OT GW - Page 5

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Even if that was *remotely* true, I'd much rather that than the
situation as it currently is.


--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was totally true. where do you think the boom in education services
came from?


Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sounds reasonable, and inconsequential to Labor's mishandling of it.
In spite of those who might think otherwise, the idea isn't to close
this country to genuine asylum seekers but to control how they come
here.  In retrospect the Howard Government had it pretty right.

Labor changed the system solely for its own political purposes (they
thought there might've been a few votes in it) and ended up with a
complete stuff up, all down to their own ineptitude.

--
John H

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Howard didn't choose Asylum seeckers, but sold it outright. He also
created the current problem by going to war in Iran and Afghanistan.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Umm, where is the astuff up? (Almost) All of Howard's Pacific Island
solution ended up here in the end for a significant cost to us.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was Labor (Hawke) who took us to the first war with Iran, and Labor
continue to support the war in Afghanistan (same as they supported the
one in Vietnam until it suited them to do otherwise).   Are you
seriously suggesting that PM Beazley would've told the US to fuck off?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Labor has stuffed up at every point, starting by abolishing the
Pacific solution and finishing up with a kick in the arse from the
High Court when they tried to replace it with something far worse,
with the East Timor stuff up in the interim.

Howard's policy kept the gate crashers to manageable numbers, it
wasn't intended to shut the door on legitimate asylum seekers and nor
did it.

--
John H

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Blink?
When have we had a war with Iran?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Might be true lathough it is hard to stop everything one day, especially
when your partners know the game is up.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
 > would've told the US to fuck off?
First it was Hawke, now Beazley......

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The PacSoln which was really about keeping a corrupt government in power?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Labor or Kevin "Look at MEEEEE" Rudd?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No such thing. The numbers were a result of progress in the war. since
the war in afghanistan has been lost(no surprise there), there will be
plenty more wanting to get out in the future, coupled with the mass
exodus of Tamils from the hell of earth created for them in SriLanka.

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Bullshit.

The "war" is largely irrelevant as far as this issue is concerned. What
*has* caused a massive increase in numbers over the last couple of years
is the widely known knowledge that processing takes place on shore
rather than off, and as long as that situation exists people will flood
our shores comfortable in the knowledge that getting a foot on
Australian soil is the first step to a new life.

Don't believe that? Then go back to Howard's plan and watch the numbers
drop to nothing virtualy overnight.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Operation Desert Storm (Hawke was PM at the time)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_contribution_to_the_1991_Gulf_War
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It was Hawke who sent a naval force to Iraq in the First Gulf War, had
Beazley been PM instead of Howard he would've done exactly what Howard
did in the second stoush!
Quoted text here. Click to load it

At the very least the Pacific solution achieved its goal, the East
Timor and Malaysian  solutions were about trying to keep a totally
inept government in power using exactly the same means (offshore
processing).
Quoted text here. Click to load it

In fact it was Gillard (after Rudd abolished processing in Nauru)....
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-unveils-east-timor-solution-20100706-zy9s.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The number of gate crashers (those who come by boat) was minuscule
compared to the total number of asylum seekers admitted to Oz under
Howard.  That proportion has and will continue to increase
significantly under Labor's stuffed up policies, irrespective of the
war Labor continues to support in Afghanistan!

In case you haven't heard, the civil war in Sri Lanka ended in 2009.

--
John H

Re: OT GW
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:54:30 +1100, terryc

Quoted text here. Click to load it

These are your words, are they not? -

"Howard didn't choose Asylum seeckers [sic], but sold it outright. He
also
created the current problem by going to war in Iran and Afghanistan."

Really up to you to explain that.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What has the Intelligence Corps got to do with this? ;)

--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The Global Warming one.

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work. In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy? Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Out of context? Jesus Trev....

The issue has become a *major* embarrassment for the IPCC, to the point
where it's now being called "Climategate".

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your blind faith is absolutely staggering Trevor, and to the point where
it makes your criticism of religious fanatics look incredibly ironic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Absolute bullshit Trevor.

There is no way *anyone* can accurately predict the effects of such a
tax on the average Joe, as it will be some time *after* the scheme is up
and running that the true cost will become known.

Moreover, what largely remains *unknown* is what this new tax is going
to achieve. I mean, it's not just a case of introducing a tax just for
the sake of it, right? It's actually going towards *something* that will
make a difference to the environment, isn't it?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Uh-huh...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which economists would these people be?

