Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL EnvironmentZone > EYE-BALL on – Who Really OWN’s the Carbon Tax?

EYE-BALL on – Who Really OWN’s the Carbon Tax?

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2
Title: Who Really OWN’s the Carbon Tax?
Ifirst started to write this story some months back when the ‘Carbon Tax’ was splashed across all the daily’s and TV screens.   I took a pause and thought that the heading was well in advance of where my thoughts and research were at the time.Present day – I decided to have another crack at the story.

The Carbon Tax was born from a Climate Change action concept – it can be traced back to the 70’s when mumblings were heard in far off corners – remember Greenpeace … and the Rainbow Warrior– that was about nuclear testing in the Pacific by the French.  They were  my first memories of someone talking about man made environmental damage to the globe.

Here we are some 30-40 years later and ‘Climate Change’ is the biggest – or as PM Rudd put it as a election slogan leading into the 2007 election –  ‘the largest moral challenge of the 21st century’.   A statement that he and his Government roll-over on during their first term.   That capitulation caused more political carnage than any other decision in many a year.

We humans are a fickle species – be it fashion tastes and likes, movie tastes, food tastes, political attitudes, moral perceptions, lifestyle options, and the list could number hundred’s – but it is an ever-changing list of what seems important at the time and how we all respond in that same timeframe.  Is Climate Change and a Carbon Tax just another ‘fad’ craze the globe is enduring as a distraction to some other unsolvable crisis i.e. the GFC – World Poverty – African Rim revolts – the Euro Zone meltdown – and that list could also be a 100 items long.

No – smoke and mirrors are at work here and we are all players if we want or choose to be.

The Scientists:

If our scientists were so forward thinking at the time surely their forecasts on carbon emissions would have been announced decades ago – I don’t mean 10-20 years but the humble automobile has been around since the 1920’s – they exploded during the 1950’s and unleaded petrol was not available until the 1980’s – fossil fuels have been burning for centuries and it is only now that things are so desperate we have to bring in a tax to fix the problem – or that is what they would have us believe.

Let us just refresh all that again – some 60 years after cars became household owned items – scientists or somebody – not even sure if cars were blamed in the first instance – but somebody became concerned about the rising lead content in the atmosphere.  Shortly thereafter someone had a lightbulb moment and said – hey –  petrol has lead in it and they began to test exhaust fumes and they all decided that leaded petrol was the cause of all the increasing atmospheric poisoning.  It was no real biggie at the time – they thought they got it early enough and we just started to buy unleaded petrol because new cars would not take to old style of petrol. That was a pretty simple solution – who did it cost – was there any new tax?

Then there was the OZONE depletion and a whole new panic was on and car air conditioners and aerosol cans became the baddies’ – they fixed that as well and it all seemed to return to normal – again no new tax.

All through this the ‘carbon’ baddie was still biding its time if you would believe the current propaganda.  Nobody has believed that ‘carbon’ was bad – we knew it was the essence of all life on this planet – how could too much carbon be a bad thing?  We had been burning fossil fuels for energy, warmth and transport for centuries – burning forests – enduring volcanic eruptions for god knows how long – in all that time no scientist even raised the prospect that ‘carbon’ was a baddie and something that was going to cause the world as we know it to end – or so they would have us believe.

A Reality Check on Scientists:

Who do you remember as a great scientist?

I learnt about Socrates, he was a philosopher of some note – Galileo, Einstein, Madam Currie – but after that my memory and knowledge fades – but no less than someone named Ross Garnaut is the Scientist the Government has asked to compile the Carbon Tax/Climate Change report.

Mr Garnaut is an economic scientist according to his profile information – what would he know of the research undertaken to disprove Climate Change – really he is only reading other people’s pro Climate Change research and all paid for by Governments with no alternative reports to be considered. Talk about a paid for outcome – and again with taxpayers money.

Here’s what I think I know about scientists – they have a theory or develop one during their younger years – something big and world changing if they can prove it.  They sometimes make it their life’s work and go about finding the funding – when it’s secured they go away uninterrupted and unimpeded to try and prove or disprove their theory.  They don’t like interference – they are schooled in methodical ways to approach the problems that deliver outcomes and they try to challenge everyday beliefs.  Generally it is with nothing but good intent and for the betterment of the world.

