Categate

The question of climate change has long been a vexed one for the bogan. During the mid-00s, when the weight of public opinion began swinging behind the scientific consensus, and the need to take action about it, the polling suggested that the bogan jumped on board. Far be it for the bogan to stand out from the crowd with its opinions – only with its brightly hued attire and accessories. However, much of this support was predicated on the notion that the bogan would not have to do anything in particular to remedy the climate change problem.

When confronted with the entirely unwelcome idea that an increased cost of pollution was the price of solving the climate problem, the bogan’s throbbing cognitive dissonance gland turned as red as a Greek balance sheet. The bogan now stood against a heinous tax. Not because it was lying earlier about its willingness to pay for change, but that it had reconsidered the science, and now believed the science to be incorrect. With decades of experience studying the climatic data, and a daily dose of News Limited’s stable of climatologists’ input, the bogan was now a font of scepticism. Possibly Times New Roman. Definitely not Comic Sans.

When this started becoming apparent in polling, and the appearance of Tony Abbott at various factories and mines across the country spouting the phrase ‘toxic tax’ to anyone willing to point a camera at him, the nefarious beardist cabal of climate change activists sprang into, well, action.

‘What is it that bogans love most… something that we can use to convince them of the importance of action on this issue?’ said Simon Sheikh, sipping daintily on his latte. ‘Surely we can isolate something more powerful than the bogan aversion to all kinds of tax.’

As the sun set on another day of plotting a fierce redistribution of bogan incomes, one of the evil cohort sprang to his feet with an ecstatic ‘Eureka!’.

‘Celebrities! It’s celebrities!’

‘Of course!’ chanted Beards #3-#7 in unison. ‘But which ones?’

‘Well, obviously, we need that guy who was in The Castle. The only person bogans impersonate more than him is that guy who impersonates Eric Bana impersonating Chopper Read. And besides, he’s on Packed to the Rafters. Bogans love that show. But we need someone bigger. Someone that will get real media attention…’

Weeks later, Cate Blanchett appeared in a commercial attempting to convince the bogan to do the right thing by the planet. The poor, misguided fool. Firstly, the financial pyro-technicians at News Limited lambasted ‘Carbon Cate’ for having the gumption to ask the doing-it-tough Aussie battlers to fork out more money just because she’s loaded. This confused the bogan to the point of madness, as it was unable to reconcile the fact that its celebrity deity was asking it act against its own interests. Because Cate Blanchett has starred in upwards of 700 Hollywood period dramas set in England, she has been a key bogan gateway to cultural smugness. A palid, violin-less Andre Rieu. It was like Jesus asking his followers to actively engage in homosexual acts with the neighbour’s husband. Pure, (un)adulterated blasphemy. Several bogan heads exploded, some converted to Scientology, and a few sought refuge in the dulcet tones of Delta Goodrem.

Of course, the bogan is not to blame for any of this. Only a few months ago, it was informed by the country’s two richest people that it should indeed act as it wants and pay no heed to the nonsense being spouted by the ‘scientists’ in the their climate controlled ivory towers. It was happy. Now, the very same newspapers are telling it to ignore the opinions of wealthy people and listen to a wealthy celebrity that wants it to pay more money for its god-given right to own  nine cars, and open the windows at home when the central heating gets too hot during January and February. The bogan’s typically uncomplicated life was now impossibly fraught with conflict. To add insult to injury, the bogan has recently been informed that Twiggy is now not our second richest person – it’s actually an African that nobody has ever heard of. Between a sneaky African and a dishonest movie star, the bogan has nowhere left to turn.

By now, the bogan was furious about all of the lies and confusion, so it retreated from the sumptuous neon nourishment of its 138 inch LCD television, and applied itself to something it knew was definitely real and good: a four hour session of doughnuts on its Jet Ski. Climate change would have to wait until another day.

Comments

  1. /sigh, for such a great blog macrobusiness really tarnishes itself with this man-made climate change stuff. I mean why say stuff like “During the mid-00s, when the weight of public opinion began swinging behind the scientific consensus” or “increased cost of pollution”?

    The consensus has been entirely manufactured and isn’t really a consensus at all, and the ALP/Greens don’t want to tax ‘pollution’. They want to tax a harmless, odourless, invisible gas that’s required for life on Earth. A gas that we exhale and drink in beer and soft drinks.

    Why not make fun of the ‘bogans’ who still believe the fantasy? They are the truly funny ones.

    You guys are good at economics. In my opinion you should stay out of politics and stick to what you are good at.

    • MattR,
      “You guys are good at economics. In my opinion you should stay out of politics and stick to what you are good at.”

      You are spot on with your comments.

      • Thanks mate, but the guys below reckon this is satire. Seems to me like it’s satirising people who are listening to a different argument now. But on second look it could be satirising alarmists as well. I mean, there are plenty of cliche’s in there.

        I really can’t tell now.

        • The only problem with this piece is the lack of Al Goracle jokes, and the mention of global warming, sorry climate change, sorry climate catastrophe, sorry global wealth redistribution!

      • Just to clear things up for the misguided and misdirected Boganomics originated on the thingsboganslike.com site. Yes it’s satire, but sometimes you need humour to say things that can’t be otherwise said.

        Incidentally it’s also what brought me to the macrobusiness site in first place

    • MattR:
      “The consensus has been entirely manufactured and isn’t really a consensus at all, and the ALP/Greens don’t want to tax ‘pollution’. They want to tax a harmless, odourless, invisible gas that’s required for life on Earth. A gas that we exhale and drink in beer and soft drinks.”

      And do you also reject Evolution? Or do the creationists represent a genuine failure of scientific consensus? Tyndall discovered the greenhouse effect at about the same time Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.

      As for the ‘harmless gas’ stuff – you twit. The stuff we breathe out has come from somewhere (you can find out yourself with a bit of non-consensual-wingnut remediatory diligence) and we just put it back; no nett gain to CO2 in the atmosphere. It IS the ‘pollution’ that is the problem. Arrhenius knew about this in 1896, but you still haven’t caught up. I don’t know what you are good at, but stick to it.

      By the way, B-conomics, very funny article.

      • Ugh, I tried to resist but couldn’t:

        “And do you also reject Evolution?”

        Why would I? There is quite a large body of evidence, both observed and gathered, that supports the theories of natural selection and evolution. Not so for man-made climate change.

        “The stuff we breathe out has come from somewhere”

        Yes, it does come from somewhere, it comes from inside us. Our body converts oxygen in to CO2 (we are carbon based you know), trees then convert the CO2 in to oxygen and the great circle of life continues.

        You know what molecule is the biggest killer in history? Di-Hydro Monoxide. Perhaps we should ban that too?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw 😀

        Maybe I should start my own blog and call it hippionomics. 😉

        • Actually MattR, you could start your own blog and call it something like “When it comes to science, I believe Alan Jones over scientists”.

          The irony of all this is the piece above says bogans are confused and have no idea.

          You seem confused and have no idea.

          In science, we call this proving the hypothesis.

