There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt%27s-market-based-mechanism

This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71

In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"


In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions

Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for?

If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree


I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run

Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

BTW - I don't really consider you as a lefty so the next comment don't apply to you

But none of the lefties is smart enough to even raise the topic that you've raised let alone have a decent debate about Kyoto

Buzz tries, so does adel

that pretty interesting FD.. you admit the Libs got it right in the year 2007,,

strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!..

if they were right then!   why wouldnt they be right now???

cods wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:16pm:

that pretty interesting FD.. you admit the Libs got it right in the year 2007,, strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!.. if they were right then!   why wouldnt they be right now???

Because if the Libs aren't right they're Labor... :-?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

Quote:

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

Hmm I must have logged into the OZ Science forum by mistake instead of the OZ Politics forum? ;D

There are some non-lefty scientists you know. :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming. But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer

So where are your references?

Quote:

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to validate this claim, and you keep failing. Need we go through this yet again?


Quote:

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

There are plenty of those around here. But in those threads you only want to discuss the economics.


Quote:

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty

But you don't even know what that penalty is. Even if Kyoto is the reason, is that a rational argument for Abbott's plans that will harm the economy?


Quote:

strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!

No point making stuff up cods.


Quote:

So where are your references?

Maqqa where are your references about the Kyoto penalties? And no I don't mean a link to an article about Rudd signing it. I mean something a bit beyond your blind insistance that there are penalties and what they are.

Quote:

There are some non-lefty scientists you know.

Yep, they're the ones who'll insist the moons made of green cheese if you pay them enough.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:15pm:

BTW - I don't really consider you as a lefty so the next comment don't apply to you But none of the lefties is smart enough to even raise the topic that you've raised let alone have a decent debate about Kyoto Buzz tries, so does adel

Creepy brown noseing bastard ;D

I'd be careful.... pick on Maqqa too much and you risk getting done for child abuse.

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism: http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt%27s-market-based-mechanism This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71 In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

maqqua is first to play the deflection game but i spose you've noticed they only have one trick!

IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID... GO MINING BOOM YEHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Lol, I wonder how many liberal voters still smoke the crack and brag about the Liberal Party-collective-business-acumen these days!??!

Lol, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh LOL!!!  :D :D :D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:15pm:

BTW - I don't really consider you as a lefty so the next comment don't apply to you But none of the lefties is smart enough to even raise the topic that you've raised let alone have a decent debate about Kyoto Buzz tries, so does adel

GO MINING, YEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

GO Liberal Party-collective-business-acumen : I wish I had some crack to smoke and tell my mates about Peter Costellos cosmic relationship with interest rates, lol!

I AM ACTUALLY ROLLING ON THE FLOOR  :D :D :D :D :D REMEMBERING ALL THE JOKES WHO USED TO GET HIGH AND SCREAM AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS HOW MUCH OF A GENIUS PETER COSTELO WAS!!!

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ;D :D

IDIOTS WHO VOTE LIBERAL AND WENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ENDED UP SELLING CRACK FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS TO PAY OFF DADS SPARE RENTAL WORKING SHITE JOBS COZ THEY WERE TOO SMACHED TO STUDY AND JUST GOT JOBS THROUGH DADS FRIENDS!

LOL, GO THE PRAWNS AND CRAYFISH AND VOTING LIBERAL AND SMOKING CRACK AND DADDYKINS SPIEL THAT HE USED TO LAUGH AT HOW MANY PEOPLE HIS SON WOULD TELL IT TO!!!

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :D :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming. But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

MAQQAS AIM IN LIFE IS TO CHEW UP ALL THE INTERNETS ADDRESS SPACE....................... I'M BEING SERIOUS HERE!  ;D :) ;)

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:26pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming. But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer So where are your references?

MAQQA AKA THE-TRYHARD-INTERNETS-FASCIST-OF-ALL-FASCISTS GIVES OUT THE HOMEWORK HERE AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO IT!

 :D :D :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 10:06pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:26pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming. But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer So where are your references? MAQQA AKA THE-TRYHARD-INTERNETS-FASCIST-OF-ALL-FASCISTS GIVES OUT THE HOMEWORK HERE AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO IT!  :D :D :-*

You can call me names all you want death

Facts are you can't answer the question either

So back in your hole

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:22am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 4:39am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 10:06pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:26pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming. But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer So where are your references? MAQQA AKA THE-TRYHARD-INTERNETS-FASCIST-OF-ALL-FASCISTS GIVES OUT THE HOMEWORK HERE AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO IT!  :D :D :-* You can call me names all you want death Facts are you can't answer the question either So back in your hole

You're a tryhard trying desperately to deflect us all from the mining rort Tony Abbott and the once proud but now shamed Liberal Party is quite happy to lead all Australians down the garden path on!!!