I don't support either plan Trev, but all I've seen of Gillard's plan in
the mass media is universal condemnation from business groups, the
financial sector and the public at large. The general consensus seems to
be that the tax is *way* out of proportion to the environmental effects
that will be achieved (assuming for the sake of the argument that those
targets will actually be met).

The other unappealing point of the Gillard plan is that with those
polluting businesses who will be subject to the tax being allowed to
pass their increased costs onto the consumer there is absolutely *no*
incentive whatsoever for them to lift a finger to do anything about
cleaning up their acts. If that does indeed become the case, the net
result will be increased costs all round with no impact on the
environment at all.

Maybe you could explain to me how you see this as a *good* thing?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not really an accurate comparison Trev, as the GST was a streamlining of
an existing tax system. Not an across the board increase per se'. Under
the GST, some things actually got cheaper.

The Carbon Tax will just add cost to everything.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Serious effects" are your words, not mine.

I don't expect the impact will be huge, but I expect it will be largely
ineffective with the impact on the environment being so small it'd be
impossible to measure even if the plan works exactly as designed.

In other words, I think it'll be *very* poor value for money.



--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yep. Out of context. Tell you what: YOU supply the allegedly daming
words, IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT to me and let's discuss what you
consider to be a problem. Fair enough?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**ONLY by the likes of Alan Jones. The SCIENTISTS are all still in
agreement. Again: Why do you persist in ignoring the science? Why do you
persist in listening solely to the likes of Alan Jones? What scientific
credentials does he have?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Examining the data is not an act of blind faith. It's just science.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Then YOU supply your alternate figures. Over to you...


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And again: Supply your alternate figures.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. All the
economists who have studied the tax, have stated that it probably will
lower Australia's CO2 emissions. They have also provided data on the
anticipated costs. OK, so far? These are the same economists who
predicted what effects the GST would have on the economy. Are you now
disputing what the economists have stated will likely occur? Do you have
some data to back your claims?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Again: The same economists that predicted (correctly) the effects of
the GST are telling us what effects the government's carbon tax and
Abbott's carbon tax will have.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The same economists that (correctly) predicted the effects of the GST.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**OK. Why? Moreover, if you reject the government's plan, then you
accept Abbott's plan. Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as
wasteful and ineffective. I accept that you may not like a carbon tax
(For the record: I HATE the idea of a carbon tax), but if your going to
suffer a carbon tax (and you will, regardless of who is in government),
then you may as well support the tax that has the best chance of working
and costing the community as little as possible.


  but all I've seen of Gillard's plan in
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You sure about that? Some of the largest mining corporations are in
favour of it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222




, the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Sure. Ignorant people will always prefer to listen to anyone, except
those who actually know stuff. It's why religion is so popular. And
let's not get side-tracked: NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX. Not me, not you,
not the government. However, we do need to find a way to reduce CO2
emissions. The carbon tax would seem to be the most effective way of
accomplishing that.


  The general consensus seems to
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The "general consensus" is code for: A bunch of ignorant dickheads. I
don't give a crap about what Fred Bloggs doen the road thinks about
anything. If I want to know about what is wrong with my car, I'll ask my
mechanic (or you). I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the
mysterious lump on my leg, I'll ask my doctor. I won't ask Alan Jones.
If I want to know about the economic effects of a carbon tax, I'll ask
an economist. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about climate
change, I'll ask the CSIRO, BoM or NASA. I won't ask Alan Jones.

The real question here is this: Why do YOU place your faith in what Alan
Jones, Andrew Bolt and George Pell say, rather than the people who know
what they're talking about?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. The companies that generate or use power with low CO2
emissions can sell their power, goods and/or services at a lower cost,
because their costs of doing business are lower than their less
efficient competition.


  If that does indeed become the case, the net
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Maybe that will occur. Or maybe competitive factors will come into play.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Your assumption is not necessarily correct. The power companies that
generate their energy via the use of geo-thermal, Solar, wind or other
low emission technologies will have a competitive advantage. They can
sell at a lower cost and gain market share.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And others got more expensive. TOTAL tax receipts increased
dramatically. We paid far more total tax the day after GST was introduced.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Wrong. The carbon tax will add to the cost of many things. Just like
GST did.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. They are the words of the economists.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And your economic credentials are?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

See my reply to Clocky about an example of the "peer review" process.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't listen to Alan Jones, as I'm in Victoria, but if you put
"climategate" into Google you'll get about 3 and a half million hits.

