FYI: Tax rates going up

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

@ Sudszy any thoughts on post 226, I am still curious as to why those that support the tax beleive it will reduce emissions.

Not into silly games here, Ive already commented :http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=194

[GT69]

Some more, also Sudsy, try to read this, I know you've said many times you 'couldn't be bothered' reading everything.

Position: Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view
1979-2009: Over the past 3 decades, temperature has not correlated with sunspot trends. The top plot is of sunspots, while below is the global atmospheric temperature trend. El Chichón and Pinatubo were volcanoes, while El Niño is part of ocean variability. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is on top of those fluctuations.
1860-1980: In contrast, earlier there was apparent similarity between trends in terrestrial sea surface temperatures and sunspots (related to solar magnetic activity: TSI varies slightly while UV and indirectly cosmic rays vary somewhat more).
Both consensus and non-consensus scientific views involve multiple climate change influences including solar variability and internal forcings, plus human influences such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change.[16] However, they can differ in which factor(s) gets considered quantitatively major versus more minor.[16][17]

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."[18][19][20] "Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past ten years — however, it never happened."[21] "By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years and by mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age.”[21]

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

"Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[22]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."[22]

"[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[23]"One can have surface warming from a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air. ... Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree."[22]

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California:

"The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[24]

Ian Clark,Pubs hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[25]

Chris de Freitas,Pubs Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland:

"There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[26]

David Douglass, Pubssolid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:

"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

So there you go, random names with letters after their names, What you asked for, now name 3 scientists who believe in this BS

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by GT69

There's a couple

three scientists that have done research into the field and have found opposite findings......no you have just published some opinions from retired mouthpieces....oh and then you quickly edited it with another list where you got rid of the hacks.

Very good(ask them along for the debate), perhaps entertain yourself for a few hours and type each one of them into google and see what the consensus was on their findings.

[z80]

The internet is full of sookey lah lah threads like this one about aussies who reckon the sky is falling in cause we might have to pay a poofteenth of a dollar more for power and petrol.

Fact is a large portion of the tax is destined to fund renewables .

Which part of that is so difficult to understand?

(More wind, solar,tidal and geothermal power generation)

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

perhaps get back on task and work on naming three real qualified scientists to speak in a debate against AGW, surely there are thousands of them out there?

3 eh?

Originally Posted by Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre

"There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question. The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done."

Originally Posted by Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

"The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."

"It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the foreseeable future. The political dichotomy about climate change is fueled by gross exaggerations and simplifications on both sides of the fence."

Originally Posted by Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

"Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural. The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."

"The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air. One can have surface warming from a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air. ... Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree."

[z80]

My mate Tony in a finer moment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

[Scott]

Originally Posted by z80

My mate Tony in a finer moment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

Context isn't really a friend of yours there...

Anywho, speaking of finer moments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0...eature=related

[SEZ213]

Interesting article down below...

Can you tell me why there are scientists that are having to sue to get their names removed from a report that misrepresented them?

http://www.distance-healer.com/109.html

Global Warming Swindle
By Thomas Sowell
Thursday, March 15, 2007

Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.

None of the dire things predicted today happened then.

The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models that have been used to hype global warming hysteria, even though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.

What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media, and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.

Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.

The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago.

What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny that a scientist who's views have been misrepresented would have to sue...and that a department such as the UN would 'untruthfully' include their names on reports that the 'real' scientist didn't even say...

I think it's farcical, I don't need three people...I need just one, to stop trying to make themselves look like anymore of an idiot than they already do...

If in fact, this climate change is true...I would like to see irrefutable evidence that this is in fact the case...I don't want three...I want FULL consensus...without full consensus, it's really just scare mongering isn't it?

If top-tier uni scientists are indicating it's a farce it's a sure bet there's a lot more out there who think the exact same thing...but I'm sure education will come in to play here again...so it's possible that 'education' is the problem...we're not smart enough to understand what they 'really meant' when they said it...just like our PM...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Scott

Put some scale into what we're talking about here.......Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre. A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre...............Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia’s contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Passing on spam email from the denialist machine is not good discussion.

It makes sense to the gullible and uninformed: those that think that 99
% of the atmosphere( oxygen and nitrogen) are greenhouse gases.

simple fact is they are not, oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR radiation as they are to UV and indeed VIS radiation.