Who attended the anti-mining tax rallies???

Lol,............................ the statistics are what you Libs live and die at parties by so suck it up buttercup!! SMOKED ANY CRACK AND TALKED AOBUT PETER COSTELLO AND JOHN HOWARD LATELY: NUP, DIDN'T THINK SO!

LOL!

freediver wrote on Sep 9^th, 2011 at 8:57pm:

Quote: In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto" So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to validate this claim, and you keep failing. Need we go through this yet again? EVERY SINGLE TIME it seems. I have validated the claims. You pretend it doesn't exist [quote]I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

There are plenty of those around here. But in those threads you only want to discuss the economics. Only from my side


Quote:

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty

But you don't even know what that penalty is. Even if Kyoto is the reason, is that a rational argument for Abbott's plans that will harm the economy? FFS freediver. I have QUOTED the exact penalty MANY TIMES and the references. MANY MANY MANY TIMES


Quote:

strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!

No point making stuff up cods.


Quote:

So where are your references?

Maqqa where are your references about the Kyoto penalties? And no I don't mean a link to an article about Rudd signing it. I mean something a bit beyond your blind insistance that there are penalties and what they are.

lets start with this shall we

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/items/3024.php

In the case of the enforcement branch, each type of non-compliance requires a specific course of action.  For instance, where the enforcement branch has determined that the emissions of a Party have exceeded its assigned amount, it must declare that that Party is in non-compliance and require the Party to make up the difference between its emissions and its assigned amount during the second commitment period, plus an additional deduction of 30%.  In addition, it shall require the Party to submit a compliance action plan and suspend the eligibility of the Party to make transfers under emissions trading until the Party is reinstated.

As a general rule, decisions taken by the two branches of the Committee cannot be appealed.  The exception is a decision of the enforcement branch relating to emissions targets.  Even then, a Party can only appeal if it believes it has been denied due process

[/quote]

the the really stupid ones from the left the UNFCCC are the people who runs the Kyoto protocol ie any references direct from them is considered to be from the horse's mouth

How long ago was the second committment period Maqqa?

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 8:14am:

How long ago was the second committment period Maqqa?

I believe the 1st Commitment Period ends 2012

So I am not sure what you mean by "was the second commitment period"

The fact that Rudd ratified in 2007 means we are also committed to the 1st period as well

if you prefer not to read the UNFCCC site - wiki gives a decent summary

it also gives you a feel of the financial and penalties

but you'll have to go back to UNFCCC to find out the exact details

So the current legislation won't come into force until after the first committment period ends?

Are there any penalties for emissions during the second committment period?

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

So the current legislation won't come into force until after the first committment period ends? Are there any penalties for emissions during the second committment period?

It's quite clear on the UNFCCC website freediver

You asked for a credible reference and I gave you an undisputed reference

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto" Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for? If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

Have a read of my original reply in context of the UNFCCC info

then perhaps we can look at why

(a) Direct Action plan = better for Australia

(b) Carbon Tax = I give up lets start collecting money to pay for the penalty and muddy the water soooo much that everyone think it's the Liberals' fault

There are no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

There a no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto.

So how do you make up for the 30% plus meeting your targets?

This is why Gillard is looking at "carbon pricing" or "carbon credits"

She wants to implement the carbon tax then transition to a carbon pricing in 5 years

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto" Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for? If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

Why would anyone bother with your opinion on Economics?

You were still promoting INTEREST RATE INCREASES, only a short while ago, COMPLETELY IGNORANT of what factors were impacting the OZ & Global Economy, as shown by your backing of AUS-terity programs!

You know nothing of current Economics, what the basic causes are or in what directions we are likely to travel!

Of course, perhaps a redeeming feature from your point of view, is that none of the Liberals, Labor or the Greens have any idea either!

   

Back in your hole perception

Until you have someone thing intelligent or at least humble about your opinion then I'll discuss things with you

I am pleased and happy at least freediver is willing to look at the UNFCCC website

whereas I've shown you the info before and you dismissed the UNFCCC as propaganda - that sort of stupidity from you is inexcusable

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:30pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 12:26pm: There a no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto. So how do you make up for the 30% plus meeting your targets? This is why Gillard is looking at "carbon pricing" or "carbon credits" She wants to implement the carbon tax then transition to a carbon pricing in 5 years

Under Kyoto a country isn't really forced to do anything. THere's absolutely nothing stopping them from simply declaring it's all too hard and walking away from Kyoto completely - there are no financial penalties for doing so.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 12:26pm: There a no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto. So how do you make up for the 30% plus meeting your targets? This is why Gillard is looking at "carbon pricing" or "carbon credits" She wants to implement the carbon tax then transition to a carbon pricing in 5 years Under Kyoto a country isn't really forced to do anything. THere's absolutely nothing stopping them from simply declaring it's all too hard and walking away from Kyoto completely - there are no financial penalties for doing so.

