by Professor Bob Carter
Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate
Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.
Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists. 
Despairing of ever hearing sense from such people, some of whom have already attributed the cause of the devastating Japanese earthquake to global warming, a writer from the well regarded American Thinker has badged them as “idiot global warming fanatics”.
Be that as it may, most of the statements below, self-evidently, were crafted as slogans, and all conform with the obnoxious and dishonest practice of political spin – in which, of course, the citizens of Australia have been awash for many years. The statements also depend heavily upon corrupt wordsmithing with propaganda intent, a technique that international Green lobbyists are both brilliant at and relentless in practising.
The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.
It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities.
1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.
The argument is not about carbon or a carbon tax, but rather about carbon dioxide emissions and a carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.
Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.
To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.
2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.
There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie. Global average temperature at the end of the 20th century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.
Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.
3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).
A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.
It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.
4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.
The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.
To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.
5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Economists know well that an increase in price of some essential things causes little reduction in usage. This is true for both energy (power) and petrol, two commodities that will be particularly hit by a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.
At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.
6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
They are not. All hope of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.
The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, chaos and deep corruption currently manifests the European exchange and some US states are withdrawing from anti-carbon dioxide schemes.
Playing “follow the leader” is not a good idea when the main leader (the EU) has a sclerotic economy characterised by lack of employment and the flight of manufacturers overseas.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
Self-delusion doesn’t come any stronger than this.
For Australia to introduce a carbon dioxide tax ahead of the large emitting nations is to render our whole economy to competitive and economic disadvantage for no gain whatsoever.
8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
The issue at hand is global warming, not the catch-all, deliberately ambiguous term climate change.
Trying to prevent hypothetical “dangerous” warming by taxing carbon dioxide emissions will be ineffectual, and is all pain for no gain.
9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
This statement is fraudulent. Implementing a carbon dioxide tax will carry large costs for workers and consumers, but bring no measurable cooling (or other change) for future climate.
For Australia, the total cost for a family of four of implanting a carbon dioxide tax will exceed $2,500/yr* – whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100.
10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
Indeed.
However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. Instead, Australia continues to face many self-evident problems of natural climate change and hazardous natural climate events. A national climate policy is clearly needed to address these issues.
The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term cooling or warming trends is the same.
It is to prepare carefully for, and efficaciously deal with and adapt to, all such events and trends whether natural or human-caused, as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide taxes serves only to reduce wealth and our capacity to address these only too real world problems.
Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.
Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Notes:
*Assuming a tax rate of $25/tonne of CO2, and Australia’s emissions being 550 million tonnes, indicates a total cost of $13.8 billion. Spread across a population of 22 million persons, that equates with $627/person/year.
This essay originally appeared in Quadrant online and was reposted here at the invitation of Dr. Carter
For more information:
Australian Climate Science Coalition
Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Any effort to stop using fossil fuels by any state or country will immediately result in an economic boon to the competitors left standing, who will rush in to bridge the gap.
The loser state or country will pay dearly in economic cost, as well as being priced out of the market, as thier currency and trade credit flounders. Result: Empty shelves and empty stomachs to match the empty heads that brought calamity down on thier charges.
It’s a dog eat dog world out there. Some things never change.
Thank you for the legitimate definitions.
I hope that some of the US politicians will wake up and recognize the facts.
Thank You for your information, Bob. As Aussies say, you’re ‘spot on’ here.
I’ve always preferred a crystal clear stream of consciousness, rather than the tsunamis of crap these Elites (here, read: Julia) have been feeding us since before my birth in 1957.
And, who knows. Perhaps we’ll get a real shot at discussing real Truth – sooner than any of us expected – it seems the not so omnipotent ‘they’s are making their moves more and more in the daylight, these days. (Did anyone notice that Rudd is making the statements about Japan – rather than our Fabian Julia? Does that even irk anyone?) Perhaps it’s a ‘dual rule’ for the moment, huh? The fact is that while Australians were fed: ‘Labor Party Eats One of Its Own’ – that Rudd was merely
promoted to his ‘favorite’ position while Julia was ushered in. Plain and simple. Gosh. What will it take for folks to WAKE UP?!?
It’s always taken men and women more concerned with Truth – rather than their gleanings from the pro-pagan-da (I like saying ‘No Duh’) machine to expose what’s really going on. It’s high time we become less concerned with our wallets and more with just where our so-called ‘global society’ is going – for if one listens to Charlie Sheen’s obnoxious ramblings for more than a ‘sound bite’ – you’ll find he knows MUCH more than you think.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe (I like ‘Thorpe’ because of the mantra ‘it takes a village’)
Kingston SE, South Australia
Praying for all humans in Japan & globally – for each of them are our brothers and sisters under God. We can bicker about just ‘who’ he is later. Now – we need unity.
Just Cindy
There are none so blind (or deaf) as those that will not see (or hear). At least in Oz you don’t yet have the carbon dioxide tax. In New Zealand the ETS is already in operation – and contributing significantly to inflation. Our pollies are as stupid and venal as yours.
We have two countries now devastated by quakes and the tsunami in Japan, thousands effected, and yet, since Gillard made her anouncement about a “carbon tax” this is all we hear in the Australian MSM. Several articles every single day touching on or devoted to “climate change”. I cringe everytime I hear “climate deniers”, “carbon pollution” (We actually do have pollution issues with carbon particulates such as PM10’s for instance from diesel engines, but that is another story completely ignored.), “carbon tax” etc etc. There was one article last week that suggested we might not be getting all the facts from Govn’t.
