Abbott is 'biggest bulls*** artist' on carbon tax: Combet

When will the people of this planet wake up? When will they realise that Al Gore invented the Climate Change scam to develop a multi-billion dollar industry (for himself) by tugging on the green conscience of the greenies of the world (he is laughing all the way to his bank). No amount of Tax and Carbon Credit schemes will reduce the Carbon Dioxide levels created by man. Cows and other livestock create more methane and carbon dioxide than industry and motor vehicles (think about it). Are we to tax our meat supply when taxing energy does not provide enough income to the powerful elite. People you have been duped, accept the wrath of the best international propaganda hoax of all time. Get used to it, the climate changes constantly get used to it and live with it. Spend your hard earned dollars on buying heaters and air conditioners, use water wisely and you will all feel the pleasure of the change. Remember: Charles Darwin's quote, "It's not the strongest of the species that will survive but those most adaptable to change".

Mr Combet. You are highly intelligent and a qualified mining engineer. Consequently you know that what anyone "believes" or does not "believe" in matters of science has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. Science demands empirical and repeatable evidence. Beliefs belong in the world of faith, religion and spiritualism; not science. The hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has no such empirical repeatable evidence; it has been disproved by many hundreds of scientists who have been prevented from publishing their findings by those with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of CAGW. Flawed computer modelling cannot even hind-cast climate and systematic corruption of climate science. It is no basis for a Carbon (Di-oxide) tax. Your only comfort is that your opponents are apparently committed to ridiculous Renewable Energy Targets as a sop to the Greens voters. Those same voters have you in their grip. That’s the real issue in this debate. You are doomed to be in Opposition for many long years. Best you resign now.

We see again more illogical comments by listeners to Allan Jones and 2GB.I suggest that you find the August(2012) copy of The Monthly magazine and read the feature article "The Victory of Denialists". Excellent summary of the origin and actions of the denialists' movement.

So many words above to say nothing of any consequence. When I look at photos of Beijing and the dense pollution of carbon particulate, is that real I ask myself. People are dying, in fact many millions of people around the world are dying because of air pollution from burning coal. This needs to be addressed but how to do it, is the question. Well, it has to cost, lots of dollars for things to change. Ultimately dollars is the only real means to effect change in behavior. If it cost you, you will make a change. Industry needs to make a change if they burn coal and pollute the atmosphere. Air is not free any longer because if you want clean air to breathe then you have to pay to have it regulated so that industry doesn't get carried away. I don't mind paying a few dollars as long as I can breathe clean air to live a long life. Australia now is at the forefront of taxing carbon and many countries will, whether they want to or not but follow suit because that's the sensible thing to do. You don't need to be a genius to work this out,just common sense!!!!

In all the debate over Global warming I fail to see how taxing carbon is going to make a difference to the climatic changes that have been taking place for millions of years. On a personal level, my standard of living is being pressured by these taxes. I cannot use less of anything and still maintain my current lifestyle but this tax is supposedly designed to limit my usage of Coal burning. In the immortal words of Pauline Hanson “Please Explain “

Here we have our "so called climate change minister" accusing and doing nothing uselful and Kernit put it beautifully and Toscamaster nailed it - spot on guys!!!

There is one thing we could all reach majority agreement on, and that is when it comes to talking bull**** Combet has plenty of experience in the art.

I do apologise for repeating some of comments from a previous article on this topic, but for Katherine and Yannis I make no exception. No, I have never listened to Allan Jones or 2GB and I am no, I am not a denialist, I prefer to call myself a realist. You can spend all the money you like but, it won't change the earth's relationship with the sun and solar activity, as this is the dominant factor in climate dynamics. History will no doubt, one day show just how big this scam was and who were the benefactors from the revenues raised, in this opportunistic attempt to de-carbonise the world economy, on the grounds that increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in climatic catastrophe. Unfortunately, it most likely won't happen in my lifetime and probably not in the lifetimes of who knows how many generations to come, because the earth's climate has been controlled by the sun for millions of years and climatology is not a proven science. The establishment of the IPCC was the start of a whole new industry to create wealth and opportunities for governments to create new revenue streams, based on computer modelling and fear of the unknown. It appears Yannis and Katherine do very little research for themselves and rely only on the alarmist propaganda from the likes of Combet, Flannery, Steffen, Garnaut and Gore, along with the CSIRO, who have done nothing to instil confidence and credibility in their arguments and fear the campaigns they have forced on the Australian public. Yannis and Katherine, it's not what they say and write about this scam but, what they don't say and write. The voting public will have their say on the 14th September 2013 and l can't wait to have my say at the ballot box, on what I think of these economists, entrepreneurs, former union leaders and politicians about climate change and their carbon dioxide tax.

