overshoot due to the actions of investors. Carbon credits will share many aspects of a normal commodity, but will also have many (imo dangerous) characteristics of a financial instrument.

I realise that economic theory posits that cap and trade is more efficient as it allows abatement by the least cost avoider, but due to the risk of irrational bubbles, I think the safer and more pragmatic outcome is the tax (with a flexible tax rate to target set caps).

#43
HenryBG3:14 pm, 07 May 12

rhino said :

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system.

And yet I still paid stamp duty last time I bought a house…..one of the taxes that was supposed to have been removed….and everytime anybody asks me for money they give me the option of paying a smaller, GST-free amount, or of getting an invoice. So much for “simpler” and “fairer”.

In any case, revenue collected from carbon emitters who are currently dumping their pollution in the atmosphere for free will be offset by lower taxes on all of us. It’s not aimed at being a net revenue raiser, so it’s not going to have much impact: by increasing taxes on CO2-emitters and handing that revenue back to the consumers, the consumers have the option of paying for the increased prices OR paying for cheaper alternatives.

And as pointed out, its effect will be a fraction of the effect that the GST had on the economy.

#44
HenryBG3:17 pm, 07 May 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

Not aware that the word “common” has any part to play in the definition of the word “pollutant”.

But we know you’re not raising a genuine concern, you’re just repeating some anti-science fluff as generated by Rupert “Unfit to run a Public Company” Murdoch and his dishonest media organisation and Heartland with its “undermine the teaching of science” objective.
More fool you.

#45
pajs3:22 pm, 07 May 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

dtc said :

devils_advocate said :

By contrast, carbon credits will be an essential input for business activity. Sustained increases or spikes in the carbon price will be more akin to, say, the oil crisis, because the price impacts are to a business input and spread throughout the economy. Leaving policy makers with a choice between potentially massive inflation, slowdown in the real economy, or both (stagflation)..

And thus carbon fundamentally becomes a commodity like all other commodities that go into production. I agree that it becomes this due to govt intervention, rather than due to scarcity, but fundamentally the market should work the same way.

What a lot of people fail to realise is that we tax – indirectly – a vast array of ‘pollution’. For example, restrictions on disposal of chemicals and a requirement to incinerate is a cost imposed on the use of those chemicals. We dont tax it direct, but regulation is a cost and that cost gets passed onto the consumer. For example, look at the cost of replacing CFCs about 10 years ago.

If you regard carbon as a pollutant, then the carbon tax is easily the best way to control production (because it imposes costs on users/consumers of that pollution). If you dont think carbon is a pollutant, then the tax is pointless.

Your point is well made, but how can something as common as crabon be considered a pollutant?

How can something as common as carbon be considered a pollutant?

By understanding what ‘pollutant’ means. A thing doesn’t need to be hazardous or toxic tobe a pollutant. The wrong amount of something, in the wrong place, at the wrong time can be a pollutant. Think about noise as an example. Or how you can pollute a river, killing off a lot of species, by releasing water into it from the base of a dam where the temperatures are too low (thermal pollution). Or ozone. Ozone in the stratosphere is a good thing, but ground level ozone is air pollution.

So, stuff can be a pollutant if it is as rare as noise, water, ozone or CO2.

#46
HenryBG3:23 pm, 07 May 12

welkin31 said :

CSIRO research in 1992 showed that the Australian landmass absorbed our emissions from industry and land clearing.
“Implications of the Globally Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Temperature for the Australian Terrestrial Carbon Budget: Integration Using a Simple-Model”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT9920527.htm
Quote from the Abstract – [The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined.]

So from a global perspective Australia produces practically no net carbon dioxide emissions anyway.
Nino Cullotta was right.

Um, how did you get from “similar magnitude” to “no net CO2 emissions”? Did Andrew Bolt tell you to think this?

Although it’s reassuring to see that you have faith in 20-year-old science and 20-year-old scientific modelling, you should probably leave its interpretation to those of us who are literate, numerate, and capable of logic and reason.

#47
astrojax3:54 pm, 07 May 12

2604 said :

Most people want to help the environment, myself included. But a carbon tax is one of the worst and least democratic ways to do it.

A much fairer and less coercive approach would be to rely upon individual action. That is, every person who is concerned about the environment can purchase green electricity for their homes, offset their emissions using services like Greenfleet, reduce their energy consumption (better insulation, lower energy appliances and light fittings etc), and so on. Anyone who doesn’t care enough about the environment to want to pay for those things shouldn’t be forced to.

but this ignores the human nature aspect of why we need governance and regulation in the first place: for example, why do we need parking inspecors, or disabled spots at all, if all drivers were genuinely considerate and law abiding? the market will not work in all circumstances, so relying on individual action is bound to fail…

#48
rhino4:36 pm, 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

rhino said :

In terms of the lasting effect of the GST, you have to recall that many taxes were removed in order to make way for the GST. It was a fairer and simplier system.

