Climate models show that Julia’s tax could lower temperatures by as much as 0.0001 degrees. The princess wants that pea under her mattress removed at any expense. (And Obama wants us to eat it.)
9:05AM BST 18 Jul 2011
Miss Gillard unveiled a tax on Australia’s top 500 polluters a week ago in a bid to reduce carbon emissions blamed for global warming, starting July 1 next year.
But it has only intensified the unpopularity of the country’s first female leader with support for her and the government at record lows in a new Nielsen poll published in the Sydney Morning Herald.The poll of 1,400 voters has the conservative opposition leading 61 per cent to 39 per cent in a head-to-head race – an 11-point swing against the government since Gillard wrested power last August by ousting Kevin Rudd.
Labor’s primary, or first preference, vote, taking into account all parties, stands at just 26 per cent – the lowest level for any major party in the poll’s history, while just a third of voters approve of Gillard’s leadership.
Despite Miss Gillard launching an election-style roadshow to sell the carbon tax’s merits to a sceptical public, blitzing television and radio across the nation, 53 per cent of respondents felt they would be worse off.
Only 53%??? Wow. It’s one thing to hypothesize about having to look down the barrel of the impending carbon legislation gun, but it’s a totally different thing we you’re staring right into it. I would’ve expected the percentage to be much higher for Australians. Guess you can’t cure stupid…
“The princess wants that pea under her mattress removed at any expense. (And Obama wants us to eat it.)”
Excellent! 🙂 🙂 🙂
This pea is going to bruise her ego.
Methinks Ms. Gillard fancies herself a Maggie T…..without the brains, acumen or gumption, of course…
“The princess wants that pea under her mattress removed at any expense. (And Obama wants us to eat it.)”
Nice!
Speaking of Obama…..
The ‘layering’ of the document is a natural outcome of optimized scanning? Except for one thing: more than one color found in individual pixels from layers containing different color in the pixel. Doh!
“……..apologists claiming validity of the document point out that the “white” (actually, transparent) space behind the lifted images is expected. In this case, however, there are two colors associated with the pixels in those two subgroups – green underneath and opaque (not transparent) white on top, and – if anyone is confused by the difference between transparent (rendered white by convention) and opaque white – the “white is not underneath the subgroup, visible when the subgroup is made not visible, but is actually the pixel color when the subgroup is visible – exactly the opposite of claimed “normal” effects.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=326565
I like the analogy. Except that these people can sense the pea even when it isn’t there.