        • Oh, sheeeesh… look, this argument is so tired. If it is SO obvious that CO2 isn’t a problem, then there must be lots of big, reputable science institutes that would back your claims.

          Can you find a SINGLE such body that will back your claims? Just one, please.

          You cannot, because almost all serious scientists know that anthropogeniic warming due to CO2 is a fact.

          If you snub your nose at the world’s scientific communities, then you share the same intellectual status as a creationist.

          If you cannot find a reputable scientific body that will support an anti AGW line, then please just eat humble pie & accept that in fact, you know less than them on this topic.

          Scientific truth is not a pluralistic matter of choice or fashion.

          • Bro you need to look outside the anglosphere.
            The Chinese, indian, russian, Japanese, and Brazilian Scientific institutions don’t perscribe to the AGW dogma. Also the Western institutions never gave their scientific membership a vote on the matter, and 95% of climate scientist have no formal scientific training because they come from maths department (aka Meteorology).

            Once scientists (like myself) take a look at the theory and see that the observation contradict the theory it becomes pretty obvious It is BS.

            So rather than blindly accepting someone else’s opinion as fact, why don’t learn what the theory predicts and compare that to what the observations show.

            Or do you think climate scientist know what they’re talking about despite the fact they don’t know where the warming went or where half or CO2 disappears to!

          • Exactly Rob, funny how they accuse skeptics of ‘blindly’ following the ‘MSM’ but more than likely they get all their info from blogs and movies made by celebrities and ex-Presidential candidates.

            I’ve spent years studying this stuff, reading journals, true scientific blogs, watching presentations and the odd documentary. But hey, I’m just a stupid denier who gets all his information from the Murdoch ‘hate’ media.

        • “Yes, it does come from somewhere, it comes from inside us. Our body converts oxygen in to CO2 (we are carbon based you know), trees then convert the CO2 in to oxygen and the great circle of life continues.”

          Magic, eh!

          Actually, no. The carbon expelled from our bodies as CO2 comes from the plants we consume either directly or indirectly; the oxygen emitted by plants is not produced by ‘converting’ carbon dioxide, which is actually converted into wood, roots, leaves, seeds and so on – the stuff we eat or which dies and becomes fossilised (until we burn it). Plants do NOT ‘convert’ CO2 into oxygen; the oxygen comes from water and is emitted as a waste product.

          The point is, as I pointed out earlier, that the cellular respiration of animals does not add or subtract from the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. But burning fossil fuels does, and this is exacerbated by the destruction of living forests. Read about Tyndall, Fourier and Arrhenius and the greenhouse effect, which is demonstrable by experiment and is even more undeniable, if that is possible, than evolution. Start with Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

          “They want to tax a harmless, odourless, invisible gas that’s required for life on Earth. A gas that we exhale and drink in beer and soft drinks.”
          -This is ridiculous.
          Whether or not a carbon price/tax is the best method of reducing emissions that have a greenhouse effect is a reasonable question, but it is not intended to be levied on the stuff we ingest or breathe out.

          • It’s like Australia’s got Talent
            so far..Brings atear to my I

            Thought I’d stop here ,ask a ? or 4

            Mac…can I call you Mac
            How long ya reckon ,plants been around?
            How much water you think they’ve broken down?
            In saying a hydrogen bond is used for the carbon build/Trees

            cheers Bud

        • Matt – no, I have spent years looking at the science and the arguments around it. Funny how you guys accuse me of getting my views from journalists yet most likely yours are from the Fairfax press, the TV media and Al Gore.

          mahageekster, the only thing that’s tired is the tired old “well, no ‘big’ places agree with you therefore you are wrong”. Science is not about who agree’s and who doesn’t. It’s about presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with evidence.

          Then you say “Scientific truth is not a pluralistic matter of choice or fashion” no s*** sherlock. So why are you acting like it is? Appeals to authority are no argument at all.

          Macondo, your argument does not change anything. We take in oxygen and we exhale CO2 as a biproduct of our metabolism. If it was pollution we would all be dead, it’s not.

          Plants consume CO2 and they release O2, the specific mechanics are irrelevent. If we don’t have CO2, we don’t have plants, if we don’t have plants we don’t have O2. Do you dispute this fact?

          Nothing you have said changes the undeniable fact: CO2 is a harmless, odourless, invisible gas required for life on Earth. And no, I didn’t get this opinion from any news site, I learned it in grade 5 science class.

          None of your arguments change the fact that catastrophic man made global warming is a hypothesis based on flimsy evidence at best, fraudulent evidence at worst.

          • You’re doing a great job mate – I always read your posts – ignore the McCarthiest pokes.

            Cheers.

          • “Nothing you have said changes the undeniable fact: CO2 is a harmless, odourless, invisible gas required for life on Earth. And no, I didn’t get this opinion from any news site, I learned it in grade 5 science class.”

            G-R-A-D-E-5 E-F-F-E-C-T: There is no Greenhouse Effect.

            I had learnt by grade 5 that nothing is harmless if there is too much or too little of it. Funny how that truth has stuck with me, or I with it. Alcohol, for example; a harmless, naturally occurring organic compound in which a hydroxyl functional group is bound to a carbon atom, usually connected to other carbon or hydrogen atoms.

            It is simple-minded to persist with your line, quoted above, and not to acknowledge at all the greenhouse effect, about which I have tried in vain to draw you out. It’s as if it doesn’t exist, but MattR, it’s a scientific fact, observable and verifiable by experiment, not “a hypothesis based on flimsy evidence at best, fraudulent evidence at worst.” That’s just sheer bloody-minded denialist dogma on your part.

          • “I had learnt by grade 5 that nothing is harmless if there is too much or too little of it…”

            Unicorn argument. CO2 is 390ppm and is non-toxic many MANY times that. Saying “well, everything is toxic at a high enough level” so we should tax a trace gas is just ludicrous.

            “It is simple-minded to persist with your line, quoted above, and not to acknowledge at all the greenhouse effect”

            Who’s not acknowledging the greenhouse effect? You know what happens when you assume?

            No, I know there is a greenhouse effect, if there wasn’t we wouldn’t be here. What I don’t accept is the absurd notion that emissions of a harmless trace gas are somehow going to kill the world. It’s ridiculous and anyone looking objectively at the argument would agree.

            “That’s just sheer bloody-minded denialist dogma on your part.”

            No, it’s plain as the nose on your face fact. You know when you call someone a ‘denialist’ you automatically concede the argument? A ‘denialist’ is just what an ‘extremist’ calls a realist.

            I deny nothing at all, I take a skeptical look at the facts and base my opinions on them. Nothing more, nothing less.

          • MattR, I think you should go train up in science (if you don’t have a university degree there already) and then start challenging these arguments with your ‘skepticism’ within the scientific community. Alternatively if you don’t like the policies proposed then I challenge you to join one of the political parties, or the appropriate public body and contribute through that. That would be far braver than getting into arguments on a comedy blog where the side you take disagrees with entire bodies of people who spend their entire working lives looking at this stuff. (you may even learn something along the way)

    • Agreed, I have made this comment several times in response to these posts.