And yet I still paid stamp duty last time I bought a house…..one of the taxes that was supposed to have been removed….

And as pointed out, its effect will be a fraction of the effect that the GST had on the economy.

They had to make some compromises towards the end to get the GST through and satisfy the Democrats. So probably a few taxes remained out of compromise unfortunately. I agree that stamp duty does seem to be excessive and fairly unnecessary.

But as I asked in my previous post, how do you determine the effect of the carbon tax will be a fraction of the effect of the GST? That CPI figure? That was a brief spike due to people expecting prices to soar and so they rushed to buy things before the tax. Because of unprecendeted demand, prices went up. They settled again afterwards. In the longrun it made little difference. It also was intended to be roughly revenue neutral as they lowered some taxes and raised others etc. The figure for the carbon tax effect is over a year and is their conservative estimate of how much prices will rise for you based purely on the tax, not the other factors that would be raising prices anyway.

#49
HenryBG5:03 pm, 07 May 12

rhino said :

The figure for the carbon tax effect is over a year and is their conservative estimate of how much prices will rise for you based purely on the tax, not the other factors that would be raising prices anyway.

Right, so what do we pay for goods over the course of the year? $40,000?
0.7% of $40,000 = $280
And what are we getting back? $800?

Shall I panic now? Or leave it until later when the full impact of coming out $10/week better sinks in?

Apologies if these numbers are very rough – the impact on my life of the carbon tax will be absolutely minimal, so I haven’t bothered thinking about it.

Considering it’s taken all of about 8 years for my power bills to double in size without any carbon tax being involved, I know the usual cranks and whingers are going to blame everything under the sun on this virtually unnoticeable impost on CO2 polluters.

#50
26046:01 pm, 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

In any case, revenue collected from carbon emitters who are currently dumping their pollution in the atmosphere for free will be offset by lower taxes on all of us.

“All of us” earning less than $80,000 p.a.

#51
26046:07 pm, 07 May 12

JC said :

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

S
But people generally don’t chuck their rubbish out on the street, because they agree that the environmental costs of doing so are unacceptable and the cost of avoiding this environmental damage – putting rubbish in a bin – is low.

Bulldust. People put their rubbish in the bin because garbage collection is a non optional ‘tax’. Sure as shit if you gave people the option of opting out of garbage collection there would be a lot of people who would happily forgo the cost of the collection and dumo where ever they like. Just take a look at all the people who dump items at charity bins or in the parks or bush that they would otherwise have to pay for. In fact rubbish collection is a good example of where for the most part a compulsory tax works, so too with the carbon tax.

You can’t compare municipal rubbish collection with the carbon tax. The former is a low-cost, proven, direct means of reducing pollution. The latter is a high-cost, speculative, indirect means of reducing climate change. People are happy to pay for rubbish collection because it costs so little and is proven to work. They are unhappy about the carbon tax because it has neither of these advantages.

#52
dungfungus8:29 pm, 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

rhino said :

The figure for the carbon tax effect is over a year and is their conservative estimate of how much prices will rise for you based purely on the tax, not the other factors that would be raising prices anyway.

Right, so what do we pay for goods over the course of the year? $40,000?
0.7% of $40,000 = $280
And what are we getting back? $800?

Shall I panic now? Or leave it until later when the full impact of coming out $10/week better sinks in?

Apologies if these numbers are very rough – the impact on my life of the carbon tax will be absolutely minimal, so I haven’t bothered thinking about it.

Considering it’s taken all of about 8 years for my power bills to double in size without any carbon tax being involved, I know the usual cranks and whingers are going to blame everything under the sun on this virtually unnoticeable impost on CO2 polluters.

If you believe that equation you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
Firstly, Combet said it would be a “one off 0.7% increase in the CPI” How can you have a “one off” when the tax is going to be charged on every transaction every day on 1/7/12 AND after 1/7/12?
Secondly, despite Combet insisting GST will not be charged on “the carbon tax”, the cost of the tax paid by the “500 biggest polluters” will be added to the cost of taxable supplies and services so the 0.7% will increase accordingly at the end of the purchase cycle.
Thirdly, there will be a compounding effect eg the price of diesel will increase at the pump so the goods delivered to the supermarkets will increase in price as will the cost of electricity etc. to keep them in the freezer etc.
The carbon tax (and a tax is all it is) will devastate what is left of the economy that this dysfunctional government inherited.

#53
PantsMan8:47 pm, 07 May 12

@HenryBG, attitudes like yours are how Idi Amin started out.