About 192 countries signed and ratifed Kyoto

The countries are split into 2 groups

I'll call the first group as "Group A" comprise of about 39 countries. They are listed on a document called Annex 1

Annex 1 countries have penalties

So are you talking about the 39 countries on the Annex 1 list or the 152 countries who are not on the list?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

Back in your hole perception Until you have someone thing intelligent or at least humble about your opinion then I'll discuss things with you I am pleased and happy at least freediver is willing to look at the UNFCCC website whereas I've shown you the info before and you dismissed the UNFCCC as propaganda - that sort of stupidity from you is inexcusable

There is nothing humble about my opinions, I simply say it the way I see it and, I see it a lot cleared than you ever will.

Who said, I wanted to discuss anything with you?

and your perception is clouded by your ignorance

you are not humble enough to admit it

and my arrogance facade have pushed you down the path where humility is very difficult for you

Quote:

Annex 1 countries have penalties

Penalties, yes - but not financial ones.


From the UNFCCC Compliance Committee themselves:


Quote:

8) There are no financial penalties under the Kyoto Protocol, nor is there any consequence which involves loss of credits (although there is a loss of access to the carbon market).

From an article in The Guardian:


Quote:

One immediate point to note is that there are no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto. .... .... there is nothing to stop a country simply giving up on tackling climate change and walking away from the international climate change regime altogether.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:53pm:

Quote: Annex 1 countries have penalties Penalties, yes - but not financial ones. So how do you make up the 30%? Has to be through the purchases of carbon credits. You have to buy carbon credits ie cost money From the UNFCCC Compliance Committee themselves: [quote]8) There are no financial penalties under the Kyoto Protocol, nor is there any consequence which involves loss of credits (although there is a loss of access to the carbon market).

From an article in The Guardian:
But I quoted you from the UNFCCC which is the ultimate source in all things Kyoto Protocol


Quote:

One immediate point to note is that there are no direct financial penalties for non-compliance with Kyoto. .... .... there is nothing to stop a country simply giving up on tackling climate change and walking away from the international climate change regime altogether.

Correct - but the embarrassment will be immense on the international stage

internally the Greens will have a field day

so why ratify it in the first place only to walk away
[/quote]

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

and your perception is clouded by your ignorance you are not humble enough to admit it and my arrogance facade have pushed you down the path where humility is very difficult for you

Well, I've already said I'm not humble!

But, I am correct, NOT RIGHT OR LEFT, just correct!

And, you continue to show your ignorance, by still backing higher interest rates & a Liberal dose of AUS-terity!

That said, I will give you one thing, you are consistent.

Consistently wrong!

It is amusing to watch the hysterical FD claim the coalition reject economics. this is the party that instituted economic reforms and unlike rudd/gillard, thos ereforms actually WORKED well. this is the party that lead australia thru is most prosperous period EVER. to presume that in just 4 years this same party - still composed of almost the same people - has suddenly rejected economics while watchign the labor party screw up economics so badly.

your bias is showing, FD. unfortunately, your intelligence and credibility are not.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

It is amusing to watch the hysterical FD claim the coalition reject economics. this is the party that instituted economic reforms and unlike rudd/gillard, thos ereforms actually WORKED well. this is the party that lead australia thru is most prosperous period EVER. to presume that in just 4 years this same party - still composed of almost the same people - has suddenly rejected economics while watchign the labor party screw up economics so badly. your bias is showing, FD. unfortunately, your intelligence and credibility are not.

FD is not too bad longie

I don't agree with everything you said about him but the bias is definitely showing

at least he listens to reason  ;)

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 4:49pm: It is amusing to watch the hysterical FD claim the coalition reject economics. this is the party that instituted economic reforms and unlike rudd/gillard, thos ereforms actually WORKED well. this is the party that lead australia thru is most prosperous period EVER. to presume that in just 4 years this same party - still composed of almost the same people - has suddenly rejected economics while watchign the labor party screw up economics so badly. your bias is showing, FD. unfortunately, your intelligence and credibility are not. FD is not too bad longie I don't agree with everything you said about him but the bias is definitely showing at least he listens to reason  ;)

when it suits him. this is an example of where it DOESNT suit him. His arguments are more or less crap. and he only looks good compared to the infantile crowd of astro, azuline skippy and others. Hardly a compliment.

