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

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Two lies - Carbon tax and Carbon Pollution (with Updates)

People's lack of knowledge about the matter most people are discussing is amazing.

This is not colourless CO2
Ms Gillard lied when she said she wouldn't introduce a carbon tax. The inner lie is her use of the wriggle-word - "carbon." She actually intends to tax carbon dioxide. When she and her minister Greg Combet drone on about polluters, they are telling more porkies. The "polluters" that they refer to are actually carbon dioxide emitters. Carbon dioxide is essential to life and therefore cannot be called pollution, Carbon Dioxide is one part carbon and two parts oxygen. As I've said before, it would be closer to the truth to call it an oxygen tax. Of course the most accurate description is a tax on essential CO2.

This is not CO2 being emitted.

As I have said before, the other great lie is the visual one, -how the print and electronic media depict colourless CO2.



Outstanding journalist, Terry McCrann wote an opinion piece this week entitled:
Carbon not the same thing as CO2 

"ASTONISHINGLY, the PM, the Cabinet and members of the Canberra Press Gallery don't know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
There are two great lies told about the need to "put a price on carbon". Lies which I can't recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with -- far less the prime liar herself.
And it'll be a cold day in hell before you see a critical commentary from any of the supposed leading lights of the gallery such as Fairfax's Michelle Grattan or Peter Hartcher applying a critical analysis to the claims.
Now these two lies are in addition to Julia Gillard's "there will be no carbon tax" lie. They precede it and will be told again and again after it."

IRONICALLY, Terry McCrann's editor used  a picture of cooling towers emitting steam (like the bottom picture) perpetuating the visual CO2 pollution lie.

There is a questionaire doing the rounds. It was prepared by Gregg D Thompson, Author of science magazine articles, Climate Researcher, Astronomer, Environmentalist.

I believe his first question should be:

Do you know that the government intends to tax CO2 emissions with the falsely named "carbon" tax?

Anyhow, below is an edited version of Gregg's Questionaire:

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? 

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? 

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? 

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?"

The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%!

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
 
Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.


Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?
 
Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%.


Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
 
Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

 
The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. 


Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
 
Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.


The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
"As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?"
 
Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

 
The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. 

The answer is no as the temperature has dropped (other than in the virtual worlds of computer models) and even if it had not dropped, the climate system is far too complex and too little understood to give anything but a negative answer.

Terry  McCrann writes:
Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term "carbon pollution", a competent journalist would ask questions like:
Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don't you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?
UPDATE:
Gavin Atkins from Hybrid News Ltd writes:

Gillard’s brand new carbon tax lie

On ABC’s 7.30 program last night, Julia Gillard was asked why Australia should put a price on carbon dioxide when the United States does not and she responded with this:
JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.
Atkins then, using IPCC figures, shows Australia uses less! He also reminds us of Kevin Rudd's oft-told lie that Australia is the hottest and driest continent on Earth and concludes:

So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information?



 UPDATE:

Bob Carter has a new opinion piece in Quadrant-on-line.

Global warming: 10 little facts

by Bob Carter   March 14, 2011
He starts off with 10 lies, including the above.

UPDATE: More Gillard lies.....

 







27 comments:

  1. I can't find anything about Gregg D Thompson and carbon besides the questionnaire mentioned in this blog. Every other reference to Gregg Thompson is about his work in astronomy, for which he did win some awards and co-authored some papers.

    Interestingly, every variant of this questionnaire apparently written by Mr. Thompson lists him as an author of "two books" and multiple articles, but fails to detail any of them. I find that strange. Surely a scientist (or an author in general) would want to show his credentials by at least naming the books and giving references to the articles?

    Digging a bit further, it seems like all Mr Thompson's biggest work in astronomy was done in the mid-eighties - over 20 years ago. Nothing has come from him since, in any field, until this dubious questionnaire (it would take too long to point out the faults in that). Presumably, the man has retired or possibly even passed on, since his main work in the sciences.