#54
I-filed9:16 pm, 07 May 12

HenryBG said :

It’s well under what *I* get paid –

HBG, you keep boasting about your supposed high pay – but elsewhere on this topic you have referred to yourself as reaping tax benefits under the carbon tax arrangements! Nothing about you or your posts is redolent of a high income earner! I’m calling you on being a b***s***-artist!

#55
gooterz9:50 pm, 07 May 12

I have to wonder how many of the carbon/greenhouse effect’ers were the ones to say the world was going to end on Dec 31 1999….

The carbon cycle is simple you just have to follow the rules:
1. No more carbon on planet earth has been put there by humans.
2. Many previous times in the earths history there has been a huge amount more carbon in the atmosphere.
3. Plants use carbon dioxide to photosynthese.
4. More carbon means more plant growth, bigger plants with less work. Lots of healthier plants means less crop space and thus more forrests.
5. A slight rise in temperatures may effect the ocean levels but this would mean we have more arable land.
6. More land is covered by water so evaporation increases. Deserts will get more rain.
7. As a whole more energy is captured by planet earth, plants are bigger and we store more energy. This makes wind turbines more efficient.
8. Advantages in genetically modified foods will mean more carbon is used as stuff will be bigger and grow in more places.

#56
The cat did it10:48 pm, 07 May 12

Gooterz- did you get those talking points from an old Tim and Debbie LP?

Just take no. 5- when you raise ocean levels, you cover land, ie any arable land that gets covered is lost, under salty water, so it probably won’t be growing anything except seaweed.

Or no. 6- some 70% of the earth is covered by oceans already; the relatively small areas that would get covered won’t change this figure by much. Evaporation will increase because the temperature of the ocean surface will increase. But there is nothing to suggest that this extra water will fall on deserts. That is, unless prevailing weather patterns encounter some kind of ‘tipping-point’ change, in which case we’ll all be in for some unpredictable ‘interesting times’.

Or 3. (one of Ian Plimer’s favourites). Yes- atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher in the past, but we can’t make straight comparisons because other factors haven’t remained constant. For example, during one of these high CO2 periods (Late Ordovician), the sun’s radiation was weaker than it is today, so temperatures did not rise to the same extent.

#57
HenryBG12:37 am, 08 May 12

I-filed said :

HBG, you keep boasting about your supposed high pay -….

I’m sorry for lobbing that one over your head, let me be more explicit for you: I wasn’t “boasting” about anything, I was drawing attention to the fact that Dr Flannery is not being paid much all.

$180,000pa is $86.50/hour.

Find me just *one* other consultant in Canberra who works for that little.

#58
HenryBG12:40 am, 08 May 12

dungfungus said :

Thirdly, there will be a compounding effect eg the price of diesel will increase at the pump

Are you *sure* the carbon tax applies to fuel?

Hmmm?

dungfungus said :

so the goods delivered to the supermarkets will increase in price as will the cost of electricity etc. to keep them in the freezer etc.

Power is about 2% of a typical business’s overhead.

Still feel the need to panic, Chicken Little?

dungfungus said :

The carbon tax (and a tax is all it is) will devastate what is left of the economy that this dysfunctional government inherited.

What is it with cranky tinfoil-hatted pensioners and superlatives like “devastate”?

The carbon tax will have a fraction of the effect that the GST had. The GST didn’t “devastate” anything, so people running around claiming a much smaller tax will do so are utter buffoons.

#59
Jim Jones8:47 am, 08 May 12

HenryBG said :

people running around claiming a much smaller tax will do so are utter buffoons.

But … didn’t you hear … it’s a GREAT NEW BIG TAX!!!

#60
Thumper9:08 am, 08 May 12

You have to laugh at these “sky-is-falling” types

their fear of science

Is it malice or just stupidity?

he could have jumped on the Gina Rhinehardt/Rupert Murdoch/Heartland gravy Train

got paid for spinning up bullshit designed to “undermine the teaching of science”

you crank halfwits

just jealous of others who have an intellect and an education

your insane gibberish

excellent demonstration of the kind of intellect that is attracted to climate denialism.

witness the numbnut nonsense about Flannery above

they are not fit people to be representing Australians

Kooks

Rupert “Unfit to run a Public Company” Murdoch

dishonest media organization

Heartland with its “undermine the teaching of science” objective

Did Andrew Bolt tell you to think this?

it’s reassuring to see that you have faith in 20-year-old science and 20-year-old scientific modelling

you should probably leave its interpretation to those of us who are literate, numerate, and capable of logic and reason

the usual cranks and whingers

Still feel the need to panic?

Chicken Little?

utter buffoons

Ah tolerance, something that seems somewhat lost in some cases.

I’ll leave it there and await my flaming.

And of course, this comes from a person who believes, due to some sort standing or entitlement, that he should be exempt from jury duty.

But hey, I may be wrong, Henry could be a nice, tolerant, calm and rational person, willing to discuss issues.

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Advertisement

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.