Kermit seems to miss on a couple of points. Burning fossil fuels adding to CO2 levels in the atmosphere with possible effects on raising average global temperatures was of concern to many long before Al Gore got on the band wagon. As for cows and livestock creating more Methane and CO2 than industry and transport, well, Plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere, animals eat plants and put it back. The whole process is CO2 neutral. Methane from ruminants is another matter. If we were to eat more chicken, Pork, perhaps rabbit, kangaroo or horse, instead of beef and lamb, it would reduce the need for so many ruminant livestock, and help reduce Methane levels, with only a small change in culture, and no reduction in living standards. What is of more concern, Kermit SEEMS to be suggsting is that climate change is good, so do what you like to bring it on. Those who are best able to adapt will benefit, while the rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket. Toscamaster claims that "Science demands empirical and repeatable evidence." and "The hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has no such empirical repeatable evidence." We have only one Planet Earth to experiment with, so such an experiment couldn't be repeatable, and those who care about anything other than their own greed wouldn't want to risk innitiating such a catastrophie just to prove their point. Rational science works by applying logic to fundamental phyical laws. We know that small amounts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere keep the planet warmer than it would be if they wheren't there. In the absence if any empirical repeatable evidence to the contrary, it would be reasonable to expect that more greenhouse gasses would make the planet warmer, like double glazing a glasshouse. Of course water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. Probably the most influencial one. While water VAPOUR helps to keep the planet warm, when that vapour condenses to form clouds, they reflect sunlight back into space, shading the earth's surface, so preventing it from getting to hot. i.e. We don't have to worry about water vapour as a greenhouse gas, because more water vapour leads to more clouds which have a stabiliing effect. CO2 does not condense to form clouds like water vapour, so is a more serious matter.

Yannis, In good faith this is to help you understand pollution caused by particulates. In Geelong a community group took both Shell and EPA Victoria to courts to exert political pressure in order, amongst many things, to clean up particulate emissions from the Geelong Refinery cat cracker. Shell spent $ many millions to purchase, pre-fabricate and install a 450 tonne filter on its cat cracker. This filter now stops all but the very finest of dust from being emitted to the Geelong airshed. Raw carbon has never been emitted from the cat cracker stack nor any other stacks at the refinery. Obviously I do not have the data pertaining to the nature of the dreadful emissions to Chinese airsheds but when I was in Beijing the dust appeared to be just that – dust, not raw carbon. Carbon is very easily burned to create carbon dioxide which is a clear, innocuous gas, on which plant life depends for its survival. All operators of coal-fired power stations are focused on ensuring that all carbon is burned in furnaces because anything less than burning all the carbon would be to throw energy away. Catalyst in oil refinery operations and dirt in power station operations cannot be burned. They are either caught by filters or emitted as fine dust into the airshed. There are many deceptions in the debate about the carbon tax. One of the most regrettable deceptions is that it has been dubbed “The Carbon Tax” whereas it ought to be called “The Tax on Carbon Di-oxide”. This propaganda has deceived too many people into thinking that the tax will stop black carbon particles from entering the airshed. So Beijing does not experience “pollution of carbon particulate”. Yet I agree with you that “People are dying … because of air pollution from burning coal” This is because of fine dust (not carbon) entering their lungs causing chronic respiratory diseases. The solution is to insist that power stations only use coal which has had dirt removed by coal washeries and that massive filters be installed to capture DUST before it enters the airshed. . Australian coal mining and exporting companies are renowned for the cleanliness of their steaming coal. I hope this has helped improve your understanding on this real pollution problem. Incidentally a few years ago as an environmental activist I “believed” that human sources of CO2 were contributing to the heating of planet earth. By seeking truth I came to see that I was wrong. I live in hope that Mr Combet also seeks the truth.