    Yes, that's right, I'm saying that this questionnaire is fiction. Facts and numbers were made up, dubious references were given and poor Mr Thompson's name seems to have been used to give it credence. I don't think he wrote this. I don't think any award-winning scientists would present "facts" without backing it up and he certainly wouldn't do something as basic as providing survey answers or demographics information of survey participants.

    If it wasn't so tragic that such stupid lies were being spread as truth, it'd be laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Magda, (I love that name!)
    Magda, I know nothing of Mr Gregg D Thompson. I should have googled as you have and bravo for you for doing so. However you say: "Nothing has come from him since, in any field, until this dubious questionnaire..."
    Can you point out where "Facts and numbers were made up...?"

    To me, a simple layman, the facts look correct. A scholarly friend of mine called Tim made this comment' "it’s very good, but there is one slip: plants absorb CO2 and respire O2, while we are the opposite, breathing O2, eating C and exhaling CO2.

    ReplyDelete
  3. abc moderator john9 March 2011 at 20:17

    Geoff the actual amounts of carbon dioxide and oxygen that we exhale compared to what we inhale are interesting , for what its worth i failed your questionnaire with and F-

    rgds

    johno

    ReplyDelete
  4. The answer to the question, "Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?” is not correct. You only have to look at the infrared absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide to see that it absorbs infrared energy that would otherwise head directly out into space. That energy is subsequently re-emitted; some will head back down to earth and some will be readmitted back into space. This was determined early last century. Hence it does have a greenhouse effect and it can be measured in the laboratory. The atmosphere is a very complex system and isolating the effect of carbon dioxide outside the laboratory would be very difficult if not impossible. With respect to the originator of the questionnaire, asking people if they can see evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect outside the laboratory is naive if not unfair.

    It should also be possible to calculate the extent of this effect in the laboratory. In the real world its effect is much reduced. Part of the infrared absorption spectrum of water vapour is the same as part of that of carbon dioxide. Therefore anywhere in the atmosphere where there is water vapour the effect of carbon dioxide is partly but not entirely masked by the overwhelming and much greater concentrations of water vapour and its greenhouse effect. The only places where the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is not partly swamped by water vapour is in areas of extreme cold, namely the Arctic, Antarctic and above high snow-covered mountains (e.g. the Andes). Hence its greenhouse effect in the real world is much less than might otherwise be expected. Furthermore there are other feedbacks which are negative and counteract temperature rises. My understanding is clouds are believed to have this effect but we have a long way to go before we know which clouds and how much effect they have before we can make any sensible predictions.

    Hence the correct answer to question 6 is not what you would want and an accurate and useful answer is too complex. A better question would be, "As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?". The answer is no as the temperature has dropped (other than in the virtual worlds of computer models) and even if it had not dropped, the climate system is far too complex and too little understood to give anything but a negative answer. You may recall that the CAGW "scientists" blame man-made carbon dioxide because they in their flat earth, blinkered view of the universe can not imagine there can be any other cause and they have a theory which is supportive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why do people keep posting stuff without ever citing where they got their "facts" from???

    So many "facts" are unsupported by evidence. For example the last comment says that the temperature has dropped. Does anybody actually bother to check?
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/21/3117825.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gregg Thompson calls himself a "climate researcher". His own wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Thompson_%28astronomer%29 lists him as a director of a design and production company without any scientific credentials. That doesn't make what he says wrong necessarily, but it doesn't make him the worlds leading authority either.

    He presents several answers as "correct" without explaining how he knows they are correct. If his answers are better than someone elses he needs to demonstrate why. What information is he using to validate it is correct?

    Take the point about the amount of CO2 in the air. Yes it is a very small percentage. That doesn't mean it isn't important. For example the amount of CFCs that were in the air lead to the increasing hole in the Ozone layer. There was a far smaller percentage of CFCs in the air than CO2 and yet they were causing a major problem. The world acted on that and fixed the problem.

    Yes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small but the amount has increased by almost 40% since 1750 (source http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). It seems obvious that humans have caused that. It doesn't prove it is a problem - just that there has been an increase. It could be that this has no impact but most climate scientists believe it will. How does he know better?

    He claims humans produce only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. No reference? The website I mentioned above quotes numbers way higher (look for the Question "What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?"

