Poll: 7PM Poll: Does Australia need a carbon tax?

Poll: 7PM Poll: Does Australia need a carbon tax?
As usual, this poll asks the wrong question. One of the answer is that "global warming is a con."

Well,  I KNOW that the hypothesis of man-made emissions of carbon DIOXIDE causing runaway global warming is a con, but I also acknowledge that generally it has been warming since we came out of the little Ice Age at ~1850.

So I agree that there has been global warming but I also agree that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam. So, do I therefore lie and tick "Global Warming is a con?" I certainly don't agree with any of the other statements? Or do I just skip this rather dishonest poll?

7PM Poll: Does Australia need a carbon tax? (For carbon tax - read Carbon dioxide tax.)


  1. This is a busted scam they are lying through their teeth and they know it , EU Agenda 21 is the scam even the Nasa data was faked it has been found . just look on u tube under climate gate , read the emails and the fake code ,all the real scientists who are not paid by green scammers say its crap to and so does the science , after all c02 is only a fraction of carbon .they don't call it the con of the century for nothing .IT IS.

  2. I must say that there are "real" scientists on both sides. There was a meeting early this month to try to get the (as the poster above calls them) green scammers to meet with the scientists from the "realist" side.

    Jo Nova describes it:

    "Fred Pearce from New Scientist thinks that there was a real meeting between climate skeptics and “scientists” last week in Lisbon, but therein lies the problem right from the start. The climate skeptics are the scientists, and in the end, hardly anyone else turned up. The unskeptical “scientists” who lose data, hide results, and break laws of reason, not surprisingly, ran a mile from a face to face meeting with the likes of Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Steve Mosher, Georgia Tech’s Judy Curry and Peter Webster. Gavin Schmidt is not stupid, he knows he can’t win, and that there is no middle ground. He has little to gain from attending a meeting like the one held in Lisbon Portugal last week."


  3. Scientists have difficulty distinguishing between correlation and causation and there have been many well documented examples of apparent "single cause" theories explaining a particular observation which end up being shown to be correlations arising from a different cause entirely. Most of those were about human body systems which are well understood and nowhere near as mind bogglingly huge and complex as planetary systems.

    There may well be a warming trend in the oceans and atmosphere and it appears that there is a trend increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Conventional wisdom: Global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2. Response: Cut CO2 emissions "before it is too late to save the planet." Save it from what one might ask - being warmer?

    Now, add another observation - an apparent increase in the frequency and severity of geological "events" (earthquakes, vulcanism). Try this as an alternative theory of climate change:

    There is a geological cycle which we have not yet identified or mapped but which is characterised by changes in the flow rate/depth/stability of the magma on which the tectonic plates float. As the flow rate/depth/stability of the magma changes there is a measurable change in the amount of oceanic vulcanism which in turn leads to a warming of the oceans which in turn promotes the increase of the biomass in the oceans which in turn leads to an increase in the release of CO2 from respiration. Atmospheric temperatures rise not because of the increased CO2 but alongside it. In fact it is the increasing oceanic temperatures which cause the increasing atmospheric temperatures, not the other way around.

    That theory neatly fits the observed phenomena for all the data points - warming of the oceans and atmosphere, natural disasters AND increased atmospheric CO2. Now, that alternative theory is probably a load of rubbish but the thing that concerns me is that the Global Warming Industry has, chillingly, announced that "the science is settled." Planetary systems are so complex and interlinked that by denying alternative theories of climate change, the priests of the Global Warming Industry are doing exactly what the Catholic church did in the Middle Ages when educated people started to question the conventional wisdom that the Earth was the centre of the universe and fixed in space - accepted only one possibility supporting their view of everything and conducted Ad Hominem attacks on anyone daring to raise questions beginning "but what if......".

    Scientists are supposed to continually test their theories, open their methodologies and data to all for criticism and accept that, in the words of Einstein "no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment may at any point prove me wrong." By saying that the science is now settled and branding anyone questioning the "anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 as the single cause of climate change" theory a "denier" the scientists of the Global Warming Industry put themselves firmly in the shoes of 15th century clerics - ignorant but blissfully certain of the correctness of their view.

    Let's continue the debate because it is important - we're talking about big decisions which will affect future generations and if we do silly things now in haste (almost panic it seems to me at the moment), it's those future generations who'll end up paying the price.


Post a Comment

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