Recently on the ABC Lateline program Tim Flannery one of Australia’s leading climate scientists and GW proponent admitted:
“Well, the thing is we deal with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth's system works, … In the last few years, were there hasn't been a continuation of that warming trend, we don't understand all of the factors that create earth's climate, so there are some things we don't understand, that's what the scientists were email about, you know, we don't understand the way the whole system works, and we have to find out.”
This seems a strange admission given that we are being constantly being told of the you beaut computer modeling that can with a bit of tweaking, predict exactly what the temperature and sea level will be in a hundred years. You know, the ones with that hockey stick rise at the end that say the temperature is actually much warmer than we know it to be. Still he is adamant that our skeptics are worse than yours; “Australia's climate dinosaurs are a lot bigger and uglier than the climate dinosaurs elsewhere, that's for sure.”
In the light of this it seems rather odd that Kevin Rudd is rushing headlong into another showdown in order to introduce his carbon rationing tax scheme. While not a lot of information is available at the moment on how such a scheme would work, the amounts mentioned are huge. $49 billion alone is mentioned as a “low income compensation scheme.”
The reality of the Rudd scheme is now starting to unravel given the statements made by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner:
He claimed that, according to Treasury figures, low-income households will take a $420 hit under the scheme but will be compensated on average by $610 per year. Middle-income earners will face an average cost of $650 per household but will be compensated with a $700 payback.
This scheme is a massive redistribution of wealth tax combined with a rationing system and an effort to engineer society into using as yet unproven technology to create a green energy system. If ration and tax was truly an effort to reduce the so called carbon footprint of all of Australia, surely there would be no way that the government could realistically create the situation where Mr. Tanner could claim as he does that. “90 per cent of Australians, who make up the low-income and middle-income earners, will be better off under the scheme.”
I strongly doubt the truth of Tanners statement to this effect, as if there is to be a realistic effort to force people to economize on their energy usage, it would be absurd to reward people for their current consumption. Claims that it will be the case are simply an effort to buy off voters if there is a double dissolution election. If there is, and Labor gets back in the whole horrendous truth will become apparent.
There is no news from Rudd as to how those who lose jobs owing to the massive increases in costs to industry will benefit. Green jobs that are touted appear to cost 2.2 real jobs for every green job created.