All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Sunday, 27 February 2011

Watching the Deniers and Deceivers.

My Wife calls it my Sunday School. On Sunday mornings I watch the round of political programmes; Meet the Press, Laurie Oakes' Interview and the ABC's Insiders. There was an amount of decepttion in all these programmes.

Due to Julie Gillard's evident breaking of an Election promise (Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said there will not be a tax on carbon while she leads the federal government) all three programmes addressed the issue of a carbon tax.

Carbon tax? Tax on Carbon? What is carbon? The two most common allotropes of carbon are graphite and diamonds. So they are going to tax carbon? Tax Diamonds and Graphite? No, they are going to tax carbon dioxide: two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. That means there are twice as many oxygen atom than carbon. Why aren't they calling it an oxygen tax. Water is H20. Do you ask someone for a glass of hydrogen?

It is deception to call it a carbon tax. It is a carbon dioxide tax.

The other deception was talking about the polluters. During the programmes, there were background images of pollution and cooling towers.

This image is of pollution. It is deceptive to show an image like this when you are talking about CO2 emissions. It is deceptive to say pollution when you are meaning carbon dioxide emissions.

These are cooling towers. It is deceptive to show an image like this when you are talking about CO2 emissions. It is deceptive to say pollution when you are meaning carbon dioxide emissions. 

Carbon dioxide is colourless. Any image intending to show carbon dioxide emissions should show...er...nothing. Breathe out into your fist. Can you see anything? Part of that is carbon dioxide. Look at a clear cloudless sky. A small percentage of that sky is carbon dioxide. An even smaller, almost infinistesimal proportion is man's contribution to atmospheric CO2.

To realise how small the anthropogenic proportion is, 2UE's Mike Smith, in Aug 2008, made a graphic representation.
Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up.   For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.   Just 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour.   Just 10 metres left to go.
9 metres are argon.   1 metre left out of 1 kilometre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.
97% is produced by Mother Nature.   It’s natural.  It has always been in the atmosphere otherwise plants couldn't grow.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.   About half an inch.   Just over a centimetre.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair.   Out of a kilometre.
So in every kilometre of atmosphere, complete with green-house gases regulating the climate - in every kilometre reflecting back and retaining the sun's heat on earth, just .18 of one millimetre is contributed by Australia's carbon dioxide emissions.
So, everytime someone mentions carbon tax, call them a deceiver. Everytime someone talks about a carbon dioxide emitters but actually say polluter, they are deceiving you.

Greg Combet on Insiders continually talked about polluters. Listen to the bit of rhetoric.

GREG COMBET: Well I think one thing is to get straight with this discussion about compensation and assistance to households: a price tag on carbon pollution, which is what a carbon price is, is directed at the big businesses that are polluting the most into the atmosphere in our economy, and it is from there that the carbon price is paid.
The commitment we have made of course is that every dollar raised by the payment of the carbon price will be used to assist people, households, industries most affected and to help assist with other climate change programs, so that we can cut pollution and drive investment in clean energy.

OK, CO2 emissions are not pollution, but just imagine that they are. So the carbon (dioxide) tax is aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. How?  " directed at the big businesses that are polluting the most.."
So naturally, big business put up prices to protect their owners' (shareholders) interests.  The price rise will make consumers think twice about spending, or will it? "every dollar raised by the payment of the carbon price will be used to assist people, households, industries most affected.. " Oh, that's OK then. No-one will have to change their habits. Does that make sense to you?

"....(aimed) at large industrial polluters, if you like, that a carbon price mechanism is targeted, in order to bring about change behaviour at that level, in order to drive the investment in clean energy technology, to reduce pleases in our existing electricity generation sector, to provide business certainty for investments to be made in things like gas-fired base-load power generation, to drive further investment in wind power and other renewable energy sources."

As we have seen Windpower is hellishly expensive, so what carbon dioxide tax will we have to pay "to drive further investment in wind power and other renewable energy sources."

Also, this morning on ABC's"insiders," they said that Julie Bishop had said the ex PM Bob Hawke addressing a public meeting had expressed his disapproval of Ms Gillard and said that Greg Combet would be her replacement. They then said that Hawke had denied it and they had a snigger at Bishop's expense. I was screaming at the screen - "You said It was a public meeting -  you're journaliists, find some others from the meeting and check the facts." Later I checked the Sunday paper. The story was -here.

At the UWA dinner, Ms Bishop claims Mr Hawke "stunned" guests at his table, including Janet Holmes Court, her partner Frits Steenhauer and the Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French, when he said Ms Gillard was in trouble.
"I can certainly confirm that at the dinner he was very open about his views that Julia Gillard would not go the distance. And that Bill Shorten was not the answer, but that Greg Combet would be the leader of the Labor Party sooner rather than later," Ms Bishop said.
Just snigger at Julie Bishop. Not check with Janet Holmes a Court, not check with a  Chief Justice of the High Court? Just snigger at Julie Bishop. True Deniers.

UPDATE:

The Labor Party's Spin Machine has moved into top gear trying to justify this reversal of an election promise.
JULIA Gillard's decision this week to introduce a carbon tax was the best decision she has made as Prime Minister. HERE

Gillard: From policy dud to economic hero  HERE

4 comments:

  1. philipi@me.com1 March 2011 at 00:26

    The aim of the so-called Carbon Tax is to encourage people to use less, what, Carbon? So guys no more lead pencils and jewellery for you then.
    But seriously, according to Labor spin,most low to middle income earners will be "adequately compensated" for the financial effects of the tax.
    This represents probably 50% of taxpayers, so half of the earning public won't be effected by the tax so the incentive for half the earners to reduce their consumption isn't there , so whats the f****** point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another signpost.........................