    His point about CO2 not being a pollutant is correct as far as it goes... by itself it isn't. Its like saying Oxygen isn't a poison... we need it to live. However if you breath pure Oxygen it will kill you. The point is this doesn't help the argument. Its the fact that CO2 can absorb energy is what is relevant... not the gas itself. More CO2 means more energy into the atmosphere (and maybe to global warming).

    His point that there is "no proof" is partially correct. It is almost impossible to prove conclusively because there is no basis for comparison. Most of his "facts" proving the high levels of CO2 don't have an impact are irrelevant. For example, yes Venus' temperature isn't increasing, but it is 480 degrees Celsius. That hardly helps his case.

    The water vapour case could be relevant but the best estimates I found are that the amount of water vapour in the air has not changed. If this is true it should have no impact either way.

    Some of his other point are true... yes the Sun has a big impact, yes there has been cycles of high and low before. Does that mean we should just ignore carbon? Why?

    His point about "polls" is an unfortunate reflection on people like him. Spreading articles like this just increases misinformation. Unfortunately a lot of people read something like this and believe it without checking.

    His "popular belief" point actually counts against him... if he is correct that most people now don't believe in climate change then that is now the popular belief - oh - and doesn't that make it wrong?

    I could go on but I hope you get the point. Don't believe everything you read - especially if it agrees with your inclination

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Using the data from the CRU – Hadley centre in Britain – the temperature data that the IPCC uses - the fact is that since 1998 and 2005 there is no trend up or down.
    9 years no increase in Global Temperature at the same time a 4% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide"
    See http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/hypothesis-was-falsified-years-ago-why.html

    See also Bryan Leyland's graph -
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, there is plenty more if you want.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark again...
    Sorry I should been a bit clearer - I was sent a PDF if the full "article" from Geoff D Thompson via email. I was trying to find where it was originally posted (I still haven't). Hence some of my comments refer to the full article, not just the subset you quoted here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, sorry anonymous, I did the above two comments without looking at your link from the global warming alarmists' publicity arm, your ABC.

    Did you notice in that ABC report that it said "Last year "ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998," Three hottest years?
    Superlative means - the one and only. So much for your report. Did you actually bother to check it?

    Here is more info for you to check:

    2010 the 'warmest' year? Well, sort of. see
    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/2010-warmest-year-well-sort-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. ANSWER TO MARK:

    Mark poses a few theories.

    1: Gregg … presents several answers as "correct" without explaining how he knows they are correct. If his answers are better than someone elses he needs to demonstrate why.

    Good point , Mark.

    2: Yes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small but the amount has increased by almost 40% since. It seems obvious that humans have caused that. It doesn't prove it is a problem - just that there has been an increase.

    Sweeping statement without explaining why you are correct, Mark. Look at

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

    Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).
    Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).
    Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).
    Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

    3: Does that mean we should just ignore carbon? Why?

    Because, if you read the post that you commenting on, they are trying vainly to blame carbon dioxide not carbon.

    And Mark, I could go on but I hope you get the point. Don't believe everything you read - especially if it agrees with your inclination

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't claim to be an expert with all the answers. I only spent maybe half an hour with google to write my note. My point is the Gregg's presentation presents all its arguments facts when many of them are not (or are at the very least subject to debate).

    I don't believe everything I read. That is the whole point. Unfortunately a lot of people do. I don't even believe that the other websites I quoted necessarily have all the right answers either.

    Some of the data on the site you referenced may be correct. I don't know. I suspect some of it may be dated and/or invalidated. For example I suspect Wallace S Broecker might say he has been taken out of context... he is an advocate of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.

    I do have to thank both Gregg and this site as you have led me to probably the most sane site discussing Climate Science I've ever seen:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    Taking just one point from that site to rebut the anthropogenic greenhouse argument: "...atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark,
    Unfortunately, skepticalscience is not a relaible source. To see the history of CO2 over millions of years,
    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif

    I have added this above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not sure what makes skepticalscience unreliable. How do you back that up?

