Reading the carbon small print

The first sentence is a rhetorical question, surely? (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25.)
Malcolm Turnbull's speech last week was ignored, and the next day the Australian contained no less than three 'denialist' articles. One flagrantly misused a NSW research paper to reach a conclusion on projected sea level rises which the author's department protested... to no avail. Another made outrageous claims that climate scientists were engaged in generating 'scary stories' and another implied that particulate pollution is fine because it reduces the greenhouse effect, so see, there's nothing to worry about. In my view, that's three wildly misleading articles in one day. The day after Malcolm Turnbull pleaded that we respect the science.

If Julia Gillard wants to make enemies she is doing a good job (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). Prices will go up and people will struggle. Time next year I think things will be really hard, with rent, food and childcare... and she's bringing in more people we it looks like we don't even have room for the people we have now.

We do not need a tax on carbon dioxide. Ever (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). This is just another way for this inept government, which is being strangled by the Greens to get more money in their coffers so that they can waste it on knee-jerk reaction programs. They have put us in the red so badly that they now, it seems, want to pluck it from their favourite source, the ordinary Australian. Let's not bend or wander in our opposition to this unfair impost on ordinary Australians.

Rob, a media with sharp and clear views is not a bad thing (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). That is why more people read Murdoch media, despite whether they agree with it or not, in contrast with Fairfax newspapers' shy and sometimes confusing views.
Also, please bear in mind, the Labor/Greens carbon tax has a substantial part of direct action and it in fact relies on buying emission permit overseas to achieve emissions reduction goal. After all, if more than half of Australian people do not like it, why should it be introduced?

Rob, I feel regime change is not a legitimate objective for the 'fourth estate'. I read news services to find out what is happening in the world. Not to have the facts filtered by an overarching goal to form my opinion (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25).
Trust between reader and journalist is an essential element in sustaining the power that freedom of the press depends on. I have no trust in the journalism of The Australian and therefore it is powerless over me. The corrosive effect on trust that arises from a lack of professional standards in action will be very difficult to turn around. I predict that only those news sources that forgo the temptation to be involved in political action will last in the long term.

Hedge funds, investment banks and arbitragers are licking their chops over the prospect of an Australian ETS, scheduled for 2015 (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). European experience has shown that schemes like this are ripe for fraud and rorts.

Robs article is spot on, and of interest to me is how quickly the climate deniers have jumped on his words (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). News Ltd must be spooked by the idea of an inquiry - of any sort - because they simply can't escape the bias claim against them. I agree it has to be editorial bias.
There is no doubt the line of least resistance and the easiest position to scare the pants off everyone is to be anti-ETS. Of course no one wants to pay higher fees for electricity or pay more tax but they are living in a fools paradise if they think direct action is going to be cheaper. The money has to be raised or saved. Either way taxpayers will pay. At least with an ETS we can see where the money comes from where it goes and how much we are subsidised. With Direct Action it costs more there is no record where the money is raised (or spent) and we have no indication what will be cut to cover it.
The Greens are continualy rolled out as the bad guys. I have to say I am more worried by the right wing fanatics who are against anything long term, have no agenda other than 'as long as it isn't me' and who live in a dreamworld of denial. The Australian newspaper may say the government is a bad government. Where are Tony Abbots credentials that he will be wiser? He is certainly a master denier and I believe his first words must have included 'no'.I also have no trust in the Journalists? of the Australian so simply believe they have an agenda which has nothing to do with fairness.

When you throw millions of tax payer dollars in advertising across all media promoting your policies then of course you would expect an improvement in your polling. It's not rocket science, especially coming from such a low base (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25).

It's obvious a jump in support, from the noncommitted, would follow such a concerted ad campaign (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). The trick will be to hold that support. Mr Turnbull suggests we should respect the science - can he tell us which science?

Mr Burgess, you omit the +/- 3 per cent margin of error in all surveys as declared by Newspoll (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). Mind you, if there was no tangible up tick in voter perception to show for the spending of $24 million in taxpayer-funded advertising then the advertising agency that produced the ads would be closed down. Let's wait for the next poll before we declare a tidal change or victory.

Rob you might love carbon tax but we really do not need it. (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). Carbon tax is worst than GST. GST is business friendly while carbon tax is an enemy of all as it would affect the economy as a whole including medicine, food, hospitals, education including children, young and olds. And it would not reduce any CO2 emissions. Rob, have you thought about calculating CO2 emissions per sq. metre of Australia? And if you have done it, then surely you will come to conclusion that we have very little emissions of CO2 in Australia.
I am a scientist and as such, have great respect for scientists but not much towards climate scientists, whose modelling does not represent any realistic climate change. Why? We don't have any realistic theory, facts or data on climate change.

In answer to an oft-given argument: "if half of the Australian public is opposed to a policy why should it go through?" I should answer with another question - Should policy be formed by teams of informed experts or the general public? (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25.)
In all honesty, with the amount of vitriol and vested interests being blasted back and forth I do not feel as though I could make an informed decision on the best way to shift investment away from "dirty" production processes. Governments are not meant to make the popular decision - simply the right one. There must be a balance between short-term viability and long-term suitability, but the federal government must always look to Australia's best intersts.
I can't fathom the opinion that if the majority of public opinion is aginst the policy, therefore the government must cede power.

I have just one thing to say to climate denialism: tell it to the peoples of the Pacific island nations who are already watching their real estate shrink (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25).

That Gillard gained a bounce from the carbon tax details announcement is hardly cause for claims that the worst is over for Labor. The bounce was inevitable. What remains to be seen is if it is a dead cat bounce and sub-25 per cent is still beckoning, or if it is the beginning of the slow haul back to poll respectability (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25).
But no matter how you look at it, Labor are in massive trouble and the carbon tax is hugely unpopular. A few per cent boost, that is unlikely to be continued, excites only the desperate few. I think this government is so unpopular that only the size of its inevitable defeat is up for debate.

I think it is no secret that The Australian has used its media to campaign against the current government (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). Proof of this is if you total the amount of articles they printed against the introduction of the NBN compared to articles in favour (if you were to do a poll on the NBN it would be about 50/50, so you would expect them to be equal?). I agree Rob, it is not only unethical to say you're unbiased and then conduct yourself in a biased manner but it is also a diservice to journalism in general. The second you proceed down that path the blurrier the lines get and recent events highlight what that can lead to.

The Australian's frequent criticisms of Gillard are fair enough, at least they are well argued and written (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25).
But the free run being given to Abbott grates: after all, he is calling for an immediate election and it appears very likely he will win, whenever the election is called.
His policies are either non-existent, or plainly have very large holes; usually they are defined in the negative. It is high time he was called to account, and fleshed out his soundbites with a bit of detail. That would provide some balance.

To Navin Kothari (See 'Science doesn't support a tax', Conversation contribution, July 25), you argue on two fronts: against the cost of action on climate change, and the science.
On the latter, Labor and the Coalition have the same abatement target of 5%. So they (supposedly) agree on the science, yet you direct your negativity to the carbon tax rather than Tony Abbott's direct action plan – which will undoubtedly cost a lot more (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25).

Several years ago I used to have The Australian delivered to my door six days a week. Now I can't even stand reading it. It is so blatantly anti-ALP (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). I don't know if it has changed in all those years, or if I have just become more astute.

Good keen observation (See Reading the carbon small print, July 25). I think the Australian's staff should look deep at themselves. They're among the 'shock jocks' of the printed media.