Quote:

It's quite clear on the UNFCCC website freediver

If it's so clear, how come you have been unable to clarify it the last dozen or so times you have brought it up? If it has left you unable to back up your case why do you think I would go looking for whatever it is you could not find?


Quote:

You asked for a credible reference and I gave you an undisputed reference

I asked you for a reference that backs up your claim. As you will recall, I explained this to you when I asked you for the reference, as last time we did this you gave me a newspaper article explaining that Rudd had ratified kyoto, as if that somehow backed up your claim about penalties and motives.


Quote:

Have a read of my original reply in context of the UNFCCC info then perhaps we can look at why (a) Direct Action plan = better for Australia

Maqqa, our reasons for reducing our emissions are kind of irrelevant to the argument about how to reduce our emissions. This was after all your point in changing the topic - to get away from the economics, because the vast majority of eocnomists back Labor's carbon tax.


Quote:

(b) Carbon Tax = I give up lets start collecting money to pay for the penalty and muddy the water soooo much that everyone think it's the Liberals' fault

No Maqqa, people are not going to think it is the Libs fault, although they do have a carbon tax policy of their own and Abbott has gone on the record explaining that a tax is the best option from an economic perspective. But Labor and the greens will get all the credit.


Quote:

It is amusing to watch the hysterical FD claim the coalition reject economics.

No Longy. Read my first post. It was coalition supporters - in this case stryder - who reject economics. I even included a link so you could check for yourself so you didn't look so silly. As I also pointed out in my opening post, coalition MPs are still trying desperately to try to associate their direct action plan with the economic consensus in favour of pricing mechanisms.

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 6:01pm:

Quote: It's quite clear on the UNFCCC website freediver If it's so clear, how come you have been unable to clarify it the last dozen or so times you have brought it up? If it has left you unable to back up your case why do you think I would go looking for whatever it is you could not find?

Actually nice try

Up until I referenced the UNFCCC website - you thought I was going to reference a newspaper article

Just because you can't find it does not mean its not there

I have already given you the reference - now your turn

Its not a signal to continue to push for more and more when you can't be bothered to do the research yourself

I give something - you give something. Unless of course you have nothing to give

So go back to my original post and admit the damage Rudd has done through his ratification. If you want to know why Direct Action plan is better then admit you don't understand then I'll explain it.

Perhaps then we can start analyzing the UNFCCC website and its content

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 6:01pm:

Quote: Have a read of my original reply in context of the UNFCCC info then perhaps we can look at why (a) Direct Action plan = better for Australia Maqqa, our reasons for reducing our emissions are kind of irrelevant to the argument about how to reduce our emissions. This was after all your point in changing the topic - to get away from the economics, because the vast majority of eocnomists back Labor's carbon tax.

Don't try to weasel out of it

Read the title to you thread - its about economics

I said that Direct Action plan is better for Australia ie I never changed the topic - I KNOW you don't understand the context of the Carbon Tax vs Direct Action therefore I needed to educate you about Kyoto Penalty

Once again - it's still relevant. You just have ti be humble enough to admit you don't understand

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:49pm:

It is amusing to watch the hysterical FD claim the coalition reject economics. this is the party that instituted economic reforms and unlike rudd/gillard, thos ereforms actually WORKED well. this is the party that lead australia thru is most prosperous period EVER. to presume that in just 4 years this same party - still composed of almost the same people - has suddenly rejected economics while watchign the labor party screw up economics so badly. your bias is showing, FD. unfortunately, your intelligence and credibility are not.

You keep going on about "credibility" LW and yet , like mindless partisan posters like armchair , cods , chickenlips etc , you keep harping on about economic incompetence of the Labor government.


This is just NOT borne out by the FACTS.



Now I know that you conservatives have different ...




...well I was about to say "morals" but that doesnt seem the right word to describe what you believe in.

How about different "priorities " or a different "perspective".


Australias economy is the envy of the western world.

All the economic indicators are good.

We had one of the first governments to use a stimulus package to save us from recession and by ALL indicators it seems to have worked.


The manufacturing sector is growing , jobs have been created , inflation held in check  and we survived the GFC better than any other economy.


To continue to bleat about labors "economic mismanagement" is denialism at it's worst (there's that word again "denialism" . Why is it that you conservatives deny everything despite facts and evidence?)



Credibility?    Dont make me laugh.




The Rudd/gillard governements economic management has been superb.

And before you start on how howard left rudd with a surplus to play with , YES , each government stands on the shoulders of the previous one but if you are going to be honest , howard inherited a FANTASTIC economy from the far sighted and brave reforms of the Hawke/Keating governments , emphasizing once again that not ALL Labor governments are economically incompetent.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto" Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for? If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

So Maqqa, you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia & other nations, for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty?