    Certainly it seems hardly fair to class it as less reliable than "Frontiers of Freedom" - the site hosting article that graph is from.

    In any event - the point of the article you refer to is that the CO2 levels were way higher in even more ancient times (back as far as 600 million years ago). I don't think anyone disputes that.

    The question is really - is that relevant to today? The world was a very different place back then. The real point is what impact does *changes* in CO2 level have - not the absolute value.

    That graph and related arguments are also discussed at skeptical science...
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

    I just watched the lecuture mentioned in the "further reading" section on that page. It was long but I really enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interesting comment on page three of todays Financial Review; 'History told us we have to live with earthquakes, said Tokyo resident, we've been here a thousand years'. Thought I'd pass that on before we get blamed for farting, burning fuel and eating meat that caused this latest quake. Pity Giddy, Combet and co. couldn't walk of the edge of this flat earth instead of trying to bring this bullshit into force.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's too late, it's on. It's too late the blaming is on. Wish they were honest, we are the only one's but it's too late. They're Wrong. ( sung to J'OK's It's too late. )

    Here is the start of the blame game -

    So far, today's tsunami has mainly affected Japan -- there are reports of up to 300 dead in the coastal city of Sendai -- but future tsunamis could strike the U.S. and virtually any other coastal area of the world with equal or greater force, say scientists. In a little-heeded warning issued at a 2009 conference on the subject, experts outlined a range of mechanisms by which climate change could already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic activity.

    "When the ice is lost, the earth's crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis," Bill McGuire, professor at University College London, told Reuters.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mark said...

    I'm not sure what makes skepticalscience unreliable. How do you back that up?

    Well, Mark -

    "A comment from Tel late last year was so surgically cutting, it’s worthy of it’s own post. Un-Skeptical Science was trying to explain why climate sensitivity is high. The post includes formula’s and fancy graphs, and looks authoritative — yet underlying everything are errors of reasoning that nullify all the points that rest upon them. Things like assumptions about linearity (which means more or less, they make the mistake of assuming that all forcings and feedbacks operate at similar ratios and strengths when the planet is an iceball as they do when Earth hits a rare warm phase). An unmeasureable variable is the telltale signature of a fudge-factor. It is what you make of it. Fits better in a course analyzing postmodernistic intertexuality of Swahili neo-linguists."

    Read more -
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/unskeptical-science-uses-unitless-fudge-factors/comment-page-2/#comment-231112

    ReplyDelete
  18. What is pollution? If you go to the NSW Dept of Health, they are pretty clear what is pollution.

    http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/environment/air/air_pollution.asp

    "What is air pollution?

    Air pollution occurs when the air is affected by chemicals or particles that are not normally present and have the potential to affect health."

    Well CO2 IS normally present and IS essential to life - ergo health.

    "The main pollutants in large cities are ozone, particles, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.

    The two main air pollutants in Sydney are ozone and particles. Vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapours, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of ozone. Particle pollution is formed directly from sources such as vehicles, factories, power plants, and smoke from bushfires."

    Well, it must be true, my Government tells me so.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Geoff, Bill is talking about local events not global

    Why gregs answer to Q5 is not in accord with facts

    If you go to any Government site and search HEALTH AND SAFETY, indoor air quality, you will find that limits for carbon dioxide concentrations are given for nursing homes, school rooms, hospital wards and places of work, you may say they are high in some cases but in setting limits then CO2 is by definition a pollutant ,

    now you can argue all you like but until you have that health and safety requirement revoked then C)2 is a pollutant ,

    ReplyDelete
  20. Andrew Bolt has made a similar post today -http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-not-the-same-thing-as-co2/story-e6frfig6-1226017312737

    "There are two great lies told about the need to "put a price on carbon". Lies which I can't recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with -- far less the prime liar herself."

    and

    "The first is that "climate change policies" are aimed at "carbon pollution". No they are not; they are aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide."

    and the second:

    "The second great lie is that so-called "de-carbonising our economy" as a consequence of "putting a price on carbon" is the 21st century equivalent of the tariff reforms of the 1980s."

    ReplyDelete
  21. So far out of this article, I have:

    Carbon taxing is an emotive subject because it will cause direct increases in costs.

    People seem to think that global temperatures have dropped... Australia has been 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer over the past 100 years, but that obviously doesn't count. Also apparently melting of ice caps/glaciers has a localized cooling effect because of moisture in the air. Look it up... Remember that the Arctic and Antarctica are actually classified as deserts.

    Climate change is an emotive subject because it implies that humanity can screw up, and continues to screw up knowingly... Like no one wanting to admit that they caused their own health issues or marriage break up. And does anyone really want to go back to living within their limits? No more perpetual growth or free money?

    People who are climate change skeptics usually cite little known research/articles or put holes in scientific review. This article by Greg Thompson is one such example. As the founder of the Southern Astronomical Society, you would expect that he would have a little a.) scientific knowledge/reasoning ability, and b.) some respect for scientific writing. This piece is chock-full of emotive language and deliberately picks and chooses which facts to reveal. The point being, this article does not show a 'balanced' view of the issue.

    There also seems to be a misunderstanding about nature... Nature/natural systems produce CO2, particularly in the northern hemispheres autumn months as trees drop leaves. Then magically... the sun returns and nature ABSORBS approximately the same amount of CO2 as released the year before so the trees/plants can make food from sunlight. Every molecule of CO2 that humans release that is from a fossil fuel source last saw the light of day about 200 million years ago. Now kids, when you add to a natural system that is in balance, what happens? The answer, it changes to become balanced again. This is one of the laws of thermodynamics at work. Combine this with the removal of CO2 absorbing forest and plants to build shopping centers and assorted human spaces, and ta-da.. you have climate change. Wow, that was a logic leap and a half.

    The crux of the climate change issue is not CO2, or what is a pollutant and what isn't, or whether you believe the science or not. It is that humans have this assumption that we can screw with nature all we want and there will be no repercussions. Previously, when humans have exhausted an areas resources, they have moved on to another area. We now have no where else to go, no part of the planet that is untouched by humans. Climate change scientist might be wrong, the carbon tax probably is just a way to reduce the labor governments deficit (whether that's a good thing or not is another debate). But in terms of the climate debate, when facing the risk of our own extinction or social/economic/environmental collapse, can we really afford to do nothing at all?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well, anony-mouse (too scared to use even a nick-name?) I am not going to waste much time on your comment - but

    1: "Carbon taxing is an emotive subject because it will cause direct increases in costs."

    First, I am not even sure if you read the post which was entitled Two Lies.... The first lie being carbon tax. It is not a tax on carbon, it is a tax on carbon dioxide. Did you understand that point?

    So you say that the Carbon dioxide tax is emotive: as the World dictionary defines emotive as tending or designed to arouse emotions, do you believe that the tax was designed to arouse emotions. It certainly has done that, but the emotions have been aroused because Juliar Gillard said that there would be NO carbon tax under any government that she led and Wayne (I don't know what's going on) Swann said that it was an hysterical idea that the Gillard government would introduce a carbon tax.

    2: "Australia has been 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer over the past 100 years..."

    Well, it depends! Are you talking about the temperatures rising as we came out of the little ice age?

    Next, mousemate, temps do go up and down and are you talking about the recorded temperatures or the NASA Massaged figures?

    For example, I managed to downloaded many figures from the Bureau of Meteorology before they were massaged and corrupted. Here are a random sample:

    Albany From 1960-2009 dropped by 0.5ºC

    AliceSprings 1880-2009 no significant difference

    Darwin Airport 1882-2009 dropped by ~1ºC

    Hobart Airport 1958-2009 increased by 0.2ºC

    Richmond 1908-2009 no significant difference
    (I can send the pdfs of many Australian centres pre-NASA massaging if you send an emails address!)

    3 "People who are climate change skeptics usually cite little known research/articles or put holes in scientific review."


    First of all, I am not a "Climate Change Sceptic."
    I know and recognise that Climate Changes. Sir (or Madam it's hard to tell with an anony-MOUSE) do you recognise that Climate has always changed or do you try to pretend, like the disgraced Climategate CRU, like the IPCC summarisers, that climate has only changed in the last few years?