Oh – another Scientist just came to mind – Edison – hang on – no he was an inventor I think … the lightbulb … telephone … I’ll check that out!

Anyway – I think scientist can be just like politicians at times – when they are young they are all full of gung-ho and want to take on the world and prove this and disprove that etc … etc …

Remember John Howard in the 70’s under Fraser – he wanted to reform the water-front as Treasurer – he was 30’ish at the time and it was a childhood dream he had – ‘reform the waterfront’ – he would stay yup night thinking about it and planning it.  During those times it came to him that he was the man to do it.  After Fraser got booted and poor little Johnny spent several decades as Andrew Peacocks whipping boy he fell into some luck and had another shot.   He had spent decades in the wilderness like Moses  and he was not going to miss his opportunity to live his lifelong dream.  What do you think was the first thing he though of when he realised he had the power of both houses – the bloody waterfront reform.

Well – scientists are much the same – they dedicate a life to a cause – much the same as politicians do – they have a favourite that the go back to and keep having another crack at when they’re stumped … but all the while they have to earn a living and that is where the great big ‘baddie’ Carbon issue has saved so many.

Any current type of research grant application in the Western World only has to mention ‘the effects and impact of climate change’ as part of their research outcomes – and Governments are only too willing to throw funds at the project.  That is where the scientific community has been the last 10 or so years.

There is no ready available funding that I know of to disprove ‘Climate Change’ or the bad influences of Carbon.

Politicians and Scientists – they form the most toxic of mixes one can imagine – remember the Manhattan Project … almost destroyed the planet as I recall and still might – remember Japan’s nuclear meltdown earlier this year and the big hush since.

The Al Gore – “Inconveinent Truth”:

During the 90’s I was a happy little chappie flowing along with the environmental meltdown debate over pesticides usage – the ozone hole and its causes – the river waterways and the toxic waste being pumped into them – and so on.

In 1995 I was so angry at what I believed was happening to our Planet and Society I wrote a Documentary titled: ‘Our Society and Planet in Decay’.  An intro can be read at an old website that is still in existence without the images at this linked address

I was really into the movement back then and yet have to concede – I was all about believing what others were telling me on the subject …  Even after I saw ‘Inconveinient Truth’ – I became more excited about the issue of Climate Change and its ghastly impact on my and my children’s lives – I was still content within my beliefs until this dirty stinking ‘Carbon Tax’ debate began, in the aftermath of the ETS and the Copenhagen disaster.

The Carbon Tax:

I am a far better researcher these days that I was when the internet was first available.  Will all the hullabaloo over the introduction of a new Carbon Tax – I though it was time that I dug a little deeper into my Climate Change beliefs.   The more I dug and found the more hollow the feeling was that I was gullible and that my beliefs were nothing more than the belief’s one has about heaven and hell – who’s been there and come back to really tell us what they’re like.

I am now a ‘sceptic’ and have belief in both sides or parts thereof of the arguments claimed.

I blogged earlier this year on some of this research – check out these posts for my discovery phase:

  1. 30th July 2011 – Eye-Ball on – An Enlightened View on Carbon Emissions…
  2. 17th July 2011 – Eye-Ball on – Thoughts on the Carbon Tax…
  3. 14th July 2011 – Eye-Ball on – CARBON [CO2] is not the ENEMY – Part II…
  4. 10th July 2011 – Eye-Ball on  – CARBON is not the ENEMY…
  5. 7th July 2011 – Eye-Ball on – Climate Change – is the real question about Emissions…
  6. 28th Jun 2011 – Eye-Ball on – A CO2 Presentation…
  7. 17th Jun 2011 – Eye-Ball on – Carbon Tax – a price on Carbon…
  8. 04th Jun 2011 – Eye-Ball on  – Climate Change and the rush of ‘metoo’s’…
  9. 30th May 2011 – Eye-Ball on – Carbon Tax – more on the how and why…
  10. 29th May 2011 – Eye-Ball on – Do you understand the Carbon Tax…
  11. 27th Apr 2011 – Eye-Ball on – The Continued DUMB DOWN Carbon TAx debate…
  12. 21st Apr 2011 – Eye-Ball on – The Carbon TAx – Debate II – more research…
  13. 20th Apr 2011 – Eye-Ball on – Carbon Tax – a simplistic analysis…

Reflecting on all these linked posts – I have to say I did invested quite a bit of time and effort  and still the outcome belief is clouded with a certain amount of uncertainty.