      I love a good joke, and I’m sure most of us are all a little bogan at heart. But seriously, this is damaging the credibility of this site and must be reconsidered.

    • Tony T. Showbizzz

      True, but I would extend the concept further to ecomonists from commenting on actual scientific issues, particularly when they have no idea what they are talking…
      Firstly, CO2 not required for all life, and it’s not necessary harmless, it kills, it’s heavier than oxygen and in high concentrations it suffocates you.
      Secondly, I’m pretty sure the government already taxes beer and beverage companies to carbonate drinks.
      Finally, climate change is made made. We breed cattle to eat it, we burn fuel for power, and cut forests down for wood. Increased CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect, warming atmospheric and seas temperatures….blah blah. Talk of dolphins on jet skis is ridiculous (albeit awesome).
      P.S. Boganomics, you guys are awesome.

    • Hi MattR,
      Re “odourless, invisible gas” I’d appreciate your clarification of why you consider the odour and visibility of carbon dioxide to be relevant to its significance/irrelevance with respect to climate (ditto other alleged greenhouse gases).

      I’ve heard the point made before and I don’t understand the rationale behind it. It doesn’t appear at face value to have a particular relevance. If it has no relevance, I don’t understand why it is worth mentioning.

      • It’s because the alarmist like to portray smoke stacks with black pollution coming out of them. Check the cate gate video to see what I mean.
        Its about trying to link visual images of genuine pollution with emissions of CO2 which is the basis of life on earth.
        Unless life is pollution then CO2 is not pollution.

    • You should stick to what you’re good at too, like commenting on Andrew Bolt’s blog, lol.

    • Just finished Dr. James Hansen’s (NASA space scientist) book “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Hansen’s forecasts (beginning in the 1970’s) have so far been correct, but conservative–he predicted warming, but underestimated how much–so hardly an alarmist, just a hell of a good scientist. Then I read two books about the efforts of politicians to shut him up and oil/coal company PR to debunk legitimate climate science. A hard problem to deal with because of the huge climate inertia–takes a lot of energy to warm oceans and melt icecaps, so the feedback effects start slow then accelerate. Humans aren’t programmed to worry about the next century. Hansen recommends a revenue neutral carbon tax. That would actually put money into the average battler’s pocket. Tax carbon, distribute the tax proceeds pro rata, equal share to everybody. So you pay more if you use more than average energy and pay less if you use less than average. Gives the market the corrected price so we start doing the right things–like conservation and shifting to solar, wind, etc. By the way, I found Hansen’s physics lesson totally convincing with plenty of supporting data. The scientists actually do have it figured out pretty well. 2 watts/sq. meter of “climate forcing” net at present, with some of the warming masked (temporarily) by SO2 aerosols from coal burning. Hansen, this conservative guy, has taken on board the increasing understanding of feedbacks that release more carbon (especially from seabed methane clathrates) and ends his book worrying about a “Venus syndrome.”(His PhD was on Venus) Temperature on surface of Venus is 450 degrees C, hot enough to melt lead. Climate change could, it appears, with some uncertainty, wipe out life on earth. Almost certainly, enough ice will melt to put Australian capital cities under water. So far, it should be pointed out, warming and ice melting has exceeded the models’ predictions. And the weather seems to be getting weirder with droughts floods, hot & cold and big storms all geting more extreme.

      • According to hansen’s 1988 predictions the world is now colder than the scenario where the world dramatically cut its emission a decade ago, while the world has increased it’s emission faster than his worst case scenario.
        The claim that is “worse than we though” is an alarmist rally cry with zero basis in reality.
        The Claim aerosoles have hidden the warming is literally a made up number, and is just a method of adjusting the models to resemble reality.
        Hansen supports breaking laws and suspension of democracy.
        Strangely (for a NASA employee) he refuses to use any satellite data in his analysis.

      • Hanson’s objectivity may be biased by his discovery that Venus is such an extreme example of greenhouse heating.
        Earth is not Venus.
        We should expect changes to the climate due to increased CO2 but the science is a long way from being ‘settled’.

    • Foggot-spotter

      @ MattR – why are you on a blog site with a main offering of humorous banter trying to stand on a soap box and be serious? This post’s main purpose is to be humorous, it does not hold itself out as an authority on climate change, economics, or politics – this particular posting is not even about climate change, its about THE Bogan and the idiosyncrasies of IT’S behaviour.

      Unfortunately your efforts to assert your intellectual superiority are in vein as in attempting to do so you have demonstrated a definitive lack of reading and comprehension skills by completely missing the point / message both on and between the lines of this blog posting. Re-gurgitation of others opinions on the matter of climate change is not a demonstration of intellect, particularly when you are drawing attention to a lack of English prowess. I suggest you gather some context by having a look-see at the brilliant blog “ThingsBoganLike” as I am quite certain that you will identify with much of its content.

      Kind Regards

  2. Best one yet !! I got stares from my fellow train travelers at least 3 times for my burst of laughter while reading this one.

    Matt, this is satire mate.. Have a laugh , it will do you good

    • Strawman? How? I merely responded to the article that seems to be taking a climate alarmist bent to it.

      But hey, he may have been taking the p*** out of them as well. I can’t tell.

  3. What pisses me off about this so-called ‘debate’ is the inference that one is a climate change skeptic if you don’t like the proposed solutions.

    As far as I can tell all the proposals so far involve taxing the hell out of you. In other words, its all stick and no carrot. I haven’t seen a single proposal that involves rewarding those who use less energy. After all, at its heart this issue is about consuming less energy, right? So , come on, how about a financial incentive to cut consumption. Not very bloody likely…

    • Goodness, that’s not very funny, either.

      The Garnaut report has recommended you receive a gigantic tax cut to offset the carbon price. That’s not carrot enough?

      • (Bahh, humbug 🙂 )

        So…take from one hand and give it back to the other? And the financial incentive to reduce energy consumption with Garnaut’s proposal is therefore…what?

        • Well, you could reduce your energy consumption ANYWAY and then pocket the compensation money?

      • If they cut taxes across the board (not this stupid ‘compensation’ nonsense) it would almost be palatable. But they would have to be substantial and equal in PERCENTAGE terms across all incomes, not just lower incomes.

        Otherwise its nothing but wealth distribution.

          • Yes, it is terrible.

            I hate roads, schools, universities, trains, ports, universal health care, policemen, airports….

            Please replace these services with mega corporations that pride themselves on psychopathic greed and inequality. Hurrah!

          • Lol David, talk about exaggeration…

            Who said that taxes should be nothing?

            If our taxes were just being spent on those things I’d write the cheque myself. The reality is, most of our money goes to paying public servants and welfare.

        • “But they would have to be substantial and equal in PERCENTAGE terms across all incomes”

          WTF are u on? So the wealthy get massive cuts, the poor get a pittance. Yeah, that’s real fair!

          NO, what YOU are proposing is wealth distribution – from the poor to rich, and that is extraordinarily ignorant and disgusting.