    In yet another looming catastrophe we now have stark indicator of global warming affecting the Antarctica.

    Everywhere we look globally we see very unstable climate changes happening quickly and without any warming. Suddenly we take another breath, blink and it's on again.

    But climate has always changed. Yes indeed it has done historically sometimes to the mass extinctions of whole tribes and national identities.

    Still all can play fiddle dee with the politics but reality is finally beginning to bite. We cannot lower temperatures NOW. The only thing we can do is hope and pray that we have not already set off a chain of events that will continue to expedite climate changes the likes we have not sighted in thousands and thousands of years.

    It maybe too late - the conservation of future generations will have to go it alone and find their way through "our" darkness. The future generations will gaze upon the the graves of the stubborn that foresaw and promised us all it was going to be okay. "May it never happen again that blind men dared to ever attempt to lead us to such a great temptation as this. To do nothing as the cost was too high for us. We were but weak mortal men of the most self-assured and self centred kind"

    Emergency airlift at McMurdo in strife
    MICHAEL FIELD Last updated 13:37 26/02/2011

    An Antarctic ice shelf used as a runway is breaking away forcing an emergency airlift to close summer operations on the continent.

    The situation is being complicated by the Christchurch quake which is limiting operations at Christchurch Airport.

    Staff at New Zealand's Scott Base and the US's McMurdo Sound are scrambling to get people off Antarctica to Auckland.

    With winter closing in, the prospect is that people either get out now or stay all winter.

    CEO Lou Sanson told Radio New Zealand two giant US Air Force Globemasters are heading down tonight from Christchurch and will bring back several hundred Americans tomorrow.

    They will be flown on to Auckland by the RNZAF.

    But Sanson said they have a complication now that the Ross Ice Shelf is separating quickly from Ross Island where Scott Base and McMurdo are.

    "We are seeing the biggest ever break out of the Ross Ice Shelf in 15 years, our supply lines to the airfield are getting affected."

    Scott Base manager Troy Beaumont told Stuff this afternoon that the sea was opening up and access to the iceshelf was becoming difficult.

    "The ice is breaking up," he said.

    He said it was likely the Globemasters would be able to land at this point, but it would take staff longer to get onto the ice.

    Scott Base is already in its winter operations, with only one New Zealander due out, but there are several hundred Americans needing to get out.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4708428/Emergency-airlift-at-McMurdo-in-strife

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have addressed Anonymous' comment in a new blog post:
    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/looming-catastrophe-in-antarctica-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is my reaction to IPCC AR5 Report's Summary for Policymakers. Most of the summary for policymakers, is about "...resilience and adaptation to inevitable climate change.” That is just the problem. There is no inevitable anthropogenic climate change. Climate change, such as it is, is all natural and it makes sense to be resilient. But none of it is caused by carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. You should know enough science to understand that if seventeen years of rising carbon dioxide levels have not caused warming you can assume that carbon dioxide does not cause any warming, period. The Arrhenius theory of greenhouse warming that IPCC uses is proven just plain wrong by this observation. The correct greenhouse theory is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT) which explains why the addition of carbon dioxide to atmosphere does not cause warming. There is an even simpler way to convince yourself of this fact. The greenhouse effect that is said to cause warming is the enhanced greenhouse effect, that part of the greenhouse effect caused by the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Just take it from there and forget all other theories. If true, the enhanced greenhouse warming should follow the atmospheric carbon dioxide change. And that change is reflected accurately by the Keeling curve. Simply compare the shape of the Keeling curve with the shape of the global temperature curve and you will see that they absolutely do not correspond. There is one additional test you can perform, and that is checking when a warming starts and when it stops. There are several warming periods that have a well-defined beginning. Among them is the early twentieth century warming that starts in 1910. There is the Arctic warming that starts in 1900. And there is a step warming of 1999 that follows directly after the super El Nino of 1998. To start an enhanced greenhouse warming you must add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at the exact same time when the warming begins. Checking the Keeling curve and its extension from Antarctica we find that no additional carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere either in 1910, or in 1999, or in the year 1900. This immediately rules out carbon dioxide as the cause of these three warming incidents. There is one more diagnostic you can use. Since greenhouse warming involves absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gas molecules the only way you can stop it is by removing all the greenhouse molecules from air. That is, remove the gas or somehow block the absorbing structure of its molecules. The early twentieth century warming stopped abruptly in 1940 and was followed by World War II cooling. The 1999 step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree in only three years and then simply stopped. The Arctic warming stopped in 1940, went into a thirty year cooling mode, and then restarted in 1970. All of these maneuvers are totally impossible for greenhouse warming to perform if the amount of carbon dioxide in air does not abruptly change at those dates. And the Keeling curve assures us that they did not. Particularly difficult to explain is the on again — off again — on again pattern in mid-twentieth century. This is not rocket science, it is basic climate science that anyone can understand who is not a pseudo-scientist interested in saving his grants and his job. The greenhouse theory of anthropogenic warming is dead. It is time to dismantle the machinery built up to “study” it and start reversing the damage done by the irrational climate policies it has led to.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!