I understand the concerns of Trevor Toomer, however pouring Carbon Tax into a International VAT will not change the climate nor will it be filtered down to make a difference, it is basically a FINE for living and breathing. If we plan to make a difference to the 2% worldwide contribution mankind makes to Carbon Dioxide and other Green house gases solutions should be encouraged by offering incentives. There is scientific evidence to show that punishment has NOT influenced any change. As you will note in our prison population worldwide the figures show no change in human behaviour through incarceration (Like Carbon Tax). We seek an intelligent solution to our woes NOT a new international tax system to create a new group of "super rich" (Al Gore look-a-likes). We seek a scientific, logical solution with intelligent solutions!

CO2 levels have increased by a bit over 30% as a result of human activity since the industrial revolution. The 2% Kermit referrs to is only the Australian contribution. I agree that a carbon tax, on its own, in Australia, will make negligible difference, but it is a bit of an overstatement to say it is a fine for living and breathing, unless you live and breath fossil fuels. Agreed that what is needed is incentivs rather than penalties, but the incentives would need to be paid for, and it would be logical to pay for them with a carbon tax. The overall package of carbon tax and sustainability incentive needs to be revenue neutral . If the energy companies want to stay in business, they would have an incentive to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and the whole process would be self funding. At the end of he day we would have an almost unlimted energy supply, with no ongoing fuel costs.

Trevor, in an ideal world what you say sounds wonderful, but you know and I know that the "tooth fairy" is not as real as we would like to be! The best plans to Tax us to death for 2-300 years of progress will NOT and cannot solve the problem. We can bash the green conscience as much as we like and for the minuscule benefits of your master plan are trivial in the scheme of things. The super rich will get richer and you me and all the other "people" on this planet will continue to suffer. How much progress have we made in reducing starvation and poverty in the developing world...NONE! How do you think this Carbon Reduction scam will work exactly as I have stated...it will make a few people rich and the rest of us...Diddly Squat!

A separate thought. If the Carbon Dioxide "problem" was a serious one we would be facing it with the same sincerity as the CFC's and the ozone layer. There was a real issue and a real problem. In a matter of a few years we have reduced the ozone layer to its former glory. As for the Carbon Dioxide issue I think it is a "tongue in cheek" issue at best and those who are in power know there is nothing they can or will do that can change anything without exterminating the thing thats causing the problem....reduce the population to around 500 million as the "new world order" would like to see and that basically solves the problem. With China and India developing and creating power stations at warp speed we face at least another 25-30 years before even the best technology and reduction schemes could even be considered let alone start to reduce the trend. As most scientists agree it's pretty much a lost cause...an issue maybe but adapting to the change will have a far better chance of correcting or allowing mankind to continue....The ice age came and went as did the dinosaurs, we dont have this privilege for ever!

Interesting comments by all -I guess for what it's worth I look at this "Tax" somewhat differently than most - or I think I do! When Police introduce more roadside cameras & increase speeding fines - does this really in any effective way change behaviours from speeding motorists ? I think the majority would say no - it's just a revenue raiser - however if those funds were to be used where Police presence increased & were actually seen on the roads (we've all experienced what happens when a police car is seen -all the red brake lights all toeing the line until the Police turn off) most would agree that the “income” was being well spent. Take this scenario and apply it to the “CT” do people really believe this changes the attitudes and behaviours of the businesses emitting pollution? Or with companies just increasing the cost of their product/service do people view it as simple Tax grabbing. If as in the example given the money were seen to be spent on Hydro Electric schemes, wind farms, solar power systems etc. would the public view be any different – I would like to think so. Unfortunately we do not see, neither are we told what actually happens to the revenue which in turn makes a large number of Taxpayers sceptical of the intent.Would be interested in others views on this ?