    See: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2010/10/revisiting-elimination-of-mwp-scam.html

    "Little know Research articles???"

    You have not read the posts on this blog have you.
    I will not waste my time on the rest of this tripe!

    ReplyDelete
  23. The truth will OUT!

    We always suspected it was the Green pound of flesh for the Juliar!

    And guess what?

    Adam Bandt told the world on Friday night on Ten's 7PM {Project that the CO2 tax or a price on CO2 was in that document Juliar and Bobby signed to cheers of the grinning circus clowns ( Greens and Indies-NOT!)

    In other words ,it is the price Brown put on backing her for PM.

    As if he would ever back the Coalition!

    Next, out trots Paul Kelly with his piece referring to the very words of this agreement

    Wonder how long he has sat on this bombshell?

    Juliar couldn't lie straight in bed, Combet has sold his soul and his future leadership aspirations ,Labor MPs are sleepwalking to the clifftop like a pack of lemmings,and the Goose is still obfuscating ,and miles behind reality.

    That is the ocve who could work 3 years or more with Kevin Rudd, call him friend ,parrot his words ,do his bidding-- yet when he knew KRudd was going to be rolled couldn't go and face him with "Kevin I'm going to back Juliar against you tomorrow"
    Craven sycophant who also told us a CO2 tax was a figment of the awful Opposition, in particular Tony Abbott ,who is worth millions of him--not that even one is worth much!

    It was because he wanted to stay Dep PM, when he is the most clueless incompetent in Gillard's or Rudd's circus troupe!

    He is there due to Green preferences and I'm looking forward to "Bye bye Wayne's awful world!" next election!

    The CO2 tax is a Clayton's tax and will do far more harm to our economy than anything it could do to "slow" the climate -even if all the silly predictions from Treasury could come true!

    ReplyDelete
  24. The thing everyone seems to be forgetting... we are burning fossil fuels... stuff that has been sequestered away for millions of years (and took millions of years to produce) and along we've come, burning vast quantities of these fossil fuels in the past century, to the point that we're already seeing a dwindling amount - it is finite.

    That oil, if it were flowing about the environment, would be a pollutant, would it not? But, it's not, because we burn it and it just blows away, right? Thing is, it's still there, just in a different form and spread over a much wider area in the form of various pollutants, essentially poisoning the landscape we live on and depend upon to live!!

    A carbon tax is meant to be, correct me if I'm wrong, about reducing pollution, which we need to do to remain healthy as a species ourselves, let alone as a planet. Thing is, our economy is driven by profit, and profits don't include environmental controls. The only way industry has ever "cleaned up" in the past has been when it has been forced to by the BIG STICK method... The carbon tax, whilst contentious, I see as a necessary evil to force change the the way industry operates so that we can have a chance of a cleaner, healthier future for all.

    Yes, there may be some financial pain, but suggest to me a way that we can clean up our world without some impost and I'll be all ears...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Franco: : "A carbon tax is meant to be, correct me if I'm wrong, about reducing pollution...."

    Two things, Franco.

    Did you read the whole piece, or just come in at the bottom. It is entitled "Two lies - Carbon Tax and Carbon Pollution."

    It is not a tax on carbon, Franco. The first lie is - It is a tax on essential to life, invisible trace gas carbon dioxide.

    Everybody wants to reduce pollution, Franco, but CO2 is NOT pollution. You talk about oil flowing about the environment, yes, that would be a pollutant, but the carbon (dioxide) tax will not be taxing oil, it will be taxing carbon dioxide.

    Franco, do you understand that you are "polluting" the atmosphere (if carbon dioxide is a pollutant)? You breathe in the trace atmospheric amount of carbon dioxide. 398 Parts per million or 0.04% of the air that you inhale is carbon dioxide. However, you Franco, exhale around 40,000 parts per million.

    If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, don't you think that your exhalations should be taxed to reduce pollution?

    ps Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is 97% from natural causes.Do you really think that a tax on carbon dioxide emissions will reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    ReplyDelete





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