GetUp's gullible lemmings protest FOR a pointless tax

Saving the planet… yeah, right

The stupidity of the urban Green Left knows no bounds, as 8000 gullible fools protest in favour of an utterly pointless tax which will:

  1. Make no difference to the climate whether locally or globally; and
  2. Damage Australia’s economy and consequently everyone’s standard of living (including that of each and every protester at the demonstration).

But they don’t have the insight to understand these blindingly obvious statements, because they’re too busy saving the planet, right?

More than 8000 people showed their support for putting a price on carbon outside Treasury Place in Melbourne, but only about 400 demonstrators fronted at Julia Gillard’s electorate office in Werribee to protest against the carbon levy.

Paul Mackay of GetUp!, which helped organise the Treasury Place rally, said most people supported a cap on emissions. [delusional as well – Ed]

“This rally was more or less a response to planned protests against the carbon tax,” he said.

“It was a chance for people to come out and show that they still support action on climate change.

“We had families with children and a lot of older people too.

“I think a lot of people left buoyed that the issue is still on the radar.” (source)

Climate Madness. I sincerely hope that the rally in Canberra on 23 March puts this in the shade…

Comments

  1. Lew Skannen says:

    If they are happy to go ahead without 1.4 billion Chinese then they will be happy to go ahead without the ‘few hundred’ sceptics in Australia.

    Solution ; Make the tax voluntary.

    • I agree Lew …. Juliar has sunk her reputation too deep into this carbon dioxide tax. The only way to save face for her and the Labor Party and for them the ensure they will have a chance at the next election is to make the tax voluntary. If your a rich doctors wife from Vaucluse or a basket weaver from Balmain, then I’m sure you’ll jump at the chance to pay the extra tax. For the rest of us – we should be able to say no thanks – I don’t believe in your left-wing looney concept.

  2. “More than 8000 people showed their support for putting a price on carbon outside Treasury Place in Melbourne, but only about 400 demonstrators fronted at Julia Gillard’s electorate office in Werribee to protest against the carbon levy”

    Are they trying to make it sound like rallies were organised for the same day by those for, and against? Not to mention that the population of Werribee is 37,000. That’s the equivalent of around 43,000 against the tax turning up in Melbourne.

    • The welfare and handout lobby — the people who will most directly benefit from this big new tax — could only get 8,000 up off their arses to “protest” for a new government handout?

      I’d consider that an epic fail.

    • The population of Werribee is actually closer to 100,000 at this moment in time, and rising extremely fast. I used to live in that dreadful suburb, a place that has been seriously neglected for the last 15 years, with overcrowding, a rising crime rate (including organised gangs), lack of police, hoons, traffic jams like you would not believe, lack of public transport, lack of employment opportunities – all taking place in Julia Gillard’s very own seat no less.

    • Could it be that Simon’s Sheikh’s appalling estimate of the rally numbers has given true meaning to the name GetUp!

      Grossly Exaggerating Truth Underestimating People!

  3. The Loaded Dog says:

    8000 GetUp rentacrowd…(complete with kids)

    (A confirmation that it’s relatively simple to mobilise uninformed stupidity.)

    VS

    400 grass roots (adult) Australians that you normally never see or hear from.

    (What’s it taken to get these guys mobilised and protesting, and how much more support do they have at home?)

    I wonder if this govermnet is capable of reading the clear signs here???

  4. Fiona Murray says:

    I am going to Canberra on March 23 and hope others join me.

    Have never protested in my life but this is too important to ignore and we MUST show PM Bob Brown and JuLIAR that we refuse to live in a Dictatorship and that WE WANT AN ELECTION.

    • A dictatorship? Aren’t you exaggerating just a little?

      Sure, I think this government is out of touch with reality and cares only about the special interest/pressure groups, but we at least have the option of throwing out these idiots at the next election (and replace them with the even worse – on other issues – Liberal/National Coalition).

  5. Free Sausage sizzle and drinks at the end of it from the Get Up mob. Who paid? The Union Members whose jobs will be decimated when this Tax sends investment flying overseas?