Only the greenhouse gasses that are up there has an effect on how much IR is transmitted back into space, it doesnt really matter how much non absorbing IR gas is up there.

Perhaps have a think about how just a few drops of spf factor 50 suncream can filter out 98% of the UV hitting your skin where the 2000 tonnes of oxygen and nitrogen directly above your head has no effect on the UV.

Or how indeed Ozone at less concentrations less than 2ppm is effective in actually stopping 97% of the UV hitting the surface in the 1st place.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Not into silly games here, Ive already commented :http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=194

What games? feel free to agree or disagree with any of my previous posts - my concern is that to date no one has been able to explain the benefit or the advantage of the carbon tax (including yourself)

I am not trying to target you, however I have not come across many that support the tax. You seem to support it, so I am curious as to why? To date the only answer you have provided me is that the carbon tax makes it appear to other nations that Australia is doing something about emissions. My suggestion is why appear to do something when we can actually do something (as outlined in my previous post) That doesnt increase our cost of living - doesnt send jobs off shore and does actually reduce emissions.

[z80]

Originally Posted by Scott

Context isn't really a friend of yours there...

Anywho, speaking of finer moments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0...eature=related

Fact is BOTH major parties want a carbon tax.

Both lie about it...constantly, like little children.

So, doesn't matter who you vote for...it's a done deal.

The only ones who have been consistent about a carbon tax, have never lied about it are the Greens.

And that's why I voted for them in both houses.

I love picking a winner.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

three scientists that have done research into the field and have found opposite findings......no you have just published some opinions from retired mouthpieces....oh and then you quickly edited it with another list where you got rid of the hacks.

Very good(ask them along for the debate), perhaps entertain yourself for a few hours and type each one of them into google and see what the consensus was on their findings.

It's not about finding opposite results, its about finding reason to research further.

Have a little gander at anything regarding ice core vs plant stomata CO2 measurement accuracy. It is because of people questioning the science that this method has been discovered.

How about this debate gets back on track about the tax rather than the science because it is useless to try and argue the point that there are multiple opinions with someone as closed as sudzy, who is so willing to jump in and nit-pick the tiniest of details to try and take the focus away from the real issue.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

That doesnt increase our cost of living - doesnt send jobs off shore and does actually reduce emissions.

Sorry, we come from different ideals.

Me: sparing a few dollars to ensure there is jobs and life for the future, oK.

You: im all for it, but we might have to change some things and I could be a few dollars out of pocket......no way.

Leave it at that, heh.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry, we come from different ideals.

Me: sparing a few dollars to ensure there is jobs and life for the future, oK.

You: im all for it, but we might have to change some things and I could be a few dollars out of pocket......no way.

Leave it at that, heh.

I hate to ask the bleedingly obvious, but you benefit from this don't you? In the short term anyway...

The idea of a tax to support this claim by some is a little unrealistic...since when did a tax solve any kind of issue, be it environmental or otherwise...?

Has anyone ever benefited from additional tax to 'try and make the world a better place'?

From a business perspective, we're going to make it more difficult for local producers, but better for importers who's countries of origin haven't jumped on the 'carbon tax' bandwagon yet (and may never do so).

We're fast becoming a class society...those that pay taxes are supporting those who choose not to support themselves. Why are we redistributing wealth to those people - they get reimbursed 120% according to the modelling, those who do support the country, get 0%...

There is something not quite right about that...

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry, we come from different ideals.

Me: sparing a few dollars to ensure there is jobs and life for the future, oK.

You: im all for it, but we might have to change some things and I could be a few dollars out of pocket......no way.

Leave it at that, heh.

Disagree I have spent large sums my own money, I have installed solar panels (2.1KwH system) I have recycled water plus other measures in place to reduce my personal emissions. I spent this money prior to any announcment of the carbon tax.

How does sparing a few dollars insure your future and your kids future - how does a carbon tax do that? i beleive a carbon tax will increase global emissions as per my previous posts.

i personally beleive there is more merit in the government investing directly in technology such as clean coal, increasing the efficiency of renewable energy, improving public transport - etc all things that will provide a future for your kids. These technologies can then be sold off to countries around the world (reducing global emissions) whilst not impacting on the costs of living in Australia and providing jobs for Australians.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I hate to ask the bleedingly obvious, but you benefit from this don't you? In the short term anyway..
...