A tad wider spread than just Alan Jones' audience methinks.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oh, I'm sure that they are.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Because the "science", such as it is, has not proved a single, solitary
thing. I ignore religious nutbags for exactly the same reason.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
scientific
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't listen to Alan Jones, and I never have.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

With respect Trevor, your "examining of the data" is bordering on
fanatical, and to the point were everyone who is opposed to your views
is a crank.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't have any figures Trevor, and that's the point. *no one* does,
and I find it hard to understand how you can right off this new tax with
such a miniscule impact when no one else seems to be doing so.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Probably?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Who is "they", and what are these "costs" they speak of?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
the economy. Are you now
Quoted text here. Click to load it

According to what I've read about the subject Australia's impact on the
global environment is around 1.5 percent, and if the carbon tax achieved
a reduction of 10 per cent (which would be optimistic at best in my
opinion) we'd make a difference to "climate change" in a global sense of
.15 of a percent at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That might make some sense to you, but it sure as shit doesn't to me.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm sorry Trev, but who correctly predicted the effects of the GST?

Even the government's own modelling was wrong when they found they had
an extra billion & a half at the end of the first full year that * no
one* saw coming.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I said, who were these people?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What crap :)

Just because there are two plans doesn't mean I automatically accept the
second one if I don't like the first :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oddly enough, so has Gillard's carbon tax.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That'd be great, but which one is capable of doing that? As far as I can
tell *neither* plan will give business *any* incentive to reduce their
emissions.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222

Oh I have no doubt that there are some out there who are rubbing their
hands together at the prospect of a carbon tax as a nifty way of
justifying a hefty increase in prices. We've already seen reports of
some more unscrupulous businesses introducing price rises as a result of
the "carbon tax" before it was even passed through parliament :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

God I love that argument. The people who agree with you are educated,
while the people who don't are ignorant :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Religion is a great tool for controlling the minds of people who's decks
are missing the 8's, 9's & 10's, but apart from that it doesn't have a
whole lot going for it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

For the record, I have no problems with the idea of a carbon tax that
actually caused a reduction in emissions, but the current plans offer no
scope for that that I can see and I have a *big* problem with the idea
of a tax simply on the basis of *hoping* that it does *something* which
essentially all this tax really is.

As far as the government is concerned, they give not the slightest shit
about the environment as they won't be in power long enough to see any
improvement, if any. The *only* reason we have a carbon tax today is
because it was necessary for Gillard to maintain support and keep
herself in the top job.

End of story.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't Trev.

As far as this issue is concerned I try to be as objective as I can, and
I consider arguments from *both* sides. I don't flat out believe
everything the scientists say just because they're "scientists", and nor
do I believe everything the anti-climate change brigade say just because
they're sceptics.

As I've said before I don't doubt that the planet is changing, and it
has been for millions of years. What I'm *not* convinced is that it's a
man made problem, or if it is that there's anything we can do about it
that will prevent it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you ran a company that made widgets that cost X amount to get to
market, why would you spend millions on reducing your carbon footprint
in the hope that you could reduce your costs and sell them *cheaper*?

As I said, where's the incentive? :)

I'd be more than a little surprised if there's been a single proposal
over the years that has worked out anything like the initial forecasts
in practice once they were implemented.

Look at electricity pricing for example.

The privatising the government owned utility companies was sold on the
idea of competition between private companies would create a very
competitive market with cheaper pricing. Yet power prices have
sky-rocketed in the last few years with predictions of ever increasing
costs as the "competing private companies" all get together and dictate
terms for the market.

The same thing happened when they deregulated the banking industry.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There's a hell of a lot of maybe's in there Trev, with the only
certainty that we'll all be paying more in the mean time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And do you *really* think they will after investing the necessary
capital in order to do that? How much do you think it'd cost a power
company to set up a Geo-Thermal power grid capable of supplying a town
like Newcastle for example?

They're going to want that money back, and in pretty short order.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

In terms of purchased goods it was pretty balanced as a lot of items had
existing taxes that were hidden in the retain price. Where they *really*
made their money was on the services component.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Give me an example of a few items that well not be impacted by the
Carbon tax.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah, right. I'm not a recognised expert, therefore I can't have a valid
opinion.