          • Yes, because emotive arguments like this means you are correct.

            There is NOTHING fair about our current tax system. If the percentage cuts are the same, yes higher earners get a bigger cut in nominal terms, but only because they were paying a hell of a lot more tax to begin with.

            How is it wealth distribution from the poor to the rich? It’s only letting people keep more of what they earn, how is that not fair?

            I know you were taught that socialism is fair, it’s really not.

          • Just like solar panels!
            It’s great that I have more expensive energy while living in a 2 bedroom shoe box because I’m subsidising wealthy people in large houses to get cheap energy via their solar panels!

          • Rob.

            I agree entirely on the solar panels, they are the most expensive way to produce electricity and to reduce greenhouse gases (aside from the heavy metals used in production)

            They are only successful because the average punter who ‘cares’ can afford them.

            The average electricity producer only cares whether or not they will be able to sell the electricity they make. So if they want to diversify their energy mix to something that isn’t coal, the only way is through pricing CO2 emissions (or other pollutants from burning coal)

        • What? The great big tax arrangements on what we breathe out are actually going to assist the poor?

          • MattR asks how I got that from his comment, but there’s no reply button on his post.

            MattR, your own words should suffice to answer your question:

            “If they cut taxes across the board (not this stupid ‘compensation’ nonsense) it would almost be palatable. But they would have to be substantial and equal in PERCENTAGE terms across all incomes, not just lower incomes.

            Otherwise its nothing but wealth distribution.”

            Well, to me that looks like you don’t like the idea of the less well-off possibly getting a little more – as a percentage of tax paid – than the better-off out of a tax credit. You clearly oppose it because it stinks to you of redistributing wealth downwards, a terrible thing per se and even worse if snuck in in the guise of a great big carbon tax, no?

          • Are you right there mate?

            I believe in fairness and that you shouldn’t punish someone for being successful.

            You know why socialism fails right? Actually you probably don’t. Perhaps you should look it up kiddo.

          • You appear to concede it is a big tax, it is sneaky and a form of wealth redistribution (despite that additional intention not being adequately advised to the public). Can’t help but agree.

            You no doubt also agree that it is appalling that none of this was advised to voters prior to the recent election. In fact voters were led to believe there would be no carbon tax. Undemocratic you might say. And Democracy is an ideal I’m confident you support.

    • So , come on, how about a financial incentive to cut consumption. Not very bloody likely…

      Ummmm … haven’t governments both state and federal been throwing money at people to replace inefficient water heaters, insulate their homes etc over recent years? Is that not an incentive to use less energy?

      Look I’m all for more carrots than sticks. I can’t see this tax ever getting through given the self-interest of the average Aussie, the rampant denialism now infecting the community and political sphere, and now the true rulers of Australia — the mining companies — are lobbying hard against it. (I mean, you really have to feel for Twiggy and Gina. Times are tough!) So how about we hand out generous tax breaks to anyone and anything that invests in cleantech?

      Humanity is great at creating bubbles, and hopeless at dealing with major environmental issues that play out over decades or centuries. Such things can always be plausibly denied for a lifetime because humans are only around 80-odd years. I’m sure Andrew Bolt will go to his grave believing he was right.

      • “Humanity is great at creating bubbles, and hopeless at dealing with major environmental issues that play out over decades or centuries.”

        We are good at creating bubbles, but the second part of this sentence is complete nonsense. Look outside, do you see any smog? Go in to the country, see plenty of wilderness?

        Humans are actually extremely good at dealing with environmental problems. What we aren’t good at is dealing with ‘problems’ that are completely made up and wouldn’t even be a problem if they weren’t.

        I mean, how are you supposed to deal with all those damn gremlins under the bed? And Bigfoot, don’t get me started on him!

        • Mate, I really think you need to look at some global deforestation stats. If you think we’re doing an “extremely good job” on that front, then you are more deluded than I thought.

          • One problem at a time buddy. We had a pollution problem we have pretty much solved it.

            Also, deforestation is only an issue in the developing world. In the Western world there are actually more trees now than there were 150 years ago.

            Timber is a good seller you know? 😉

          • The reforestation in the developed world is tiny compared to the deforestation in the developing world.

            Besides, deforestation is part of the same problem. Tropical forests are a very important carbon sink … but of course, that doesn’t matter in the denialist universe, because there is no problem. Very convenient.

            So lets slash all the trees and see how we run a free market economy without oxygen.

            Ultimately we don’t live in an economy. We live on a rock 150km from the Sun, that through an astonishing run of coincidences happens to support life, and since the climate stabilised 8,000 years ago, civilisation. Screw that up, and your beloved free market economy no longer exists.

          • /sigh, do you ever post anything that isn’t full of emotion and bluster? You know when you use terms like ‘denialist’ you actually discredit yourself?

            Like I said, there are more trees in the western world than their were 150 years ago. In fact, the entire US has only had about 1.5% of it ‘developed’.

            Yes, climate has been relatively stable for 8000 years as we have come out of the last ice age. However it has still changed, getting warmer and colder over the centuries. Anyone who thinks that climate change is anything but a naturally occuring phenomenon is mistaken.

            Can you guys ever make a point without getting emotional and going on about some perceived climate doomsday?

          • You avoided the point (about deforestation in the developing world) and called me emotional. Why?

            I don’t discredit myself at all by calling you a denialist. It is perfectly appropriate description of your position. You are not a skeptic, you have a rusted-on position that AGW is not real, and you are here to push your view.

            If you don’t like the term. Tough. Call me an alarmist. I don’t care.

            Anyone who thinks that climate change is anything but a naturally occuring phenomenon is mistaken.

            Unfortunately for you, that “anyone” includes the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. You can trot out nutters like Bob Carter et al, or quote some obscure paper in a scientific journal from Kazakhstan, but until I hear that Science or Nature has accepted a paper that contradicts the current scientific consensus, I won’t be changing my opinion.

            Please don’t bother trying to change it.

          • “I don’t discredit myself at all by calling you a denialist. It is perfectly appropriate description of your position. You are not a skeptic, you have a rusted-on position that AGW is not real, and you are here to push your view.
            If you don’t like the term. Tough. Call me an alarmist.”

            This is essentially all you have left, baseless smears and ad hoc assertations. If the science was so obvious why the need to smear and attack anyone who disagrees?

            I am not a ‘denialist’ (a used to equate skeptics to holocaust deniers) I am a skeptic. Just because I don’t think your beliefs (which are really nothing more than a religious faith) have no basis in the evidence doesn’t make me a ‘denier’. As I said before a ‘denier’ is what an ‘extremist’ calls a ‘realist’.

            “I won’t be changing my opinion.
            Please don’t bother trying to change it.”

            Exactly, you see at least you are being honest. All you need to do is present evidence that CO2 is warming the world uncontrollably (some warming would be nice for a start) and I will change my mind instantly.

            Brisbane could have a white Christmas and your beliefs would not change a bit.