No, I stand just like the rest of Joe Public, perhaps worse off since Im above average salary, but then again my energy bills are no where near the average(its not hard) so perhaps Ill end up neutral.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Has anyone ever benefited from additional tax to 'try and make the world a better place'?

...

yes Im sure the excise tax(not that it was put in place to curtail pollution) that we all pay on petrol has forced people into using less fuel consuming cars, so the world has already benefitted from less pollution......want to argue agains that?

I dont really care whether we tax or legislate to curtail co2 emissions, the economists and pollies have debated what's best for a long time now, the bottom line is we need something.

If you have something better, and that can be put into place without more delay, let's hear it.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I dont really care whether we tax or legislate to curtail co2 emissions, the economists and pollies have debated what's best for a long time now, the bottom line is we need something.

But you've already stated that it will do nothing to change our emisisions, so why opt for paying more to do nothing?
Economists and pollies debating whats best... shouldnt that be done by scientists?

[mcnews]

Sudzy.... "me, me, me hard done by me, woe is me, rest of world can get nicked, I am so hard up, I will no longer be able to eat contninue ad inifinitum et al"

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Passing on spam email from the denialist machine is not good discussion.

The thing that the alarmists like you seem to forget is that you are the minority and we the majority take everything you say with a grain of salt.

I have never seen any facts that prove man has any effect on climate, let alone continued climate change. I have not seen any facts to suggest any climate change is happening beyond what are guaranteed to be incredibly minute increments against massive, violent extremes that occurred long before we discovered fire.

Take away the money, the money that the has been introduced by the "greenies" and they may well find a less skeptical audience.

As with most people I am sure:

I don't pour sump oil down the drain because I don't want to pollute the waterways;
I am responsible with my waste so I don't choke the fishes or turn this world into a tip for my grand kids;
I am happy to have cat converters on my car so I don't poison the children;
I am happy to use cleaner fuels so I don't suffocate the birds;

I want a nice clean place to live. The examples above are but a few, but they are real and tangible things I choose to do to help clean this place up.

Charging me an extra $1000 (bare minimum) or more a year for something that is FAR from proven will get me ****ed off, not supportive. Forcing me to swallow a plan drawn up by only the wealthiest and most corrupt on our planet to give them total control of every aspect of my life will start a war. And one that will tip the power on this planet upside down.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yes Im sure the excise tax(not that it was put in place to curtail pollution) that we all pay on petrol has forced people into using less fuel consuming cars, so the world has already benefitted from less pollution......want to argue agains that?
.

Sure considering you have taken some time to answer my questions I can reply to that. The excise did not move people into less fuel consuming cars. The excise has been around since the 1900's. The move to less fuel consuming cars has only occured relatively recently and is due to the price of oil increasing dramatically.

I would still like to know how a carbon tax secures your kids future - are you able to provide an answer to that?

[mik]

Originally Posted by z80

Fact is BOTH major parties want a carbon tax.

Both lie about it...constantly, like little children.

So, doesn't matter who you vote for...it's a done deal.

The only ones who have been consistent about a carbon tax, have never lied about it are the Greens.

And that's why I voted for them in both houses.

I love picking a winner.

sorry to burst your bubble, perhaps not about the carbon tax being implemented, but parts of it there`s some serious porkies being told, one day your green leader on national tv says with a smile on his face "the coal industry is going", the next couple of days damage control from the same party oh the coal industry is going to live a long and happy life.......

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, I stand just like the rest of Joe Public, perhaps worse off since Im above average salary, but then again my energy bills are no where near the average(its not hard) so perhaps Ill end up neutral.

yes Im sure the excise tax(not that it was put in place to curtail pollution) that we all pay on petrol has forced people into using less fuel consuming cars, so the world has already benefitted from less pollution......want to argue agains that?

I dont really care whether we tax or legislate to curtail co2 emissions, the economists and pollies have debated what's best for a long time now, the bottom line is we need something.

If you have something better, and that can be put into place without more delay, let's hear it.

I don't think the excise has actually changed anything to be honest, there's more road transport today than there was a hundred years ago...so despite some not spending money on fuel, others are - I'm not quite sure how you figure there's less pollution as a result of more cars, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yes, we do need something...but I don't believe a tax is going to solve any issues, in the short or long term, and I will explain.