  6. I wonder if they were chanting:

    ‘What do we want?’

    ‘HIGHER TAXES!’

    ‘When do we wan’t them?’

    ‘NOW!!’

    • LOL!

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Yes, this HAS to be a bloody joke surely?

      WHEN, in the history of civilization have citizens ever gone to the streets protesting FOR higher taxes?

      Speaks volumes of the mentality of these clowns….

  7. A pointless tax? Hmmm. It has a point, it’s just not a point any of us would want to get.

    It was interesting listening to Wayne Swan blathering away on Insiders this morning. Not a single mention of “climate”. To him, it’s all about economic reform – the sooner we do this, the sooner we start creating the green jobs of the future … yadda … yadda … yadda.

    So – to him, it’s all about the boys and girls from Central Planning picking the winners of the future. Those who have been paying attention will realise that this is the same failing strategy that they are pursung (again, with our money) on the white elephant known as the NBN.

    Those who are wide awake will also realise that this is actually the unreconstructed Marxist strategy that is being prosecuted by our leaders in Canberra – the same one which was prosecuted to outstanding effect by notable luminaries such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Honecker, et. al. – and the same strategy which underpins the economic miracle we know today as North Korea – where every job is a “green job”, and the starving inmates of that workers’ paradise luxuriate in the warm inner glow of their carbon-free existence.

    The only difference with this gaggle of fools in Canberra is that not only will they be telling us how to run our 9-to-5 working and financial lives, but with the likes of Christine Milne as one of our Dear Leaders, they will not be happy until we are also leading a North Korea style low-carbon existence.

    I recall watching a musical about the last social experiment like that where they tried to return everyone to a centrally-planned stone age existence in total harmony with nature. It was called “Springtime for Pol Pot”, and as I recall, it ended poorly. For everyone.

  8. Out of all the waffle from the getup crowd, stating the fact that money would be going back to family’s shows how out of touch these people are, that is just another lie of Gillards. 10% goes to the UN on the promised agreement, there has to be a new public servant sector set up for distribution of the tax, and Gillard promised the powers that be in America that no American company in Australia will be effected by this tax. I think getup should check some facts before they dish out any more waffle.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      I think getup should check some facts before they dish out any more waffle.

      I would argue facts are irrelevant to a group of protesters whose protest is in effect against lower taxes.

  9. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    It’s always going to be difficult to outdo Labor’s socialist left, Getup, the unions and various far left affiliates when it comes to mustering demonstrators. Having been the past masters of rent-a-crowd for decades, political demonstrations are their stock in trade, their preferred battle ground.
    For middle of the road, albeit now outraged, average Aussies this will be for most including many of the organisers the first time. One can only wish them luck in their fight to stop Australia’s most incompetent federal government in living memory from trashing the economy and with it the future living standards of our younger generation.

  10. Uhavitbad? says:

    Some people just need a little anger management.
    The silent majority, a little less.

  11. We want taxes! We want taxes! Hahahaha! Leftards.

  12. rukidding says:

    Only 8000 and were there a large contingent of police.Did they smash shop windows and destroy property.?
    If GW Bush had been in town they would have smashed the place up.
    If I were GetUp I would watch the Newspoll and weep.

  13. Ross James Stacey says:

    Since the Climategate conference many more people are questioning the validity of AGW. There appears to be much more evidence against GW in the last few years.
    Surely it is time for a full scale Scientific debate on the evidence. That is where the consensus needs to be.

    • Is there any science to debate? The AGW theory breaks the first and second laws of physics. How this fecal matter has been allowed to become so popularized to begin with is beyond me. As much as i would love to tear the IPCC a new a#*hole, they wont agree to a debate. This so called ‘consensus’ is nothing more than a grubby politicized agenda dressed up as pseudo-science. Many have disputed such, only to be discredited, smeared and shamed. Science will win in the end, but, unfortunately at the cost of real scientific credibility.

