"Because the science is settled, there is no need for more basic research, the government says." Before enjoying your schedenfraude, realise that this has been organized by political forces who think 'climate change is crap' and have dismantled as many government agencies with responsibilities in this area as they can. Justifying these cuts with 'the science is settled' is disingenuous to a comic extreme.

My home NAS records more cyberattacks than that every night, all you need is a computer and and IP adress.

There was a paper in the 80s about research done on Solar One - the first of these type of plants - I can't locate it right now.

From memory, it found most birds were killed by collision with the mirrors and only a few were killed by the concentrated radiation.

Glazed windows kill birds in the same way that mirrors do.

Your link to ATO only shows years in which the CPRS was in operation.

This page https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/I... shows that when the CPRS started on 1st July 2012, income tax was reduced (2012-2013 FY), note the increased tax free threshold.

Your other links also fail to make your point.

- The first link is refering to additional compensatory income tax cuts, not being implemented when it was clear that the planned link to the EU carbon trading scheme would reduce the price of carbon and not increase it as had been forecast.
- The second link shows that the government wants to remove the tax cuts associated with the carbon tax, precisely contradicting your point.

Not true ?
I am pretty sure I paid less tax and Wikipedia thinks I did too : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What is the source of your information ?

I agree it was not wise for me to assume such things.
I agree that if you are going to abolish the carbon tax it makes no sense to keep the income tax cuts.
I do not agree that it was obvious that the government planned to raise income taxes when it abolished the carbon tax.
I do not believe that voters, including those in favour of 'axeing the tax', understood that they were in effect voting to have personal income taxes raised by a similar amount to their gain from the removal of the carbon tax (for the average person who chooses to buy coal fired electricity).

No fallacy. The CPRS 'package of legislation' included income tax cuts mostly targeted at lower income earners - raising tax free threshold etc.
When Abbott stated that he would not be raising taxes, I had assumed that this meant he would still compensate people for the carbon tax after it was removed, and that this was part of his 'budget problem'. However the legislation passed by the senate included removal of the tax cuts associated with the CPRS, i.e raising income tax.
Yours is an entirely different example of the current government raising taxes, and is unrelated to the present discussion about the carbon tax.

As part of the carbon tax package, income tax was reduced, particularly for low income earners as a kind of compensation for the increase in cost of living caused by the carbon tax. The new government is raising those income taxes again, despite promising not to raise taxes.

If a goverment needs to have tax, It is better to tax things that you want to discourage. The carbon tax was discouraging the emission of greenhouse gasses, an unnecessary and dangerous activity, simultaneously providing necessary revenue. Income tax discourages the earning of income.

So by your logic : no one can use electricity and be non hypocrites if they are not coal supporters.

This means that you think all electricity does and must always come from coal burning.

In fact electricity also comes from generators not powered by coal now, and in the future, all electricity will come from generators not powered by coal.

While understanding US politics is always a struggle for me, I think this attitude is particularly noteworthy.

I think what you are suggesting is that to be a good Non Liberal you must invest blindly and only consider short term share value - even if you don't like the industry you must buy their stock if it is seen as a reasonable investment option on a profit basis only.

Does this imply that an authentic Non Liberal would need to invest in abortion pills, pornography, islamic religous organisations and prostitution where they are shown to be good investment options.

Here is a video of Assange addressing your point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBENlJfZ-f8 - start at 0:46 if you like

Isn't attacking the government with guns protected by the constitution ?
Or is it only the brandishing and talking about that is protected ?

Security researchers would have an opportunity to detect the data coming out of a key logger etc. There is no opportunity to detect the nefarious things if they are all on nokias servers.

Hmmm who to call - the police or the ACCC ? Not sure the ACCC would pop into my head in this situation.