SB076 had some fantastic ideas...why are these not viable solutions for a government who is 'fixed' on climate change issues?

There's no delay in these things, grey water has been used for many years, particularly when there were water 'shortages', solar energy is the same.

The complacency that you have with regard to Co2 has me baffled...paying more money doesn't stop people from buying things, particularly not if the government is going to 'compensate' the public - so the average consumer says, oh it doesn't matter, I'm going to get money back from the government, they don't reduce their consumption, they consume at the exact same amount they did before...

What exactly changes???

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mcnews

This is a hilarious, but completely truthful take on the debate, that is being peddled to the moronic via NewsCorp and the likes of 2GB (which I listen to podcasts from for the comedy value of Alan Jones)

http://heathenscripture.wordpress.co...n-taxin-mouth/

That's how Julia should go out and deal with the whinging she encounters in public:

I liked this best:
And with that level of reporting, the effort from their readers is no surprise. “Co2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for life on Earth. Without it, trees will die,” said John. Get that man on the climate panel.

[MAD]

Some interesting words from Mr Swan here.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...1/s3268329.htm

Seems he doesnt even know how many people will be employed in these new government agencies, yet somehow all the finances have been accounted for?

If there wasnt so much plainly visible BS spewing from their mouths, you might get a few people to believe in the ideal that this tax will do something.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by z80

Fact is BOTH major parties want a carbon tax.

Both lie about it...constantly, like little children.

So, doesn't matter who you vote for...it's a done deal.

The only ones who have been consistent about a carbon tax, have never lied about it are the Greens.

And that's why I voted for them in both houses.

I love picking a winner.

That's where you're wrong. Fact is the Greens wanting a carbon tax have forced Julia Gillard to make the concessions agree on this economy wrecking tax. If it weren't for the Greens there would be no carbon tax.

The Liberals do not want a carbon tax. They were prepared to join in an ETS when the rest of the world was going to do it, but that was 4 years and 200 billion dollars of government debt ago. Then the rest of the world said bugger this pseudo science malarkey. Try to stay updated.

You backed the LOSERS in the Greens (Reds). Unless you work for Govco, your job isn't safe. And if you do work for Govco, it still isn't safe.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I don't think the excise has actually changed anything to be honest, there's more road transport today than there was a hundred years ago...so despite some not spending money on fuel, others are - I'm not quite sure how you figure there's less pollution as a result of more cars, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Mate, perhaps you fool others in life with your deceptions (didnt you take your bat and ball and go home?):

Nice Strawman, but no I didnt say there would be less pollution as a result of more cars

Here is what I said:
yes Im sure the excise tax(not that it was put in place to curtail pollution) that we all pay on petrol has forced people into using less fuel consuming cars, so the world has already benefitted from less pollution......want to argue agains that?

without the excise tax people would be driving bigger cars/distances and creating more pollution......you can try and deceive, but logical argument against, no.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Mate, perhaps you fool others in life with your deceptions (didnt you take your bat and ball and go home?):

Nice Strawman, but no I didnt say there would be less pollution as a result of more cars

Here is what I said:
yes Im sure the excise tax(not that it was put in place to curtail pollution) that we all pay on petrol has forced people into using less fuel consuming cars, so the world has already benefitted from less pollution......want to argue agains that?

without the excise tax people would be driving bigger cars/distances and creating more pollution......you can try and deceive, but logical argument against, no.

The sxcise tax has been around since the 1900's how do you draw that conclusion?

[MAD]

Will the excise on LPG, when it comes in, cause more people to revert back to petrol and increase pollution?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

The sxcise tax has been around since the 1900's how do you draw that conclusion?

cmon, if we pulled the 40cent? excise tax from petrol tomorrow you dont seriously think it will affect people's view on what car they can afford to drive and how far they drive it

[SB076]

Originally Posted by MAD

Will the excise on LPG, when it comes in, cause more people to revert back to petrol and increase pollution?

On the lighter side of things, must admit some poeple obviously beleive these taxes can do some incedible things so I would like to suggest the following
cancer tax - to eliminate all cancer
hangover tax - eliminates all hangovers