        • There you go again:

          “What we aren’t good at is dealing with ‘problems’ that are completely made up”

          Is the greenhouse effect ‘completely made up’?
          Show us evidence for this conclusion about something that was discovered 160 years ago. Man-made emissions have been known to contribute to this effect for well over 100 years. What other gigantic problems that were ‘made up’ in the past demonstrate the truth of your assertion?

          • Who said the greenhouse effect is made up? You seem to be implying that it is somehow a problem, lol…

            The evidence suggests that man-made emissions MAY have an effect, but that if they do the effect is almost certainly minimal. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that man made emissions of a trace gas are going to lead to catastrophic global warming. That is my assertation, that is what the facts say.

            Why all the emotion?

      • Good points Lorax, but I believe these incentives have been misplaced.

        Incentives to buy water heaters and pink batts are not the same as incentives to reduce energy consumption. A subtle difference perhaps, but hear me out. We all know what happened to the pink batts scheme – the incentive here was to become a pink batts installer. As for water heaters – yes, you get a modern water heater and the water heater lobbyists must be drowning in money. Well done lads.

        I believe the incentive should be one based on actual energy consumption. ie; “If I reduce my household energy consumption by X Kw.hrs, I get financial incentive $y”.

        If its structured this way, then its up to the consumer to find ways to reduce their consumption, not have a prescribed solution rammed down their throats by govt.

        What would this freedom of choice do? Heck, I dont know but lets use our imagination. Some enterprising companies might decide to develop cost effective insulation options (Ever lived in a Melbourne Victorian? They leak air like bloody sieves!). Some people might decide to do no more than wear more sweaters indoors in winter. Some might cycle to work rather than drive. And the list of options go on and on.

  4. Undoubtedly the best yet.

    MattR is carry on a bit like Adam Carr after getting some economic data he doesn’t like.

    • /sigh, I didn’t see the fairly well hidden sarcasm.

      Also, I’d say it’s more like Bob Brown after getting a question he didn’t want to answer.

  5. This just proves the alarmists have no clue, Clearly the bogan has little respect for arty farty actor types! If only they had used some common folk hero’s like footy players, boxers, racing car drivers or a talking CGI version of phar lap! After all who could deny the reasoning of a talking horse!

  6. On the subject of bogans, one of the great dangers to our pedestrians used to be the trip to and from the supermarket. This danger has now been superseded by the appalling food supermarkets sell, and a new menace, the Very Large Bogan & Trolley(VLBT) combo, of which Australia now has a burgeoning oversupply.
    While (as a relatively new immigrant) it’s fascinating to watch intricately tattooed VLBs swaying from side to side as they sail up the isles like ponderous galleons, one must remember that it takes a huge amount of energy to get this combo up to speed from a standing start. Known as “semi-trolleys” by the staff, VBLTs are dangerously deceptive.
    A recent incident springs to mind. I happened to be standing in the checkout queue next to a small, unrestrained child screaming loudly enough to re-invoke a recent and particularly obnoxious hangover. I can’t remember whether I might have actually nudged the little fellow, but in any event, he fell directly in front of a passing “semi”.
    Quite frankly, I really hadn’t thought it possible for even a relatively light individual to accelerate from rest to some form of terminal velocity in the blink of an eye, but the source of my discommodity literally exploded into an arrow-straight trajectory that terminated halfway up an immense wall of Soap Powder on Special. In an instant, a blizzard of swirling OMO flakes filled the surrounding area, which, it seemed, was the cause of what followed. Another semi, blinded by the cloud, swerved directly into the path of an even bigger VLBT combo which had been approaching a rapidly diminishing stack of BOGOF 4X lager at an ominously high velocity. A terrible rending crash saw the kilogram equivalent of a bogan bull elephant slam into a huge, overloaded shelf of tinned Meatballs with Mindless Mash. In the chain-reaction that followed, an explosive avalanche of falling shelves & hurtling cans spread out from the epicenter of the collision. VLBTs panicked and stampeded, trampling all before them in a frenzied breakout of berserk, barking behemoths
    It only took seconds for the disturbance to reach me. I was forced to step smartly behind an old gentleman, who, though a victim himself, shielded me from a tsunami of Ray’s Roadkill Roasts that engulfed the queue in front of me, carrying all before it in a seething mass of fast food, flailing limbs and twisted, tortured trolleys.
    Rather relieved that what could have been a tiresome wait had now been avoided, I stepped up to the till with my Pain Au Chocolat, only to find that the attendant young lady, albeit the recipient of a flying sack of Economy Boil in the Bag Mullet, had (rather unprofessionally in my view) abandoned her post.
    All in all, I thought the best thing to do was to leave discretely. As I stepped out over a pile of badly crushed mangoes, I must admit that I felt a twinge of guilt. I’m actually rather fond of mangoes.

    • +10

      What a corka! Thought about submitting that to Boganomics for something like article or story of the month?

    • Pinky Has A Brain

      Brilliant!!! I have seen these creatures you speak of. They make me laugh and afraid all at once. Which is a strange combination of emotions.

  7. I really love elites telling us what we need; I can barely afford electricity as it is and they want me to pay even more? I bet that’s not a problem for Cate or Al Gore or any of those other climate change cheerleaders. I used to be a firm believer in climate change and now I think it really doesn’t matter what we do – sea level changes etc are well outside of my lifetime and its not like we haven’t already left lots of toxic presents for future generations (ie nuclear waste) so what’s the difference? Why would I care that the sea will rise three feet a hundred years after I’m dead?

    • Groucho Marx used to say….why should I care about future generations….after all, what have they ever done for me?

      • so, you power bill goes up to a bit less than $2K per annum and it’s the end of the world? what did foxtel cost you last year? VB?

        I know – only buy one more jet ski/plasma/boob job/bali trip etc instead of 2 next year and problems solved.

        If you don’t price it, it gets taken for granted. In economics that is known as the tragedy of the commons.

        The really cool thing is that usually the right wing economists suggest pricing it’s use or creating property rights to put a value on the common to fix this.

        Hey I know – what about creating a carbon market?

    • ‘elites’ !!!!!

      I love it when people start bandying this word around. There seem to be so many of these nebulous ‘elites’ that it’s hard to know where you yourself fit in, eh Sean. One thing is certain though, isn’t it; the ‘elites’ don’t include fabulously wealthy and powerful people like Gina and Twiggy, Packer or Norman, or wealthy and ‘influential’ wingnuts like Akerman, Bolt, Devine, Albrechtson. It’s good to know that those humble people don’t tell us what we need. But what do you care?

      • That’s where you are wrong Macondo – I hate those people even more for trying to tell me what to think. Gina is especially gobsmacking… what the hell does she need MORE money for, another ivory back-scratcher? Her growing wealth only proves that she could well afford the increased resources levy despite her bleating last year. And Jamie Packer hates the proposed pokies laws – why? Because it might protect vulnerable people from his greedy immoral casino… Believe me Macondo, I’m no fan of any of those people but I still don’t like a carbon tax because despite what we are being told I believe it will hit the people who can least afford to pay. A proper response to cliimate change should be taxing things like diesel and petrol more or instituting congestions taxes, espeically in inner cities where people have a choice. Anyway, its good to know someone cares enough to reply to my post !

