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
#121
SnapperJack12:42 pm, 17 May 12

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

#122
davo1012:40 pm, 17 May 12

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

No, it was also on the ABC. I remember clearly as I knew at the time that the statement didn’t represent the results we were getting from the modelling. Several organisations put out press releases at the time pointing out that this prediction wasn’t supported by the evidence. I think Sydney Water had calculations that showed there was a 80% chance that Warragamba would spill within 5 years. Interestingly the media chose to run with the dire prediction instead.

#123
Tooks2:43 pm, 17 May 12

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

I missed it too. Were these the same comments that led to this apology from the Australian?

“The Australian” apologises to
Professor Flannery.

On August 6, 2011, the Weekend Australian published an article concerning Climate Change Commmissioner Professor Tim Flannery and referring to an observation from an ozpolitic.com forum. The article suggested Professor Flannery’s public comments on climate change frightened elderly owners to sell coastal properties to climate change proponents.

The Weekend Australian accepts that Professor Flannery’s comments were never intended this way. The Weekend Australian apologises to Professor Flannery and his family for any hurt and embarassment the article may have caused.

#124
HenryBG2:53 pm, 17 May 12

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

Ah, yes, the “science” of anti-science: “I saw a thing about it once on TV. Definitely.”

I would have thought that having been caught out peddling your lies about Dr Flannery you would be laying low somewhere. But no, just like a dog that can’t stop returning to its own vomit, you just have to keep coming back with yet more tinfoil-hatted cranky pensioner bull.

#125
chewy142:56 pm, 17 May 12

I once heard Tim Flannery say that Australia was going to be engulfed by record floods and bushfires at the same time if we didn’t commit to living in caves and eating tofu burgers.

True story.

#126
Postalgeek3:19 pm, 17 May 12

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

The only transcript that I can find is this:

Landline, 2007

SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?

PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

Doesn’t exactly scream ‘we would never have rain again’…

Of course, if there’s a different source with Flannery’s ‘exact words’, link it here and that should pretty much silence debate.

#127
SnapperJack3:21 pm, 17 May 12

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

Ah, yes, the “science” of anti-science: “I saw a thing about it once on TV. Definitely.”

I would have thought that having been caught out peddling your lies about Dr Flannery you would be laying low somewhere. But no, just like a dog that can’t stop returning to its own vomit, you just have to keep coming back with yet more tinfoil-hatted cranky pensioner bull.

Henry, are you really as unbalanced and delusional as that or has someone hacked into your account? I sincrely hope the latter. Flannery said in 2007 during the drought that we would never have normal rainfall again, that dams would never fill and that what little rain we would get would sizzle into nothing when it hits the parched earth. The clip has been replayed several times on TV and the soundtrack has been replayed many times on commercial radio. Those are the facts. End of story.

Henry’s rantings are becoming increasingly disturbing and it demonstrates how climate change propaganda is poisoning people’s minds and making them almost zombie-like, snarling and hitting out at those who try and enlighten them with the facts.

#128
dungfungus3:44 pm, 17 May 12

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Really Henry? It has been replayed several times on commercial radio and TV, Flannery said those exact words. But I suppose you haven’t seen that watching the ABC while sipping your latte.

Ah, yes, the “science” of anti-science: “I saw a thing about it once on TV. Definitely.”

I would have thought that having been caught out peddling your lies about Dr Flannery you would be laying low somewhere. But no, just like a dog that can’t stop returning to its own vomit, you just have to keep coming back with yet more tinfoil-hatted cranky pensioner bull.

Hey HenryBG, you really have to learn to debate without all the invective and bile or fewer people will take you seriously. For the record, I never have.

#129
dungfungus3:46 pm, 17 May 12

chewy14 said :

I once heard Tim Flannery say that Australia was going to be engulfed by record floods and bushfires at the same time if we didn’t commit to living in caves and eating tofu burgers.

True story.

How does one “eat” tofu?

#130
davo1014:33 pm, 17 May 12

dungfungus said :

How does one “eat” tofu?

There are plenty of ways. My preference is fried with a crispy outside.

#131
welkin314:40 pm, 17 May 12

Re #118 HenryBG – you quoted lots of BoM sites – which all use adjusted data.
But read this BoM media release – Hot Cities -
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20101013.shtml
I quote –
[Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.

Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, said "we've known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat's retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too."

"But what we didn't know was whether city day time temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect."

"We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer," Ms Campbell said.]

So why would the Climate Commission quote a daytime temperature measure (number of days each year over 35C) from our largest city – without allowing for this effect the BoM have discovered in 2010 ?

#132
dungfungus6:08 pm, 17 May 12

davo101 said :

dungfungus said :

How does one “eat” tofu?

There are plenty of ways. My preference is fried with a crispy outside.

This could be sold as MacTofu perhaps? Couldn’t taste any worse than a big mac.

#133
Diggety11:48 pm, 17 May 12

A quote from interview with James Lovelock on ACC alarmism going to far:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

….

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”

Now, that was Lovelock’s mea culpa, something that most scientists must do from time to time if they are worth their bread.

Flannery on the other hand, still communicates invalid and overstated projections and scenarios. He is actually damaging the reputation of climate science, when he didn’t even produce any of it. Climate action will suffer with this idiot at the helm of climate science communication.

So Henry, defend Flannery all you like, but don’t try to guard the inaccuracies he espouses. It just makes you look bad.

#134
HenryBG1:03 am, 18 May 12

Diggety said :

Flannery on the other hand, still communicates invalid and overstated projections and scenarios.

So it shouldn’t be too hard to quote him then.

When you’re ready.

SnapperJack said :

Flannery said in 2007 during the drought that we would never have normal rainfall again, that dams would never fill and that what little rain we would get would sizzle into nothing when it hits the parched earth..

Repeating your lies doesn’t turn them into facts. I notice you still can’t seem to find any kind of evidence that these were Flannery’s “exact words”.

welkin31 said :

Re #118 HenryBG – you quoted lots of BoM sites – which all use adjusted data.

So why would the Climate Commission quote a daytime temperature measure (number of days each year over 35C) from our largest city – without allowing for this effect the BoM have discovered in 2010 ?

I don’t know, Welkin, why would they? Did they? and what do you think “adjusted” data means, exactly?

If I summarise you latest argument thusly,

Cities are getting warmer faster than the countryside, which is also getting warmer.
Therefore global warming isn’t happening.

Would I be fairly close to the nub of your latest bit of genius, Welkin?

Diggety said :

A quote from interview with James Lovelock on ACC alarmism going to far:
.

Here’s a challenge for you, Diggety:

Will you get your climate science from
– a 93-year-old who believes the Earth is a conscious living being and who has published very little climate research in his life, none of it recently
– the 1,000s of scientists who are currently active in this field and who all agree that CO2 is increasing, causing heating, and causing sea levels to rise?

Your time starts now, tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic tic

#135
Jethro7:03 am, 18 May 12

Diggety said :

A quote from interview with James Lovelock on ACC alarmism going to far:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

….

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”

Now, that was Lovelock’s mea culpa, something that most scientists must do from time to time if they are worth their bread.

Flannery on the other hand, still communicates invalid and overstated projections and scenarios. He is actually damaging the reputation of climate science, when he didn’t even produce any of it. Climate action will suffer with this idiot at the helm of climate science communication.

So Henry, defend Flannery all you like, but don’t try to guard the inaccuracies he espouses. It just makes you look bad.

I’m going to agree with Diggety.

Man made climate change is real. It is a serious threat. But it’s no use making over-the-top claims about it, as it damages the credibility of the arguments. Have a look at any online conversation about climate change (this one included). All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

#136
Erg09:09 am, 18 May 12

Jethro said :

Man made climate change is real. It is a serious threat. But it’s no use making over-the-top claims about it, as it damages the credibility of the arguments. Have a look at any online conversation about climate change (this one included). All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

+1

I can attest that the highly publicised, over-the-top predictions that appear in the media affected my own viewpoint on climate change for quite a while, until I actually took the time to research it for myself. Most people won’t bother, unfortunately.