  14. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    Eight thousand in Melbourne? So sad.
    Well, it’s a safe be they didn’t hear David Archibald’s presentation last month–which is linked here.
    http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/because-the-greens-will-further-demonize-nuclear-power/

    And thanks again for the link the other day, Simon. Tim Blair picked it up and sent a considerable amount of traffic my way.

  15. I attended the Treasury Place demonstration from start to finish.
    It was mainly families concerned about the alarming rate of the melting of the polar ice cap and the effects of the increased temperature of the sea.

    One speaker mentioned that more than 10 billion dollars a year of our taxes are already being used by governments of both persuasions to subsidise polluters.
    Maybe we wouldn’t need a “carbon tax” if these subsidies were phased out.

    Obviously, John Howard & Kevin Rudd’s bipartisan Emissions Trading Scheme would have been a solution to taxing polluters. But the voters of Australia gave the Greens the balance of power and anyone who wants to govern has to work with the Greens and the Independents. Hence the Carbon Tax.

    Why be so ready to denigrate others who are genuinely concerned about their grandchildren’s future environment?
    Wouldn’t it be better to offer demonstrably effective alternative suggestions for reducing pollution than to look down on others for giving up time on their long weekend to show their support for action on climate change?

    By the way, there were no free drinks or sausage sizzle.
    I saw no police. No one chanted “What do we want? …”

    • Wendy, I am as concerned about my children’s future as you are. But please tell me what a carbon tax or ETS in Australia will do for the climate. That’s all I need to know, thanks. And by the way, please note that carbon dioxide is NOT pollution.

    • Well according to the media and politicians/warmists the polar caps are melting at an alarming rate! Honestly, these sources of information are the equivalent to asking Walt Disney what the social habits of mice are?
      This is not the case according to factual science. Antarctica has seen no ice loss and is gaining ice mass, and the Arctic fluctuates, though certainly not at an alarming rate…see for yourself –

      Mankind doesn’t actually have an impact on polar ice conditions, there are many factors that govern the poles, ie solar and lunar cycles, several oceanic oscillations(also responsible for sea surface temps), magnetic shifts and earths tectonic/geological activity. On a side note, sea levels DO NOT rise from melting arctic ice, as it is floating, and water expands when frozen. Therefore the mass of this ice is equal to that of the water it displaces. YES, pollution is a problem that is worsening with population growth. Another tax wont reduce pollution levels, it may however, reduce humans to the level of pollution!

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      I attended the Treasury Place demonstration from start to finish.

      And you’re continuing your demonstration here right?

      Well I’m not impressed……

  16. Dictionaries confirm that carbon dioxide in unnatural concentrations in the atmosphere is considered to be a “greenhouse gas” and therefore a “pollutant”. Language is constantly expanding. Words have more than one narrow meaning.
    Science Dictionary
    pollutant
    “A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.”
    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
    Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollutant

    Definition:
    “Damage caused to water, air, etc. by harmful substances or waste
    air/water pollution
    The manifesto includes tough measures to tackle road congestion and environmental pollution.”
    Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    • Quoting dictionary definitions doesn’t cut any ice. And there’s a slight problem, the planet had 8000 ppm carbon dioxide in ancient geological time (20 times the concentration today) – was that pollution too? There weren’t any SUV’s then, and oddly, the climate didn’t spiral out of control – that we’re still here is evidence enough of that.

      Unfortunately, that’s what happens when people haven’t even got a primary school understanding of science (like Gillard, Swan, Combet and the rest, and most of the greens as well) and no concept whatsoever of geological history. People remember a few decades back and they think they know everything there is to know. As I have said before “Everything is unprecedented if you have the memory span of a house plant.” You continue to live in your tiny bubble if you like, but I prefer to seek a greater understanding.

      (And you didn’t answer my question – what will the ETS or a carbon tax do for the climate? I await your response. Actually, scrub that, I won’t because I already know the answer – NOTHING)

  17. The biggest emitters will pay the carbon tax. This will be fewer than one thousand businesses in Australia.

    They will be taxed in proportion to how many greenhouse gases they put into the atmosphere. Paying per tonne emitted while using fossil fuels will make it more financially viable for businesses to invest in cleaner sources of energy.

