Thread: Climate change? what climate change?

Originally Posted by akelly

Welp, you're gunna need to provide some evidence for these claims I'm afraid. "Everything more expensive" and "Australia less competitive" are the ones I'd start with.

Well, you could look at your power bills. Energy became more expensive. Mine did. The manufacturing industry's power bills got more expensive. They had to recover that cost in the price of their product. In the case of exports, those products became more expensive and less competitive. I know of a few industries or parts of those industries that went off shore.
If you can't see that, believe what you wish.

As things being more expensive and less competitive, that directly affected me. Not long after the introduction of the carbon tax, the industry I work in shrank quickly as more and more parts of the industry moved off shore. Now that the carbon tax will be repealed, I am now working three days a week after being unemployed for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Well, you could look at your power bills. Energy became more expensive. Mine did. The manufacturing industries power bills got more expensive. They had to recover that cost in the price of their product. In the case of exports, those products became more expensive and less competitive. I know of a few industries or parts of those industries that went off shore.
If you can't see that, believe what you wish.

As things being more expensive and less competitive, that directly affected me. Not long after the introduction of the carbon tax, the industry I work in shrank quickly as more and more parts of the industry moved off shore. Now that the carbon tax will be repealed, I am now working three days a week after being unemployed for quite some time.

So electricity became more expensive. Yep, that was the idea. What else was more expensive, since you don't actually list any products or provide examples?

You must be careful, because it is unlawful to make false or misleading claims linking cost increases to the carbon price. (see here: Carbon price claims | ACCC). A few businesses fell foul of this, so there's some evidence that "everything" did not get more expensive. Here's just one example: Genesis fitness centre fined for blaming carbon tax for price rises | News.com.au

It's fairly widely known that infrastructure costs contribute markedly more to the increase in power costs than the carbon price did. And as the scheme was new most of the increase was compensated. So sorry mate, your claims just don't stack up.

Happy to look at actual evidence, but annecdotes aren't going to cut it I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by akelly

Sorry, I missed the bit where I made a claim that requires evidence, as opposed to expressing an opinion. Could you highlight it and I'll address it directly?

That's not what I said, I questioned that your allowed to use your opinion, but others are required to provide evidence for their opinion. Please don't twist my words.

Originally Posted by Trundle

That's not what I said, I questioned that your allowed to use your opinion, but others are required to provide evidence for their opinion. Please don't twist my words.

Sorry, then you'll need to highlight the bit where I required anyone to provide evidence to support their opinion. Happy to address that directly.

No one's twisting anything here, except perhaps you.

Originally Posted by akelly

So electricity became more expensive. Yep, that was the idea. What else was more expensive, since you don't actually list any products or provide examples?

You must be careful, because it is unlawful to make false or misleading claims linking cost increases to the carbon price. (see here: Carbon price claims | ACCC). A few businesses fell foul of this, so there's some evidence that "everything" did not get more expensive. Here's just one example: Genesis fitness centre fined for blaming carbon tax for price rises | News.com.au

It's fairly widely known that infrastructure costs contribute markedly more to the increase in power costs than the carbon price did. And as the scheme was new most of the increase was compensated. So sorry mate, your claims just don't stack up.

Happy to look at actual evidence, but annecdotes aren't going to cut it I'm afraid.

Great move. Not yours, the law makers. Making it unlawful to tell the truth.
If anecdotes aren't going to cut it, prove me wrong. Where's your proof?
One does wonder, however, why that law had to be made.

Originally Posted by akelly

Sorry, then you'll need to highlight the bit where I required anyone to provide evidence to support their opinion. Happy to address that directly.

No one's twisting anything here, except perhaps you.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's what the below is,

Originally Posted by akelly

Are you seriously suggesting that the CSIRO are admitting to "facts" made up by a journalist because they didn't engage in a public battle with a tabloid rag?

Yet you can throw in the odd

Originally Posted by akelly

That's just weather I reckon. Would be interesting to see long term data though.

I could be wrong, as I didn't make the claims, but I'm happy to admit that.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Well, couple month ago I started a thread "Are we going down the gurgle?"
without any political reference and people complained that was political.
The same apply to threads about the boat people started by me and others and again people blamed me because the topic become political.
Bob, people that complained about that threads (for adults ) said that they cannot helped themselves to participate to defend their belief.
Do not get me wrong Bob, I like this topics with exchange of views but I am confused with the lack of consistence regarding which type of topics are allowed.

Dullbird, please help!!

It's not about the thread topic, it's what people do in it. If I remember right, the last one went political and personal. I'd say that's why it disappeared.
I think your gurgle thread got merged with the climate change thread, if it wasn't political.
The boat people thread got binned because it was in the last incarnation of the soap box. Guess why that was binned.

Have a good, robust debate. As long as it's within the rules of the forum. Remember,people are allowed to have an opposing view and expect your view to be challenged.
Maybe this one might stay but past form is not on it's side.

Hey Chucky, now do you see?
Just watch and we'll see where it ends up.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Great move. Not yours, the law makers. Making it unlawful to tell the truth.
If anecdotes aren't going to cut it, prove me wrong. Where's your proof?
One does wonder, however, why that law had to be made.

Ah, to stop people lying to consumers.

What proof do I need to provide?