        • So you do care about something, Sean!!! Here you are talking about ‘a proper response’, too! Good to see. Things change almost as quickly as the climate, but on a different scale of course.

          It sounds like anyone who appears to be telling you what to do is per se part of an ‘elite’. There’s one strand of denialism which opposes all climate science because of the ‘elites’ thing; it’s very easy to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath-water. So we have people saying they’re more likely to reject a carbon price/tax just because Cate B. appeared in a fairly ineffective but innocuous ad, or less likely even to accept global warming because Al Gore lives in a mansion or something.

          “I believe it will hit the people who can least afford to pay”
          That’s not an unreasonable sort of position, so long as you don’t continue to believe it just because some ‘elite’ person or other keeps banging on, wanting you to ignore or remain ignorant of the compensatory mechanisms. BTW, MattR is more concerned about the possibility that the poorer will get more compensation than the well-off!

          • “BTW, MattR is more concerned about the possibility that the poorer will get more compensation than the well-off!”

            I thought this class war nonsense was done away with decades ago? What do you have against letting people who earn more keep their money?

            You need to do some serious reading on the failures of socialism.

          • Macondo, elites take all sorts of forms in our society and they can be ‘elite’ for all sorts of reasons. For example, “listen to me, I’m a famous actress” or “listen to me, I’m the richest billionaire”. I actually like Cate Blanchett but I wonder about the last time she actually paid her own bills. I’m slightly more willing to believe scientists but you have to remember nowdays there’s always some kind of vested interest standing behind their research even if it is in the guise of ‘official university research’. A classic is the Victorian government recently shopping around for a scientific view that would support alpine cattle grazing (they didn’t like the one they were getting from Melbourne University!). All I am saying is that you have to be cynical because behind every TV celebrity, actor, researcher or academic there is an oil company or a government department or even a green power investment fund with a barrow to push…

          • MattR:
            “I thought this class war nonsense was done away with decades ago? What do you have against letting people who earn more keep their money?

            You need to do some serious reading on the failures of socialism.”

            Well, I was dead right!

            FFS. You’ve made your position sound increasingly like ‘I’m against the carbon tax because the greenhouse effect is a myth and anyway, it looks it will hit the rich harder than the poor’.

            ‘Class war nonsense’? That’s the feeble ploy of conservative politicians who wish to defend privilege and welfare for the well-off. Failures of socialism? Since when is a progressive income tax scale socialism? Where do you get this stuff? Ayn bloody Rand? Grade 5 Social Studies? By the way, you won’t have to be a socialist/Marxist/leftie/latte-drinker or whatever to see the failure to deal with global warming AND the financial collapse as the failure of capitalism.

          • Sean, your reply button’s missing, I’m afraid.
            You say:
            “Macondo, elites take all sorts of forms in our society and they can be ‘elite’ for all sorts of reasons… etc.”

            That word, ‘elites’, is bandied around in a nebulous and derogatory way to denigrate opinions of people who stick their necks out. Most of the time, for illustration of my point, people like rich Liberal politicians or mining magnates are never said by the commentators to be ‘elite’. Surely those with money, power and influence are elite in the strict sense of the word, and almost certainly believe they are. Many of the self-same commentators who like to pretend identification with the masses are in fact extremely rich themselves, and wouldn’t have a bar of the bogan way of life.

            In your post the quote I’ve extracted above seems to confirm what I said before: that anyone who appears to be telling you what to do is per se part of an ‘elite’.

            It’s also concerning that you say you’re only “slightly more willing to believe scientists”. The question is, do you accept science that is firmly established? And what DO you accept, who DO you believe? All that stuff that we take for granted – gravity, genetics, nuclear fission and so on – was all provided for us by scientists and every bit of technology which you use at home is based on that science. It’s hard to believe this attitude which harks to the AGW denialist theme that the climate scientists have all got vested interests, usually monetary.

            And a statement like “I actually like Cate Blanchett but I wonder about the last time she actually paid her own bills”.
            Really, is this relevant? A touch of aspersion being thrown there. Sounds like ‘Some of my best friends are Jewish/black/homosexual’, that kind of thing. What does the payment of her bills have to do with anything? Your statement is more or less what the MSM were bleating and squealing about in their attempt to crush the policy by denigrating the person.

            I agree with you about the alpine grazing, but many scientists are vehemently opposed to it, which tends to contradict the point you make.

            Your last bit, on being cynical about people with barrows to push, doesn’t really amount to being scornful of ‘elites’, now, does it.

    • Gerry Hatrick, OAP

      Mate, turn your computer off, it uses electricity. Just use a battery powered radio, problem solved! And if you turn on 2GB or MTR, the smooth, dulcet tones will sway you to sleep

  8. This thread has cleared up two things for me about the MB readership.

    1 ) They are clearly quite smart
    2 ) They have no sense of humour

  9. Satire has been described as the lowest form of wit….but I found the piece funny, and there are some grains of truth in there.

  10. Fiona of Toorak

    LOL. Well, I’m doing my bit – I’m making my servants walk to the ancestral manse from their quarters.

  11. Great stuff – pokes it at both sides of the debate in equal measure.

    “Elites” – ahh, the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in Oz.

  12. Nothing like a light-hearted climate change post to bring out the crazies!

    But yeah, can you guys please stick to mainstream economic issues (I suggest a post on how all currencies and banking should be abolished and replaced with gold) and avoid fringe political issues like tax policy?

    • I really don’t understand calls to return the gold standard. It doesn’t matter what money is, the only two things that give it value are belief in it’s value and the amount of it in the system.

      A gold standard would have made the massive leaps and bounds of the 20th century impossible. Just because a few politicians mis-use the system, doesn’t mean it’s the wrong one.

      • If you return to the gold standard (or sound money as it should be properly called) it requires a change in economic thought. For instance, prices for goods generally reduce over time due to technological and productivity gains, so allowing that deflation to happen by abolishing the payment of interest.

        That way, you lend out an amount, you are repaid the principal at a future time, and at that time the principal then buys more goods. So the earnings are implicit in the return of capital. Saving is literally that, you put away an amount for a rainy day, and its purchasing power actually increases.

        However that form of system goes against everything that banking and govt stands for. How do you tax the capital return, for example? It would encourage saving (meaning capital accumulation), not spending, which goes against the consumer society we have. and try convincing the bogan to save and not spend!

        So in reality, the gold standard just isnt going to work properly, despite the fact that such an economic system would be much more stable. Any economic gains we have made is not because of the fiat money system.

        • I know it sounds really great in theory. But in practice it just doesn’t work. Gold standards tend to create depressions and going to one now would pretty much cause a global economic meltdown (GFC on super crack). I’d rather not get in to this as a discussion for another day.

          Fiat money has actually contributed a lot to economic advance because it allows a central body to tailor the money supply to the needs of the economy. The last 20 years were an example of what happens when you allow lending to get out of control, not the problems with fiat money.

          If you are interested you should read and watch “The Ascent of Money” it’s brilliant and Niall Ferguson is a genius.

  13. Careful chaps
    We must keep it civil. Remember, whatever side of the climate change debate you’re on, there’s still the large meteor out there somewhere with our name on it. Perhaps if there’s enough CO2 in the atmosphere, it might get deflected.

  14. The Bogans are the victims here.

    Costello’s 1996 budget crunched the states. The state treasurers in turn had a 3 day secret meeting in the Bahamas. After some analysis they realised that the dumb, forgetful, lazy or easily confused were way under represented in the tax base. So they conspired to secretly introduce the “Bogan fiscal recovery scheme.”

    The initial draft was pretty unsubtle and the names were changed in retrospect to appear less vindictive. It had 5 key elements:

    “Failed year 10 maths tax” (Poker machines)
    “Inattentive & impulsive tax” (Speed cameras)
    “underage sex tax” (Alcopops excise)
    “Just like Amway tax” (Stamp duty)

    It worked brilliantly, and the Bogans are now paying their fair share along with the rest of us.

    The 6th money grab was the best of the lot, kept secret and held in reserve. The “We have to do something, or it’s the end of life as we know it tax” was brilliant because it was flexible. It could create GDP from public debt in a huge variety of situations. And it can be actioned at local/State and Federal levels. Best of all, it is long lasting and has solid Bogan pickup even when the relevant “End of the World” scenario cannot be averted.

    Cate has had no choice but to play along with this secret government charade. She knows better but is just trying to avoid ending up in the news as the victim of another “mystery accident” or “accidental overdose”. Some actors have risked everything to speak out against the world wide Bogan Tax innitiative, but it’s usually in code.

    This one is the standout:

    – “Look, man, I ain’t fallin’ for no banana in my tailpipe! (Axel Foley, 1984)

    See, the evidence is there, just remove your blinkers people!

    • Brilliant, Steve B, I just love that post! Poor old State Governments… addicted to pokies and speed cameras – they must be workshopping new taxes every day. Like Paul Keating said – never stand between a Premier and a bucket of money.

      • I have been tracking Boganomics and Carbon C with interest. The serious threads have descended into “paper, scissors, stone” argument.

        Type “how to loose weight” into google and you get “About 60,700,000 results (0.23 seconds)” Just like the carbon debate, it’s hard to spot anything of real merit.

        The best book I found on the topic was Tom Venuto’s “burn the fat, feed the muscle”. It contained a Gem of an idea:

        “professional weight lifters routinely achieve <5% body fat, why would you get weight loss advice from anyone else?"

        It uses pure science metabolism and physiology in a context where motivation and psychology have an equal say in the outcome.

        So a very good question is "who would be the "weight lifters" in the carbon debate ?"

        Who routinely deals with new pure science, difficult constraints, fixed time frames, uncertainty, high severity failure modes and a real commercial deliverable?

        Anyone on the Blog want to put their hand up against that list?

        Just like weight loss, The "try hard, but failed anyway" list is way, way bigger.

        • Yeah ,SteveB,
          I’ve been trying to get Penny Wong,to write some comments…but she’s to busy running Finance …shame hey…JR

  15. I say yes to climate action.
    I say no to carbon tax.

    You want to shift Australia away from carbon based energy production? Legislate 100% renewable energy electricity production to be tax exempt, and over the medium term unwind all subsidies for fossil fuel industries and energy production. Use the saved tax expenditure on subsidies to offset increased costs for low socioeconomic households.

    No new tax or permits needed.

    • Why not build a bunch on nuclear plants and put more research in to fusion energy?

      Win:win.

      • Uranium is also finite and thus another commodity that will have price issues, nuclear energy not without it’s drawbacks – risks, public perception, waste handling, huge government subsidies required, carbon intensive in construction and then there are the decomissioning issues.

        I’d consider thorium but I do agree on the research into fusion energy. However there is already a concerted international effort into this anyway.

        Private industry can solve the problem, it just needs a huge carrot. IMHO energy production shouldn’t be taxed as it is a national asset – copious amounts of energy is the only thing stopping us from being forced to live in Victorian conditions again. Clean renewable energy is the ultimate goal and should be incentivised as such with the ultimate carrot.

        • “Clean renewable energy is the ultimate goal and should be incentivised as such with the ultimate carrot.”

          The company that develops it and patents the process will make billions.

          Incentive enough?

          • So I use solar to lift/stack a liquid ….and by night,gravity
            powers my generation..is
            The Flat-tyre that pumps during sunlight.
            Ever jacked a car? ‘Now that’s a Leverage’…Think,waves and pyramids…where’s my Trillion

            MattR…I see your acccounts ,respect and ..I’d,
            in forgetting
            the ( v8 ,single-car usage and
            big-screens ,timeless and ),aim
            at something a-little more home base…like Air-Conditioners…and a
            ‘Hand made chessboard’,approach,and to jump it right-out ..and consider…India ,3cly in the garage,fast-trains.n.air-cons on 24/7..you can bring it home…it hurts.n..and puts silver in the windows and padding in the walls..in-short…and not to joke at Jist…but in,and

            Yes the Bogan ,could build a insurance-free sound-proof palace-under-ground,according to sea-level,all drainage measured,or pumped-lifted …solar the above yard and garden and tank into, a ten car,
            electric-car,sound-garage ,with house power to tap..yes..and his about’s lived today offer’s much the same (how ever I might suggest a solar system and lay, of the type that tracks the sun and cleans periodically,only need go up-down with one or both legs,high wind protect.. (apex),oh and take the Flat-black ,back to the 50’s cm’s 30 and you can have two) … right..
            So yes,for this..I’m having trouble cooking with gas, in a hole of pleasure at the mo in the palace ,but ,a breath of spiral stair-case,to a Lounge-room come green-house kitchen-BBQ area,sounds quaint..also
            Sounds like alot of ….
            (passive fire protection needed)
            ..Batteries/storage,and that’s Yes,and another subject..but in the mean-time and right-out again and ,Thorium is making some good sound…with out going deep,and nuclear still proving it-self in the right location,though I think it can be,a well see Monster…when damaged ,but so are we.we need be mature,for the advancement of all…as we try,do…..end-gramble..and.

            In the mean-time all this pollution stuffs sounds like a good money earnher ….as you correctly say…noting,though,I’m not so sure,at,right-now..Free-power helps a revenue-base(not the leverage)
            for a government use-to taxing distance….in some-ways..anyway,that’s my bit for it’s Friday-night …..slide-night

            cheers JR

  16. The internet is a great thing. But one of the negatives is it gives bogan’s access to just enough information to make them think they are more informed than the guy with decades of study and experience in a topic.

  17. lattesippinginnernorthmelbourne

    Bogan’s font is definitely Comic Sans, from heavy exposure to web scams and ‘Take Away’s’.

  18. People that don’t believe in climate change, the deniers, or heretics as i like to think of them, will make a perfect form of renewable energy if they were all rounded up and burnt at the stake for their thought crimes.  