Who owns the Climate Change and Carbon Emissions debate? What are its origins and terms of reference?

These are both questions that are now in the minds of Australians and many other people around the world.  Should we believe what Politicians say about CLimate Change or do they have closed minds and hidden agenda’s?  It’s been proved that Al Gore had a motive – reports are that he invested heavily in green energy before he made “Inconvenient Truth’ – where does his creditability now lie?

Greg Combet – Australian Minister for Climate Change – I wrote to his office along with every other Labour Minister and Backbencher – and Malcolm Turnbull asking them to express their ‘lightbulb’ moment when they became supporters in the belief that Carbon was the cause of Climate Change.   Not one MP responded in writing.

I received a phone call from a staffed in Mr Combet’s office – [Heather] – and we had a 20 min discussion and all that could be proved was that she was educated in presenting the facts as Mr Combet wanted them told – my probing investigative questioning was largely seen as sceptic revolt – and poor Heather never knew half about what I was asking.  A request was made for the minister of someone more senior in Mr Combet’s office to return my call – it never came.

The League of Climate Change Sceptics:

Depending on which end of this stick you want to hold – at one end is the likes of Alan Jones and his megaphone ego driven persona – and at the other end is the real science and rational thinking that refutes all the arguments put forward by the CSRIO and other collective pro Climate Change Scientist’s groups with reports advocating that Climate Change is here and happening as we live and breathe.

The voice of scepticism is growing – Politicians like Howard and Abbott are closet sceptics with mousie voices on the subject – are there ever any other kind when polling results depend on the answer you give – but with Abbott – because he only knows the word “No” – if you put the question another way would he understand the question and still answer – “No”?

No politician is going to draw a line and say – ‘never – never – never’ – remember GST and John Howard’s roll-over and sucker-punch – and how his eye-brows grew like Les Patterson’s because of that lie …

No – the political football titled Climate Change is afoot and nobody knows how the game will end.  The Carbon Tax game is at quarter-time with the Government gorging on oranges after their 1st quarter lead – the Senate and then the population are all still to come off the bench to play their part.  Don’t you just love our decision making process – all that media copy – hot air and slimy action between the sheets trying to win over support and influence those so-called enemies …

This ‘Game of Thrones’ is a dead mans game – it is a game played by knucklehead dumbass’s who have no idea where the real game is being played … will someone please ring a bell and let them know that the game they are playing is on the furthest  outreaches of the playing fields – nobody is watching their game  – yet the main stadium is still full and growing bored with the delay in the real game everybody showed up for and still want to see …

That Game of course is the second half of the Rudd v Gillard showdown and who gets to knife Shorten, Howes, Arbib, Conroy and any of the other dirty filthy scumbag’s that turned the first half into an uproar when Rudd’s team first raised a white-flag – and then allowed Gillards usurpers in to slit the throats of those sleeping under a flag of truce.  It’s a dirty game – but then two can play it that way and that is what everybody’s wanting and waiting to see.

Now – that game is well worth the price of any admission …

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

Advertisements
  1. Ghost of Yoda
    October 27, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    I believe in the thrust of your argument, I just wish you could write it in a way that is concise and to the point. I found myself skipping sentences as soon as I saw the same rhetoric coming again and again.
    I do not accept your argument re scientists and basically I think it does you no justice to be so sceptical of historical scholars/scientists in comparison to the obvious advantages todays have. The great weaknesses todays have is the political correctness and the power of the lobby. I am not sure you mentioned this as i could have been asleep as it passed by in the never ending rhetorical snooze test.

    Now your arguments meaning nothing until you can get someone on the other side to take you on. Then the debate maybe interesting…………………Yawn !!!!! in the interim.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: