Monday, 11 July 2011

Wayne Swan just doesn't understand

Wayne "Don't Quote me..." Swan
In a post Carbon (dioxide) Sunday interview with Alan Jones, Wayne Swan made some erroneous statements. One that Alan didn't pick him up on was when he called Alan a "Climate Change Sceptic."

Surely, Alan, you know that Climate has always Changed.

Swan also said that all the world's scientists agreed that carbon (dioxide) was pollution. Definitely not ALL, Mr Swan. Just as an example, try the petition project's 31,000 US scientists including 9,000 PhDs. I think that they would know more than you, Mr Swan. I know that they know more than me.

But the lie that is constantly being spread by he and his compadres is this: Australia is the biggest per capita "polluter" (read carbon dioxide emitter) in the world. Who fed that misinformation to you, Mr Swan? The scientists that you rely on?

Obviously because we are a vast wide brown land, we have greater distances to travel, greater distances to haul freight. For example, as the crow flies, Sydney to Perth is around 3288 kilometres, or by road around 4000 k's.  From e.g. Madrid to Moscow is approximately the same distance (see HERE) but you would fly over ten countries.

However the lie is greater than that! The UN Statistc Division's  latest per capita emissions table shows that Aruba, Bahrain, Brunei, Falklands, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherland Antilles, Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates  and even the good old USA have greater per capita emissions than Australia.

Over at the ABC Wayne had it a little easier. On AM in an interview with SABRA LANE:

SABRA LANE: How many households will be worse off?

WAYNE SWAN: Well, in terms of no assistance, something like 700,000 households but six million households will be covered for the entire average price impact and there are something like nine million households in Australia.
Just on Mr Swan's shaky figures, three million households, or a third of Australia, will be worse. On a useless tax on non-polluting colourless carbon dioxide.

SABRA LANE: This won't be budget neutral as you've promised. Suddenly now it is going to cost $4 billion.
What? A tax brings in revenue to government! How can a tax cost money?

Herald-Sun's Malcolm Farr:
THE carbon pricing package will cost just over $4 billion and today the Government was forced to insist the fight against pollution would not wreck its Budget ambitions.
Treasurer Wayne Swan today confirmed there would be a net cost of $4.3 billion to the Budget over four years, but said the bulk of this, $2.9 billion, was in the first year.
Does this $4.3 bn include the money that Greg Combet has committed to the UN climate fund? Does it include the big bureaucracy that is going to administer the complex ins and outs of the yet to be created legislation?

Richard Lindzen reveals the reason for the carbon tax.

Andrew Bolt interviews Professor Richard Lindzen regarding the Gillard Green Government's tax on colourless carbon dioxide.

"Governments want taxes and they know people don't like paying them and I think if they can possibly confuse people into thinking they are doing it to save the Earth, they'll do it more willingly."

Andrew writes A Fraud on the Australian People.
Yesterday Professor Richard Lindzen, arguably the world’s finest climate scientist and dubbed “credible” even by professional alarmist Tim Flannery, scoffed at Gillard’s tax.
“There’s no disagreement in the scientific community that this will have no impact on climate,” said Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“It would be nothing for practical purposes and it would be nothing if the whole world did the same.”
Of course, the rest of the world is not doing the same. Not a single other nation has a national carbon dioxide tax, so either we’re smarter than every other country ... or Gillard is dumber than every other leader. You choose.
Oh, and Prof Lindzen also added that since 1995 there had been no global warming that could be distinguished from natural variability. The theory man’s gases are heating the world dangerously is falling to bits.
The idea a whole economy is being deliberately slowed down for an utterly useless gesture seems so unimaginable, a folly perhaps, explains why few analysts even dare to ask if this tax will do a single thing for the planet.

John Fialka in the New York Times a week ago wrote:

A Climate Change Dissenter Who Has Left His Mark on U.S. Policy

BOSTON -- Richard Lindzen is 71. His career as professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology is winding down. The rumpled, bearded, soft-spoken scientist no longer teaches regular classes and looks forward to a quiet retirement a year from now, perhaps at his second home, in Paris. 

"Quiet" is not a word you could apply to his career. In the 1970s, he developed a mathematical analysis that disproved much of the accepted scientific theories about how "tides" in the Earth's atmosphere move heat around the planet. For that, he won a number of prestigious awards and was invited to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences at the tender age of 37.

Fialka goes on to say that, although Dick Lindzen lost the battle against the climate modellers, he  has not given up. He helped the Bush Government's rejection of Kyoto. (He was a signatory to the Global Warming Petition Project.)

"I don't judge my work on its political influence," Lindzen shrugged in an interview. "As a scientist, I don't regard these people [politicians] as the judges of my work." He pays much more attention to the behavior of his fellow scientists, who have decidedly mixed views about his.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, led the push at the White House for the Bush administration to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He still seems scarred by his encounters with Lindzen. He recalls in his latest book, "Storms of My Grandchildren," that Lindzen "is soft spoken, but has an authoritative air; he never loses his cool and is always in complete control."
"I expect him to keep asserting that human-made climate change is unimportant on his deathbed," grumbled Hansen. He wrote that after clashing with Lindzen, he tried to improve his communications skills by reading English novels out loud to his wife. "It improved my vocabulary, but not my tact."