#137
HenryBG11:46 am, 18 May 12

Erg0 said :

Jethro said :

Man made climate change is real. It is a serious threat. But it’s no use making over-the-top claims about it, as it damages the credibility of the arguments. Have a look at any online conversation about climate change (this one included). All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

+1

I can attest that the highly publicised, over-the-top predictions that appear in the media affected my own viewpoint on climate change for quite a while, until I actually took the time to research it for myself. Most people won’t bother, unfortunately.

So, the fake “predictions by Tim Flannery” that were invented by denialists in order to discredit the science have worked on you then?

You need to be more sceptical about the rubbish you hear in the media.

There’s nothing worse the unsceptical people believing the rubbish written by uni drop-outs like Andrew Bolt.
Instead of paying attention to it, read the real predictions/observations made by the real scientists in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report:

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.

#138
HenryBG11:55 am, 18 May 12

Jethro said :

All the denialists need to do is quote or reference one alarmist statement that has been proven false, and they feel they have invalidated all of the science.

I haven’t seen the denialists quote any such kind of “alarmist statement” yet in this thread, even though we’ve invited them to do so on numerous occasions since they started to claim that such alarmist statements exist.

That aside, I tend to agree with you that people wishing to debate this issue should quote some sound science.
Not how much Tim Flannery gets paid.
Not how hot it was in 1926.
Not what Andrew Bolt thinks.
Not invented “Tim Flannery quotes”.
Not what 1 random 93-year old hippie fruitcake thinks.
Not assertions as to how the laws of physics don’t apply to CO2.

Read the sound science I liked to above, which explained exactly where we were at with increasing CO2, increasing temperature, rising sea levels and so forth and then tell us what you want to debate.

#139
Postalgeek1:10 pm, 18 May 12

HenryBG said :

There’s nothing worse the unsceptical people believing the rubbish written by uni drop-outs like Andrew Bolt.
Instead of paying attention to it, read the real predictions/observations made by the real scientists in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report

Why would you do that when you can read a thousand word exposé in an objective, apolitical, scientific journal, like the Spectator or the Australian, for example.

#140
davo1015:07 pm, 18 May 12

HenryBG said :

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parroted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

So I’m to assume that when New Scientist published an editorial by Flannery they were lying about its authorship?

davo101 said :

But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” – which is transient – and start talking about the new climate. [Emphasis added]

#141
HenryBG7:42 pm, 18 May 12

davo101 said :

HenryBG said :

But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. Growing evidence suggests that hotter soils, caused directly by global warming, have increased evaporation and transpiration and that the change is permanent. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” – which is transient – and start talking about the new climate. [Emphasis added]

Thanks for clearing that up.

So, just to be precise, when you agreed with the idiot who said that Flannery said, “we would never have rain again and dams would never fill”, you were wrong, just as they were wrong, because Flannery obviously didn’t say what you have been pretending he said.

It’s nice to see you admit you were wrong.

Not many cranky tinfoil-hatted pensioners are big enough to admit it the way you have. Well done.

#142
Diggety11:15 am, 20 May 12

@ HenrgyBG: you’re still talking about Flannery quotes from the Murdoch media, or quotes people have said here (remember many of don’t even read The Australian, etc.)

Like I said before, read Flannery’s book: The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change

You say you are privvy to climate change science, read both and see how they compare.

Australian’s don’t need embellised scary bed time stories, they need the best currently available climate science communicated consicely and correctly. Flannery’s methods are setting back climate action, which is contrary to his very job description.

#143
I-filed12:15 pm, 20 May 12

Henry BG, Flannery went on the record for years saying things like our children will never see rain. The Strewth column in The Australian has been having fun with his quotes ever since the Queensland floods. They have quoted him dozens of times – making outlandish Hanrahan claims with no equivocation whatsoever. Flannery simply won’t respond when challenged – he sticks to interviews with the converted on Radio National, where he can get away with describing himself as a “climate scientist”.

#144
HenryBG12:39 pm, 20 May 12

Diggety said :

Like I said before, read Flannery’s book: The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change

And yet….you still can’t manage to simply quote what it is that he said that is wrong.

I-filed said :

Henry BG, Flannery went on the record for years saying things like our children will never see rain.

And yet…. you seem to be having awful trouble finding any hint of “the record” actually existing.

In fact, you’ve just admitted you get your knowledge of Climate Change from “the Strewth column in The Australian”.
I wonder at what point you’re gong to twig that The Australian has been taking gullible people like you for a ride?

#145
HenryBG1:01 pm, 20 May 12

HenryBG said :

In fact, you’ve just admitted you get your knowledge of Climate Change from “the Strewth column in The Australian”.
I wonder at what point you’re gong to twig that The Australian has been taking gullible people like you for a ride?

I forgot: if you want to know what is going on with climate change, *this* is what you should read:
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

Not columns in The Australian or blogs by uni drop-outs, which are designed to mislead you.

This is a good collection of points debunking the kind if ignorant rubbish that Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones choose to spread:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#146
I-filed1:21 pm, 20 May 12

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

In fact, you’ve just admitted you get your knowledge of Climate Change from “the Strewth column in The Australian”.
I wonder at what point you’re gong to twig that The Australian has been taking gullible people like you for a ride?

You are so very dishonest HenryBG; what makes you think Rioters are dumb enough to fall for your false-premise nonsense? Perhaps the “uber high income” you keep boasting about is “earned” through tax dodges or something like that. As you well know, I referred to the column in the Australian as frequently quoting Flannery’s own words. Strewth column has never been taken to task for misquoting Flannery. As he is a litigious little chap, Flannery would have sued the Australian if he had ever been misquoted.

#147
I-filed1:24 pm, 20 May 12

HenryBG said :

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

IPCC has in fact been roundly discredited for using jumped-up and inadequate sources. And that’s without even going into the faked-up climate science scandal that IPCC members were embroiled in!

#148
HenryBG3:36 pm, 20 May 12

I-filed said :

HenryBG said :

https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

IPCC has in fact been roundly discredited for using jumped-up and inadequate sources. And that’s without even going into the faked-up climate science scandal that IPCC members were embroiled in!

The IPCC *has* been slimed by places like “the Strewth column in The Australian”, which appears to be the sole source for your beliefs about climate science.

Ironic that you criticise the IPCC’s sources without naming them, based on some crap you’ve read in the gossip column of a right-wing rag.

As for this “faked-up science scandal” – is this yet another assertion you will be unable to back up with any details, facts, references?

You could always read the link I’ve provided and point out the exact bits that are wrong. As far as I am aware the only wrongness it contained rested in the underestimations is includes – the AR5 version of this document will be far worse.

#149
HenryBG3:42 pm, 20 May 12

I-filed said :

As you well know, I referred to the column in the Australian as frequently quoting Flannery’s own words. Strewth column has never been taken to task for misquoting Flannery.

In that case, it is logical to assume that the Strewth column never said what you said it said.

You could always give us a direct quote of their quote of Tim Flannery so we could judge for ourselves….

#150
bundygal9:38 am, 20 Jun 12

What Mr Reason says appears to be logical. But what most people don’t realise is that the tax is not a simple $23 per tonne. The thing most people don’t realise is that everything has a “Global Warming Potential” factored into it e.g. R134a gas which is used in car air conditioning systems has a GWP of 1,300 – therefore the carbon price is actually 23.00 x 1,300 = 29,900. Divide that by 1000 (to get price per kg) & you get $29.90 per kg!!! not a simple $23 per tonne. There’s lots of things the Government doesn’t want you to know.

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

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