I'm not David Attenborough either, but I know enough about elephants to
know that I don't want one as a household pet.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I see no proof. Just wild speculation.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I did say: "...the LIKES of Alan jones."


  as I'm in Victoria, but if you put
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Type Alan Jones and you get 12.9 million hits.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Maybe.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And it the scientists who know what they're talking about.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Ah, I see your problem. You have failed to read the science. It's easy
to condemn something you have no knowledge of.



  I ignore religious nutbags for exactly the same reason.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I said: "...the LIKES of Alan Jones."

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. Anyone who suggests the science is bunk, but has failed to read
that science is, well, I think you know the answer to that.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of course you don't.


  and that's the point. *no one* does,

**Have you read the IPCC reports?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And again, you seem to be imagining that because Alan Jones, Andrew
Bolt and Tony Abbott claim that the tax is crap, then it must be crap.
It doesn't work that way. All the economists have stated that the carbon
tax is the best way to address the issue. The shock-jocks and anyone
employed by News Limited disputes this. Of course, they're not
economists either.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes, probably.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**They, would include these guys:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-hit-small-csiro-20111112-1ncvq.html

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Irrelevant and bogus. And you know it. AUSTRALIA'S carbon tax is
designed to reduce AUSTRALIA'S CO2 emissions. Germany's carbon tax is
designed to reduce Germany's CO2 emissions. And so on.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of course. You are citing bogus arguments, as espoused by that
pop-eyed liar, Monckton.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Economists.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So? How much was the total GST take? $30 billion? More? The carbon tax
can be massaged to acheive it's stated aim.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Economists.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You need to think about Abbott's plan, if you reject the government's
one, since that is what you'll be stuck with. Abbott plans to take money
from taxpayers and hand it to big business. Explain the logic of that to
me, if you can.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Only by Tony Abbott, Alan Jones and the Murdock press. The people who
know their stuff reckon it should work well.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Then you need to read up on the crbon tax. Ignorance is not excuse.
Read it, before speaking any more on the issue:

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au /


Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**[SIGH] You claimed that NO ONE wanted the carbon tax. I cited one very
large company that did. I'll find more if you wish.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The guys who study this stuff know what they're talking about.
Shock-jocks don't.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And again: Not the point. Most people accept religion as if it makes
sense.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**OK, I accept your opinion. What are your economic credentials to make
that claim?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So? Irrelevant.


  The *only* reason we have a carbon tax today is
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Duh.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes, you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Good. Have you read the IPCC reports?


, and
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**OK. I accept that. Have you read the IPCC reports?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Fine. Have you read the IPCC reports?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Asked and answered. The companies that can reduce their costs, through
low CO2 emission strategies, can reduce their costs. BTW: That need not
require an investment of millions of Dollars.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes, let's.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Which was always going to be bollocks. Governments can afford to sell
stuff at cost. Companies MUST make a profit.


  Yet power prices have
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of course.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**When do you imagine they did that?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. However, the amount we will pay is utterly insignificant.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**They do not necessarily have to invest any capital. And those that can
sell stuff at a lower price, due to lower costs, will either do so, or
pocket the extra profit.


  How much do you think it'd cost a power
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Less than the cost of a nuke and slightly more than the cost of a coal
fired power station. The carbon tax will suddenly make geo-thermal power
a lot more interesting to a number of companies.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Some will. Some will play a much longer game.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Bollocks. The total extra tax was in the order of several tens of
Billions of Dollars.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Walking. Solar power, hydro power, wind power, riding a bicycle,
driving an automobile, etc.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**You are entitled to your opinion. What you don't seem to be providing
is much in the way of proof.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And I know that to provide a balanced opinion on a topic, one should
read both sides of the argument. Have you read the IPCC documents yet?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You shouldn't engage him when he repeatedly throws the same red
herring.  Delete and ignore it, it is intended to throw you off the
scent.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


This thread seem to have hit some buttons, when I originally started it,
it was because the news reports all day had been about the last one
hundred years of measurements at Pinchgut in Sydney harbour not bearing
out the government propaganda on the subject

Re: OT GW
Quoted text here. Click to load it


By what reasoning? He has said that he does not accept either plan.


Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT GW

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hmm, will you vote Labor if it is only 30c/week?


Site Timeline