  19. I liked the part where the guy making the comments didn’t realise he was who the article was talking about.

  20. Jumping jack flash

    Very funny piece.

    Seriously though, nobody can see the convenience of the inconvenient truth?

    The convenience of making productive industrialized nations, holding trillions of western US dollars paid to them for producing western sourced and invented items for westerners, pay back some of this vast mountain of money that they’re sitting on.

    Having these productive countries pay for the privilege of being productive through taxing or buying permits to release the byproducts of their productivity?

    Nobody can see the US is crumbling and bringing down the rest of the global economy because they have no more money since it was all used to buy their own products from these industrialized nations? Then borrowed back from them. Then spent again?

    Nobody can see this?

    If I were the US I would think of a way to get some of my money back too. A way that was generally acceptable to the rest of the world, and most importantly, a way that wouldn’t anger a very powerful and largely unpredictable nuclear nation…

    • A nice conspiracy, however remember that the human economy exists within the physical limits of our planet, not the other way round.

      For a bit of background on exponential growth (an essential element of capitalism) watch this video by Professor Bartlett.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58

      If anything, it is reaching the peak extraction rates of coal, oil and gas that has got countries like the US interested in reducing fossil fuel consumption.

  21. Apparently methane is FOUR times worse than CO2 at contributing to this so-called global warming.
    Methane tax to follow??? Yipes!
    I think I’ll go let rip now while it’s still free!

    • Try about eight times on a molecule to molecule basis, or 22 times on a weight basis.

  22. boganomics, the name suits you…

    To bad your mother decided to add an extra methane producing winner, you take the lead and slit your wrists, we will all follow you oh dear 1.

  23. lindsay logan

    Can someone please tell me what the tax will be spent on?

    So far I’ve heard everything will increase in price, meaning it’s unlikely my wages will increase, I may even lose my job as a result of decreased profits.

    Given my income bracket my money will go to less well off families and the unemployed, given they spend more time at home in front of the TV with the heater on, probably far higher users of carbon than myself.

    A large proportion will go to the U.N, what they’ll spend it on nobody knows.

    And nothing has been said about improving public transport, punishing people who unnecessarily drive to work or what energy initiatives the government are taking.

    Reminds me of the famous ‘window tax’, or daylight robbery.

    • At the end of the last election, we all marvelled at what it would be like to live in a marginal electorate. That magical place where hospitals, super clincs and railway lines would just sprout from the ground like mushrooms after rain.

      “Oh, If only we could all live in a marginal electorate” said the Bogan. Considering the recent Federal Labour performance, its pretty safe to say “Well, we all are now”

      So Lindsay, I suggest doing what I did, just give Julia a call and let her know what your after.

      I am getting a pony. If you want one too, just make sure you call it a “Renewable fuel alternative transport scheme”. She’s got a box to tick for those.

      I always wanted a pony……..

  24. switchflicker

    MattR you are a prize turkey that knows nothing about science or scientific processes. Real climate scientists are not even interested in listening to idiots like you or Ian Plimer or anyone other scientists whose research is almost entirely funded by big polluters. If you care about anyone other than yourself (ie your kids; if we are unlucky enough that you have procreated) you would recognise that the system of incorrigible growth we promote at the expense of everything but $$ is not only creating climate change but a whole host of other toxic and damaging byproducts for which costs are externalised. All in the name of profits.

  25. So what is the carbon tax exactly? Is it $500 a year? Less than $2 a day, is it really that big a deal? We all jumped up and down about the GST but no-one cares now. Who here drinks a coffee a day? What level of taxation are we really talking about? I bet anyone reading this blog can afford it.

  26. I find it hilarious when people say:

    You breath out carbon dioxide and plants need it for life! How can too much be bad?

    It’s kind of like telling a drowning man that “water is the basis of life!”. What they are saying is essentially true but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    Another howler is carbon dioxide only makes up a mere 3% of the atmosphere! (or something like that)

    It simply shows that the particular clown who utters this never paid attention in high school chemistry. You don’t need large presences of a particular compound in system to adversely effect the overall system. A everyday example is alcohol. A mere 0.05% Blood Alcohol Content adversely effects the average person’s ability tohas been set as the legal limit.

    This is BASIC HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE. The fact that people who can’t even grasp the basics think they know better than thousands of climate scientists and the world’s best scientific institutions is idiotic beyond belief.

  27. Correction: A mere 0.05% Blood Alcohol Content adversely effects the average person’s ability to such an extent that 0.05% has been set as the legal limit.

  28. I hear humans exhale CO2, wonder how long until gas chambers are considered? hehehe

  29. Forget the argument over whether “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever you call it is happening. No definitive answer is likely in the near future, and quite simply it’s a distraction. Cut through the crap and a few things stand out.

    There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than in the previous 800,000 years, see
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

    CO2 is an excellent absorber of infra-red radiation. So much so it is the basis of many techniques to detect it. This is the type of radiation that the Earth emits back into space to balance the incoming radiation, mainly visible and UV. See https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-1.3.html

    If you look at the first link, there is a very strong correlation between industrialisation and atmospheric CO2 levels. It seems the increase in CO2 levels are the result of human activities. When you consider the Megatonnes of coal and gas burnt, it’s not surprising.

    So, if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere it stands to reason we will trap more of the outgoing energy, which will increase the temperature of the Earth. When, by how much, and with what consequences no-one can be sure of, but it’s a fairly safe conclusion to reach based on simple pieces of information.

    Simple really.

  30. I live in Moscow.

    Yes, I have heard the temerature of the world is going up. It is excellent.

    I do not understand why you selfish Australians want to stop this happening. You have much coal that you can burn to generate electricity to cool your homes. Which will make the world’s temerature go up some more. Which is excellent. And as the Arctic ice melts, we will be able to access the oil that is there. And burn it to make the world’s temperature go up some more. Which will be excellent.

    I have told my grandchildren the temperature of the world will increase in their lifetimes. They think it is excellent!

  31. Just reading “Merchants of Doubt”. It’s intriguing to see how the same people keep cropping up using the same tactics. They’re a bunch of cold-warriors who are still fighting against what they see as the socialist threat. In their world, any form of government regulation is the slippery slope towards a socialist take-over.

    In their world-view, if the science is overwhelmingly against you, fight it. The ends justify the means.

    And the way they fight is to give the impression of controversy when there is none. I was particularly taken with the way they fought against regulating acid rain. Every tactic used now against CO2 regulation was used then. Preaching controversy where none existed, claiming doing anything about it would be the end of the US economy as we know it, and (I love this) blaming volcanoes.

    The things these guys have fought over the decades are government regulation of tobacco, acid rain, chloro-fluoro carbons, seat-belts, breast implants, DDT, passive smoking, and of course, CO2 emissions. Always the same tactics, all driven by the same ideological view of the world.

    As an aside, there’s no point arguing with people like MattR. Anyone who thinks there is some gigantic conspiracy of scientists to get more research grants yet accepts the entirely disinterested commentary of the oil industry is beyond reason.