As you are the one making such assertions, the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia!

In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently, PROVE IT!

Quote:

Up until I referenced the UNFCCC website - you thought I was going to reference a newspaper article

No Maqqa, that is merely what you posted last time I asked you. I never know what you are going to come up with.


Quote:

Just because you can't find it does not mean its not there

The point is Maqqa, you cannot find it.


Quote:

I give something - you give something.

You mean, you make a stupid claim dozens of times, continually fail to back it up, so now it is my fault that your argument is baseless?


Quote:

If you want to know why Direct Action plan is better

Go ahead Maqqa, explain why the vast majority of economists are wrong.


Quote:

I KNOW you don't understand the context of the Carbon Tax vs Direct Action therefore I needed to educate you about Kyoto Penalty

Please explain how your little kyoto diversion is relevant to the tax vs direct action argument. All I see is you fumbling around with silly attempts to change the topic.


Quote:

Once again - it's still relevant. You just have ti be humble enough to admit you don't understand

I admit you make no sense Maqqa. Which is why you waffle on and divert so much instead of getting to the point. So get to the point. It is not my fault you are incapable of explaining yourself, so don't try to blame me.

MAQQAS AIM IN LIFE IS TO CHEW UP THE INTERNETS ADRRESS SPACE SO NO ONE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION OF IDEAS!

YOU THINK I'M JOKING!??!  :D :D :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

and your perception is clouded by your ignorance you are not humble enough to admit it and my arrogance facade have pushed you down the path where humility is very difficult for you

should abbotts poor workers accept slaves have no choices part 2?  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto" Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for? If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess. So Maqqa, you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia & other nations, for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty? As you are the one making such assertions, the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia! In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently, PROVE IT!

Of course, if you elect not to "Prove it", by the golden sounds of silence, then that will also confirm that YOU ARE full of -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs35B4tJm9CjYgbz8PxA__ROr7hgp1TC1D6bfoRS3yII1vXirVDw
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq3nk2zMaFytvyWMynxSY6YhysRWCCkfYEt-nfrUGRvFSsRHtJCw

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:37am:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 7:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:13pm: This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about "In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)" In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto" Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for? If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess. So Maqqa, you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia & other nations, for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty? As you are the one making such assertions, the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia! In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently, PROVE IT! Of course, if you elect not to "Prove it", by the golden sounds of silence, then that will also confirm that YOU ARE full of - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes

Ah yes, those golden sounds of SILENCE, say so much?

On the horns of a dilemma & what a dilemma?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs35B4tJm9CjYgbz8PxA__ROr7hgp1TC1D6bfoRS3yII1vXirVDw
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq3nk2zMaFytvyWMynxSY6YhysRWCCkfYEt-nfrUGRvFSsRHtJCw

Neoliberal economics equals pro class bigotry, pro violence, pro hedonists, pro warmongers, pro fundies, pro racists and other haters right - thats competition policy right?

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 7:48pm:

Quote: Up until I referenced the UNFCCC website - you thought I was going to reference a newspaper article No Maqqa, that is merely what you posted last time I asked you. I never know what you are going to come up with. [quote]Just because you can't find it does not mean its not there

The point is Maqqa, you cannot find it.


Quote:

I give something - you give something.

You mean, you make a stupid claim dozens of times, continually fail to back it up, so now it is my fault that your argument is baseless?


Quote:

If you want to know why Direct Action plan is better

Go ahead Maqqa, explain why the vast majority of economists are wrong.


Quote:

I KNOW you don't understand the context of the Carbon Tax vs Direct Action therefore I needed to educate you about Kyoto Penalty

Please explain how your little kyoto diversion is relevant to the tax vs direct action argument. All I see is you fumbling around with silly attempts to change the topic.


Quote:

Once again - it's still relevant. You just have ti be humble enough to admit you don't understand

I admit you make no sense Maqqa. Which is why you waffle on and divert so much instead of getting to the point. So get to the point. It is not my fault you are incapable of explaining yourself, so don't try to blame me.[/quote]


So you say

But you still can't back it up

Like with buzz, pperception and now freediver

I've positioned you guys whereby your pride will always get in the way of finding out the truth

Are you humble enough to lower yourself to ask?

Or are you hell bent on political point scoring that you are not interested or will you vote based on your ignorance?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 4:19pm:

Like with buzz, pperception and now freediver I've positioned you guys whereby your pride will always get in the way of finding out the truth Are you humble enough to lower yourself to ask? Or are you hell bent on political point scoring that you are not interested or will you vote based on your ignorance?

Is your SILENCE ON FACTS, only exceeded by your IGNORANCE OF ECONOMICS!

As I have said previously Maqqa, you are asserting that the wrath of the UN &/or God, will decend on Australia & other nations, for failing to honour committments under the Kyoto Treaty?

As you are the one making such assertions, the onus is on YOU, to show exactly what penalty's there may be in the Kyoto Treaty & exactly what these monumental Penalty's are going to cost Australia!

In other words, as you yourself have been heard to say, very frequently, PROVE IT!



Of course, if you continue not to "Prove it", by the golden sounds of silence, then that will only confirm that YOU ARE full of -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes



Ah yes, those golden sounds of SILENCE, say so much?

On the horns of a dilemma & what a dilemma?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs35B4tJm9CjYgbz8PxA__ROr7hgp1TC1D6bfoRS3yII1vXirVDw

normally all you need to say is "maqqa I don't understand - what do you mean by that"

since you are so pig headed about it - then you'll need to humbly admit you are too stupid and you need me to explain it to you in simple terms

lets see if you can lower yourself

if you think I don't know then call my bluff

but the fact that I am willing to throw out the bluff - you and buzz are pretty sure I know the answer so you can't afford to call the bluff

calling the bluff it's a sure way to changing your ID

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:17pm:

normally all you need to say is "maqqa I don't understand - what do you mean by that" since you are so pig headed about it - then you'll need to humbly admit you are too stupid and you need me to explain it to you in simple terms lets see if you can lower yourself if you think I don't know then call my bluff but the fact that I am willing to throw out the bluff - you and buzz are pretty sure I know the answer so you can't afford to call the bluff calling the bluff it's a sure way to changing your ID

I think I've already called your bluff a number of times, IF you have any information, THEN PROVE IT, chapter & verse - show the details, otherwise I will take it as yet another ocassion of Political Spin/CRAP!

In other words, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

meet my terms to call my bluff perception

if you want to be arrogant about it - so can I

if you are nice I'll be nice

but you are not

you want to learn but you want to abuse the person teaching you as well

not under those terms

Capitalism is dead

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:50pm:

meet my terms to call my bluff perception if you want to be arrogant about it - so can I if you are nice I'll be nice but you are not you want to learn but you want to abuse the person teaching you as well not under those terms

Your continued refusal to confirm details, only serves to confirm that you have nothing to put up, other than hot air, typical of most Politicians & their helpers, such as yourself!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) ::)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) ::) ::) :D

not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it

teaching you humility

rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain"

you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"

before starting this thread - FD didn't know about the 30% penalty

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) ::) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) ::) ::) :D

:D ;) ;) ;) ::) :-* :-*

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it teaching you humility rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain" you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me"

SORRY, I don't have any - humility!

As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST!

Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 8:13pm: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) ::) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-pics-greenland-glacier-shocksexpert.html  ::) ::) ::) :D :D ;) ;) ;) ::) :-* :-*

;)

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 8:26pm: not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it teaching you humility rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain" you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me" SORRY, I don't have any - humility! As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST! Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet?

The golden sounds of silence, confirms that YOU ARE full of -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

Chapter, verse & exact origin of details are required OR you are confirmed as a pure spin doctor!

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 8:32am:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 9:02pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 8:26pm: not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it teaching you humility rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain" you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me" SORRY, I don't have any - humility! As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST! Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet? The golden sounds of silence, confirms that YOU ARE full of - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes Chapter, verse & exact origin of details are required OR you are confirmed as a pure spin doctor!

Maqqa,
No Details?

No Credibility!

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 10:01pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13th, 2011 at 8:32am: perceptions_now wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 9:02pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 12th, 2011 at 8:26pm: not refusal perception - just rubbing your arrogant nose in it teaching you humility rather than taking the easy way "maqqa please explain" you've taken the hard way "maqqa I am a moron please explain in simple terms for me" SORRY, I don't have any - humility! As I said, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Full details, chapter & verse OR GO TAKE A LONG, LONG REST! Btw, how's your oil play going, got burned yet? The golden sounds of silence, confirms that YOU ARE full of - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes Chapter, verse & exact origin of details are required OR you are confirmed as a pure spin doctor! Maqqa, No Details? No Credibility!

And so, there we have it, Maqqa confirms by her silence that she has NO CREDIBILITY and is simply a Liberal party spin doctor!

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism: http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt%27s-market-based-mechanism This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71 In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

That's fanciful stuff. Didn't a Coalition government produce a string of surpluses of about $100 billion while paying off a Labor debt of a similar amount? Didn't the same Coalition government keep interest rates, inflation and jobless numbers down?

Wasn't it a Labor government that gave us a recession we supposedly had to have, sky-high interest rates, skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment and colossal debt?

Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:01pm: There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism: http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt%27s-market-based-mechanism This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71 In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate. That's fanciful stuff. Didn't a Coalition government produce a string of surpluses of about $100 billion while paying off a Labor debt of a similar amount? Didn't the same Coalition government keep interest rates, inflation and jobless numbers down? Wasn't it a Labor government that gave us a recession we supposedly had to have, sky-high interest rates, skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment and colossal debt? Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

Your  knowledge of history and economics is continually shown to be sorely lacking when your continually post like this.

Put up or shut up perception

At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted

Maqqa wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

Put up or shut up perception At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted

So, in addition to your day job as Liberal Party Political Spin Doctor, you're also practicing to be a stand up comedian?

In the real world YOU are the one suggesting massive problems arising from Kyoto penalties and therefore, the onus is on YOU TO PROVE IT!

Despite numerous requests for detailled proofs, with real references, as usual YOU run from reality, YOU run from the Truth and YOU hide in SPIN & Obfuscation!

If I make a point, I usually put a detailed arguement, usually quote the website where details can be quickly referenced and post the relevant part/s.

This is YOUR POINT (not mine), on KYOTO & its ramifications for Australia, PROVE IT or be shown up for what you are, a Liberal Party Spin Doctor!

The coalitions policies are aligned to transfer wealth from the poor to nasty evil, greedy, separatist exclusive YUPPIE WASP bigots and haters the same as the Labor Party and Greens do, so they support the same economics, they just vary the approach.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 8:01pm: There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism: http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt%27s-market-based-mechanism This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71 In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate. That's fanciful stuff. Didn't a Coalition government produce a string of surpluses of about $100 billion while paying off a Labor debt of a similar amount? Didn't the same Coalition government keep interest rates, inflation and jobless numbers down? Wasn't it a Labor government that gave us a recession we supposedly had to have, sky-high interest rates, skyrocketing inflation, high unemployment and colossal debt? Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!  :-*

Maqqa wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

Put up or shut up perception At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 14th, 2011 at 1:28pm: Put up or shut up perception At least freediver who started this thread is now doing research based on the info I posted So, in addition to your day job as Liberal Party Political Spin Doctor, you're also practicing to be a stand up comedian? In the real world YOU are the one suggesting massive problems arising from Kyoto penalties and therefore, the onus is on YOU TO PROVE IT! Despite numerous requests for detailled proofs, with real references, as usual YOU run from reality, YOU run from the Truth and YOU hide in SPIN & Obfuscation! If I make a point, I usually put a detailed arguement, usually quote the website where details can be quickly referenced and post the relevant part/s. This is YOUR POINT (not mine), on KYOTO & its ramifications for Australia, PROVE IT or be shown up for what you are, a Liberal Party Spin Doctor!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME! MIRABELLA IS ABBOTTS SHAME!

;) ;)

Quote:

Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor.

I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics.

Do you think that is a good look?

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Quote: Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor. I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics. Do you think that is a good look?

If you are going to quote it then please reference the context of the comments rather sound bytes/bites

Fair enough. If I quote him I will include a link.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Quote: Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor. I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics. Do you think that is a good look?

the rejection of a carbon tax is hardly rejecting mainstream economics! In fact, it could be argued more easily that a carbon tax itself is not mainstream economics. The coalitions economic policies remain what they have always been - which is MAINSTREAM.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:44pm: Quote: Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor. I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics. Do you think that is a good look? the rejection of a carbon tax is hardly rejecting mainstream economics! In fact, it could be argued more easily that a carbon tax itself is not mainstream economics. The coalitions economic policies remain what they have always been - which is MAINSTREAM.

I doubt that a Carbon Tax is Mainstream, but that said, Mainstream Economics & inept/self interested Politics & Politicians are partially responsible for the position we now find ourselves.

And that posiotion, is not a good place!

If the Coalitions policies are Mainstreet/old Economics (both Keybesian &/or Austraian), then what good is it following something, which has led us to the current mess and that shows no inkling of where we currently are, let alone has any idea on where to go now or in the future!

That said, nor does Labor!

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:13pm: freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:44pm: Quote: Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor. I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics. Do you think that is a good look? the rejection of a carbon tax is hardly rejecting mainstream economics! In fact, it could be argued more easily that a carbon tax itself is not mainstream economics. The coalitions economic policies remain what they have always been - which is MAINSTREAM. I doubt that a Carbon Tax is Mainstream, but that said, Mainstream Economics & inept/self interested Politics & Politicians are partially responsible for the position we now find ourselves. And that posiotion, is not a good place! If the Coalitions policies are Mainstreet/old Economics (both Keybesian &/or Austraian), then what good is it following something, which has led us to the current mess and that shows no inkling of where we currently are, let alone has any idea on where to go now or in the future! That said, nor does Labor!

in case you havent noticed the economic mess is ENTIRELY overseas. the way we have run our economy over the last 30 years has been exemplary and we are now getting the rewards in terms of a country that can weather the ecnomic storms better than anyone  else.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 3:30pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:13pm: freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:44pm: Quote: Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor. I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics. Do you think that is a good look? the rejection of a carbon tax is hardly rejecting mainstream economics! In fact, it could be argued more easily that a carbon tax itself is not mainstream economics. The coalitions economic policies remain what they have always been - which is MAINSTREAM. I doubt that a Carbon Tax is Mainstream, but that said, Mainstream Economics & inept/self interested Politics & Politicians are partially responsible for the position we now find ourselves. And that posiotion, is not a good place! If the Coalitions policies are Mainstreet/old Economics (both Keybesian &/or Austraian), then what good is it following something, which has led us to the current mess and that shows no inkling of where we currently are, let alone has any idea on where to go now or in the future! That said, nor does Labor! in case you havent noticed the economic mess is ENTIRELY overseas. the way we have run our economy over the last 30 years has been exemplary and we are now getting the rewards in terms of a country that can weather the ecnomic storms better than anyone  else.

Whilst it is correct that we are considerably better placed, than many, in fact most other countries, WE HAVE BEEN FAR FROM EXEMPLARY!  

We may also have some additional capacity to weather the current & coming Economic storms but, WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE WILL NOT BE SEVERELY AFFECTED.

As I have said previously, both Liberal & Labor did SOME GOOD THINGS over the last 50 years or so, BUT THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T DO ANYWHERE NEAR ENOUGH & THEY BOTH PANDERED TO THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES & INDULGED FAR TOO MUCH IN SELF INTEREST INSTEAD OF NATIONAL INTEREST!    

In case people have not realized - Market Fundamentalism is in terminal decline and has no balls left.  People are done with it v- they are done with being forced to compete and done with society being run on a basis of artificial "competition" and success measured in terms of some people "winning" at the expense of others.  Its time for unreason to move aside and a new age of human enlightenment.

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 5:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:30pm: perceptions_now wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:13pm: freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:44pm: Quote: Seems to me that the Coalition knows far more about economics than Labor. I'm sure Abbot knows a lot more than he is letting on too. After all, he did say in an interview a few years back that a carbon tax is the best option for reducing emissions. The point is that despite what Abbott does understand about economics, and despite what you think happened over the last few decades between Labor and Liberal, the current coalition and their supporters are openly rejecting mainstream economics. Do you think that is a good look? the rejection of a carbon tax is hardly rejecting mainstream economics! In fact, it could be argued more easily that a carbon tax itself is not mainstream economics. The coalitions economic policies remain what they have always been - which is MAINSTREAM. I doubt that a Carbon Tax is Mainstream, but that said, Mainstream Economics & inept/self interested Politics & Politicians are partially responsible for the position we now find ourselves. And that posiotion, is not a good place! If the Coalitions policies are Mainstreet/old Economics (both Keybesian &/or Austraian), then what good is it following something, which has led us to the current mess and that shows no inkling of where we currently are, let alone has any idea on where to go now or in the future! That said, nor does Labor! in case you havent noticed the economic mess is ENTIRELY overseas. the way we have run our economy over the last 30 years has been exemplary and we are now getting the rewards in terms of a country that can weather the ecnomic storms better than anyone  else. Whilst it is correct that we are considerably better placed, than many, in fact most other countries, WE HAVE BEEN FAR FROM EXEMPLARY!   We may also have some additional capacity to weather the current & coming Economic storms but, WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE WILL NOT BE SEVERELY AFFECTED. As I have said previously, both Liberal & Labor did SOME GOOD THINGS over the last 50 years or so, BUT THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T DO ANYWHERE NEAR ENOUGH & THEY BOTH PANDERED TO THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES & INDULGED FAR TOO MUCH IN SELF INTEREST INSTEAD OF NATIONAL INTEREST!

So LW, that means you agree then?

between all the stuff death wrote I missed your replies perception

I haven't missed anything - it's still crap

I have presented many times about the Kyoto penalty since 2007 with you lefties saying it does not exist

you deny it still despite the UNFCCC website saying it does

you then go further to discredit the UNFCCC website as "spin"

:D :D

how can it be spin when the world and the UN has given the UNFCCC the powers to run the whole thing

so this is simply desperation from you