    Because of the tax, their products will probably become more expensive for consumers. Consumers will be compensated for the rise in the cost of living by the Government, using the money raised from this tax.

    The aim of reducing emissions from fossil fuels is to slow down the alarming rate of global warming caused by the unprecedented increase in “greenhouse” gases since the industrial revolution.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Because of the tax, their products will probably become more expensive for consumers. Consumers will be compensated for the rise in the cost of living by the Government, using the money raised from this tax.

      Do you actually think before you type Wendy? Are you even a real person, or just an enviro-program?

      You are telling us in effect that “bad” products will rise in price (to save the planet) but don’t worry, the gubment will give us money to offset the increase in cost so we can still use the “bad” product.

      If this is all about us reducing our evil carbon dioxide emissions and changing our consumption habits to “save the planet” for our grandkiddies” please feel free to explain to us how this “cunning plan” the government and you are advocating will work.

      The approach you are supporting is just a wealth redistribution program….nothing more.

      Wake up to the LIES; you’re making a fool of yourself.

  18. Is it only Labour politicians who “haven’t got a primary school understanding of Science”?

  19. When scientists told us that the hole in the ozone layer was being exacerbated by chlorofluorocarbon compounds, we changed to hydrocarbons as a propellant.
    It was not a political football. We did as the scientists advised.

    This debate is about whether we can do anything to slow down the melting of the polar ice cap; not about politicians or a time when there were no humans living on the planet and both the continental and polar landmass were different. Venus didn’t fare so well.

    If not the dictionary or the climate scientists’ definition of pollution, whose definition are we to accept?

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      It was not a political football. We did as the scientists advised.

      Yes, and that’s why they believed they could get away with an even bigger scam.

      The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/

    • “QUOTE – When scientists told us that the hole in the ozone layer was being exacerbated by chlorofluorocarbon compounds, we changed to hydrocarbons as a propellant. It was not a political football. We did as the scientists advised.”

      I’m unsure why i would want to explain this seeing as you paid NO attention to my last post regarding polar ice. But here is the simple version, Ozone(O3) is created in the upper stratosphere by short wavelength ultraviolet radiation that dissociates O2 molecules into O molecules, which then recombine with other O2 molecules to create O3.

      It forms a thin layer in the upper troposphere and blocks UVC radiation. The ‘hole’ occurs every spring, in the Antarctic and Arctic regions due to the complete darkness of their winter months. Ozone has a short life span ( from a few days up to a few weeks) and with there being no sunlight to create more O3, along with the coriolis effect driving strong westerly winds into a vortex, the Ozone depletes. If what the original claim is true then we would have “holes” popping up all over the place. Only at the poles does this occur, and only in spring. FACT – Natural cycle. BTW, CFC’s are way to heavy to ever make it beyond the lower stratosphere to have any effect on O3.

      “Quote – This debate is about whether we can do anything to slow down the melting of the polar ice cap; not about politicians or a time when there were no humans living on the planet and both the continental and polar landmass were different. Venus didn’t fare so well. If not the dictionary or the climate scientists’ definition of pollution, whose definition are we to accept?”

      I already explained the polar caps to you. As can any geophysicist. Why would you say Venus didn’t fare to well? Can you find anything relative in the history of Venus that would make it an appropriate model to compare Earth to? As for the dictionary definition, i’ll go one better. Every element on the periodic table is potentially toxic. So by that rationale, the universe including your dictionary is pollution.

      If the world took the view you espouse here, then the history of science as we know it should now be considered flawed and invalid because Global Climate Modelling said so?

      Science is knowledge and in the quest to gain knowledge we are always testing theories, but if proving a theory means breaking the laws of physics as in the case of GCM, then that theory becomes junk/pseudo-science. Science requires proof Wendy, but all they have delivered thus far is evidence that they’re all key players in a political agenda.

  20. This whole tax debate is a crock, the biggest polutant is oil fuel, so where are the alternative fuels. there are several suitable types. Why are we still sending the biggest part of our wealth over to countries that have declared war on us & paying through the nose to do so

%d bloggers like this: