Australians 'warming' to unpopular carbon tax, PM says

30% of that audience were in favour beforehand, 19% were swayed by the spin and 51% of the audience resisted being swayed, appearing to have some understanding of what is going. Based on the peak of climate alarmism around about 2007, I'd say Australians are on a slight cooling trend towards carbon pricing, just like the global temperature trend. On the other hand, if most Australians vote for "Direct action", this will provide a mandate for carbon pricing and a future ETS, where none previously existed. So a Liberal win at the next election, will inadvertently prove Gillard to be correct.

"19% were swayed by the spin" as opposed to the 51% who believe the spin from the other side, constantly uttered by climate change deniers like you. please explain how you arrive at the idea that we are on a cooling trend when every respectable scientific organisation around the world can show you data that proves the earth has been gradually warming for the past 100 years.

What a deluded nitwit of a woman.Get out and give Australians a chance to look after Australia.You haven't a clue and are destroying our once wonderful country.Do the right thing GET OUT !!

WRONG! Where DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION. Carbon tax is THE biggest con this century.

Perhaps we supply her with a copy of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video (UTUBE) to play before her rants, just to confirm the farce and to push home how urgent the need for a Tax on our life support system really is (CO2)! More importantly, we should "urge" the ABC to run this movie across the nation to provide a second (or first) opinion for her "blind" followers - explaining the real science! Then let's take a look at the numbers, It will take more like Cart Wheels in a sexy leotard to sway the crowd after that introduction (not a bit of SPIN). She would need US homeland security to control the rebellion. Then again, the people were always superfluous, irrelevant and fed bullsh*t during the whole debate...and have been from the very beginning! Jul-Liar now has the mandate for her new Tax and she achieved this at the expense of......our Future......and our Children's Future. Abbot has a responsibility to oust these frauds as fast as possible and scrap the tax altogether....then let's do some NATION BUILDING....that's where the real money is!

How good is Gillard ? The master of spin giving her minions a lesson. God help Australia if she still has the power to convince 49% of us that she is not still telling lies.

Hahahaha,,,,,what a spin that article was. Come round to my social gatherings JULIAR. Get an ear full of what real people think of your ludicrous tax. We're a pretty representative bunch, and even the green believers are P****D because it's not really achieving anything. It might take some people a while Juliar, but most people will see through the B******T sooner or later. Then what are ya going to do?

@Traudi. i get my information from the following places.the CSIRO , the Bureau of Meteorolgy, NASA , The UN IPCC , the US National Atmosprheric + Oceanic Administration and the US Climatic Research Unit , all government funded organisations. now , where do you get your info ???

Graham, over the past 100 year we appear to have had an overall warming. Between 1910 and 1940 it warmed, between 1940 and 1975 it cooled, (some well known scientists were warning of a pending ice age in the mid 1970s), between 1975 and 1998 it warmed again and between 1998 to the present, some call it a flat trend and some identify a slight cooling trend. You may recall the UN IPCC had projected a dramatic warming since the turn of the century. How wrong do they have to be to shake your faith? I can't explain the position of respected scientific organisations, but I suspect that government scientific funding may play a role in the equation. Sacking sceptical scientists is another part of the equation. Perhaps you can try to explain why the position of respected scientific bodies contradicts basic data, such as the UAH global satellite temperature data? Haven't you heard of the medieval warming period? It appeared in early UN IPCC reports but then mysteriously disappeared from history. If they can rewrite history, why not science? Haven't you heard the one about the delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world's top climate expert?

Julia's comment about we the people are warming to her Carbon Tax just indicates how removed she and LABOUR are from us real people. What a con this whole Carbon Tax is. We rip off the only business in town that keeps us alive and living with the standards we enjoy. Mining are big earners but they are also big spenders.

Hi Pat, it's good to hear what real people are saying. I'd appreciate any information you might provide as to what they are saying about "Direct action". My fear is they won't see through that one till after the next election. Just to clarify, I don't support the carbon tax or ETS but I believe the new challenge we face is to convey to the public that; Direct action does support an ETS if other countries act or if there is a global agreement. So that's basically like saying; flawed science is OK if other countries agree to it.

Bill, good viewing! If we could only get this discussion in the houses of parliament the country would be on a better path...NATION BUILDING instead of chest thumping! Graham, has your information (various references) been skewed to suit funding requirements or Real Science? Jul-Liars days are numbered but we will still have to endure the wrath of Labour...can the country wait 12 months? I think not, put your weight behind Abbot (even if he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer) and we must topple these LABOUR LOSERS as quick as possible before we all stand in the poverty line!

When people get to hear from the proponents of the carbon tax, ie now they have both sides, not the hysterical NO crowd only, then they can make up their own minds, - sorry NO crowd, people making up their own minds are being adult, being adult is what is required to have a reasonable chance of voting sensibly.

Hi Kermit, getting behind Abbott from my perspective is only marginally different to backing Labor or the Greens. Don't you see a problem with providing a mandate for Direct carbon action and perhaps an ETS, when no such mandate currently exists? If we didn't vote for carbon pricing last time why would we do so this time, after all that we've been through? I believe we are being taken for another ride. If the carbon tax is the immediate battle, Direct action is the gifted Trojan horse resulting from the next election. This is virtually entrapment of the electorate as a result of the two or three major party fixation. It's this fixation which directly feeds the continued climate lies and this is the central battle which needs to be fought in order to be won. There are plenty of minor parties to choose from, that don't tell climate lies.

to Bill and Kermit.you'd rather believe in a global conspiracy than factual data.as usual you guys always come up with the " haven't you heard about ...." without ever naming sources.until you can name a scietific group with the same qualifications of those i have named , who have published peer reviewed data to counteract the official data , i will choose to keep on relying on those who are the experts in the field. as for the "juliar" Alan Jones crap , i seem to remember an interview by Tony Abbot where he stated on national television that you can't believe anything he says unless it's in writing! and this is the guy you want running the country?? Labour are on the nose , but be careful what you wish for .

Graham, it is obvious I did not make myself clear, please take the time to view the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (UTUBE)! This not only makes mention of the sources you quote but also provides elements of the story you have missed in your reading. If you find any gaping holes in the story that cannot be substantiated I would like to hear from you. Like all politically motivated issues, scientific evidence is not always exactly as it is presented when it comes to politics. Sometimes to leave out the "juicy bits" can skew the result to suit the message they are selling. Remember: Students/Post Graduates wishing to do government/commercial sponsored research today would commit academic suicide if they oppose climate change theory. The machine influences the system that influences the machine....a closed loop!

Graham, last time I checked the CSIRO website they were referencing and relying upon the UN IPCC. Many of these bodies include disclaimers in their climate related reports as does the UN IPCC, potentially making the reports worthless. The UN IPCC had originally claimed that their science was 100% peer reviewed and that their scientists were at the top of their respective fields. Had you followed the investigative research of Donna Laframboise, author of "The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world's top climate expert" you would have found out that these UN IPCC claims are quite remote from the truth. The UN IPCC now admit their science isn't 100% peer reviewed and includes grey literature originating from green lobby groups such as WWF and Greenpeace. The same applies to some of their scientists on top of which some of them are barely out of university. Other UN IPCC scientists are chosen on a diplomatic basis, not on a scientific one and of course there are some scientists who are at the top of their field who are on occasion overruled by bureaucrats within the IPCC process. It's a shame you missed Donna's Australian tour, but you can catch her at her website "nofrakkingconsensus".

Begone Black Spot Gillard!!

Bill , i asked you to provide peer reveiwed evidence to counter the scientific claims on global warming. what do you give me !!! Donna Laframboise! i've read her bio and looked at her website. her scientific qualifications amount to a degree in WOMENS STUDIES. she's a declared feminist activist and self proclaimed investigative journalist who's right wing rants make Sarah Palin look like a commie!! if this is the best you can come up with then god help us all when Tony and his mates get in.

Hi Graham, in other words you can't fault her work. You might also ask for evidence from the UN IPCC given we are paying them for their pseudo science. I would have thought Donna's demolition of the UN IPCC as a scientific body, would have prompted you to defend their work. It seems you have adopted the common defense of the alarmist camp, which is to attack the messenger. She is an investigative journalist, so scientific qualifications are not relevant. She is not evaluating science, it's the IPCC's dubious practices, processes and representations which are the subject of her work and which she has thoroughly exposed. Really, how can you defend former young Greenpeace activists in their twenties becoming lead authors of chapters in the UN IPCC climate bible. This is beyond a joke. In any case Tony's official stand is that still believes in this joke, so maybe all your carbon pricing dreams will come true following the next election. If you haven't figured out he's on your side, I guess it's because the same applies to the rest of the country. In any case here's a link to over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific papers in support of scepticism of Anthropogenic global warming: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Bill, it's going to be a hard road to get out of this mess when the population at large will not or cannot interpret rationally both sides of an argument, to make matters worse they are too arrogant (ignorant) to listen, or read the facts. When the co-founder of Greenpeace states the whole Climate Change machine started as hype by "greenies" (anti-development, anti-industrialisation) in the late 60's...then when he puts his hand up and says, "Hey this propaganda is out of control" no one will listen! If he is embarrassed by it, what chance do we have? Al Gore will not debate the flaws in his propaganda and there at least 27 holes in his movie "Inconvenient Truth", in Britain it is illegal to show the movie in schools without showing a similar presentation explaining the other side of the argument, he knows he is wrong but as a billionaire because of his bullsh*t he is never not going to retract his hoax story, he has his credibility at stake on the same basis as our leader....ALL LIES! Slowly the public will wake up, but will it happen quick enough before our vibrant (although deteriorating under debit) society collapses under the weight of this Bulls*t! Will they then concentrate on NATION BUILDING instead of reducing us to peasants saddled with massive personal debit because of Climate Change propaganda!

Hi Graham, I highly recommend this educational 16 minute Youtube titled "A peer-reviewed deception" which just came in: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/peer-reviewed-deception.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheClimateScepticstcsBlog+(The+Climate+Sceptics+(TCS)+Blog)

Hi Kermit, I couldn't agree more and the question as you say; "Will the public wake up in time?". Someone just posted a cartoon on Facebook, with a Soviet styled chap writing a placard as follows: "Plan of action for U.S. SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! Under the guise of recovery - Bust the government - Blame the capitalists for the failure - Junk the constitution and declare a dictatorship." Sound familiar? The cartoon appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 1934. Time to Twitter it.