Well said Dr Carter.
I challange all sensible scientists reading here, to nail your flag to the mast.
Is Australia threatened by human CO2 emissions (Y/N).
Or is the Australian economy and the welfare of all Australians threatened by the proposed foolish plan to tax coal fired power stations , iron, aluminium and cement manufacture, motor vehicle, shipping and aeroplane transport out of existence (Y/N).
Has the government disclosed all its plans to tax carbon dioxide emissions? (Y/N).
Or is this the first step in a very long dangerous Green designed road, with the end result to drive us all back into the dark ages of dispair (Y/N).
Thanks Dr Bob. I now have a clear concise summary to give to all my friends who doubt what I have been trying to tell them.
Although my big worry is that Malcolm Turnbull will continue on the wrong tack… In my opinion he is the only sensible alternative Prime Minister amongst a mob of incompetents (in both major parties). All he has to do is stand up and have the courage to say that with more/better information he now sees that carbon dioxide control mechanisms are not needed. If he did this I am sure the electorate would admire him for his honesty and courage and he would cream the leadership hands down!
Hello Bob,
Although I may agree with you on all/most of your points and enjoy your posting, as a skeptic it does not do you much good to communicate with me. May I suggest taking your voice to the people of Australia. Or you can cite references, which will then lead to a better informed skeptical community (I, myself, bookmark good references on my mobile phone so that if I find myself in a debate about climate change, which happens a couple times a year, I can show them to the alarmists which promptly shuts them up). Hope the best to you.
-Adam
Cindy – here’s something to think about.
Remember how the well oiled “Right” machine gave us so many NSW Premiers, that it was impossible to remember all their names?
Remember that just before KR fell, that Kerry O’Brian gave him two blistering interviews on the Australian ABC 7.30 TV program?
Well, last week the two new presenters (forgot their names for a moment – old age) gave her Graciousness Julia a real blistering on Tuesday and Wednesday evening while she was in the USA, being treated as a heroine. Then to cap the week off on Thursday night, Clarke and Dawe gave a very funny sketch of a strange virus which they claimed had descended on Canberra (our capital city and the seat of parliament). The symptoms were frequent changes of mind and a nasty terdency to turn green.
For my money Bill Shorten is the next cab off the rank (KR is on the nose with too many politicans, despite still being in favour in the polls – something about fooling most of the people ……).
I’m sure Tony Abbott is just making a list of the sensible public servants to be kept and those doomed by their acquisence, to go.
Just a thought bubble, but watch this space.
Taxing carbon(sic), has to be one of the stupidist things to ever make print. Carbon dioxide is what they are saying, but lets be lazy and call it carbon.
Abundance of elements in the universe, (I hope wiki can get this right);
Hydrogen 705,700 ppm
Helium 275,200 ppm
Oxygen 5,920 ppm
Carbon 3,032
Nitrogen 1,105
Iron 72 ppm
Why are we carbon based life forms? Is it because its so abundant in the universe?
Do these people actualy think about the words they use?
This clarity by Bob Carter is what is needed now.
When we have ‘The governments climate adviser’ Professor Ross Garnaut, an economist say that there is “no genuine scientific dissent from the main propositions of the physics of climate change” and that debate by blogging and debate was “antithetical” to science by being ” divorced from scientific rigour quality and authority”, because all arguments seem to carry the same weight. Brilliant reasoning from the governments mouthpiece.
I am optimistic however, some of our journalists are starting to ask the correct questions (Minister, how many degrees will this carbon tax reduce our temperatures?) and the Labor government and Prime minister have sunk in the opinion ratings since the tax was mooted.
Full marks for common sense.
Nice work, Bob, clear and interesting. As Adam says, references would be good, but that’s just housekeeping. Cite it up and tart it up and take it to the world, I say. Important stuff.
w.
jasmr
The gentleman you referred to stands head and shoulders above all the others in parliament today. He has real leadership charisma, intellect – the lot.
Except for one thing.
He lacks political judgement.
He has proved that twice in parliament.
I suspect that he does not have too many friends on his side either (like poor old KR on the other).
Tony, that long distance athlete, lacks many attributes that would be on my wish list for the ideal prime minister.
He has only one small thing going for him – he’s a winner.
(You see, I praise him with faint damns).
Hi Professor Carter,
You comments as always make very clear sense. I am finding your 2010 book Climate the Counter Consensus, Stacey International, London, one of the clearest and most authoritative accounts of the subject. It opened my eyes to the fact that the warmists and not just misguided but are acutally perpetrating a massive fraud on the public. I am going to recomeend to both the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who proposes to introduce a carbon tax that will do great damage to the Australian economy and Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Oposition, who has commendably vowed to stop the tax, that they read you book. I too have been trying to get the idiots who subscribe to this fraud to pay attention to the historical and geological facts of climate.
“7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”
A little history lesson for Ms Gillard: Australians have already set an example that other countries will follow, when they sent Canberra a resounding NO regarding the Emissions Trading Scheme, and it was defeated on Dec. 1, 2009. Have a look at some of those white hot emails, and cheers to Australians showing leadership to the rest of the world yet again.
See you all at the PEOPLE’S REVOLT CARBON TAX RALLY, WEDNESDAY 23RD OF MARCH AT 12 oclock out side parlament house canberra. the greens and labour must be kicked out
As usual the alarmist case is destroyed by a common sense approach to the main points, except one.
They are desperate to breath some life into the carbon bubble, when I say “they” I mean the banksters that run this planet and the “Sir Humphreys” that control both of Australia’s main political parties on their behalf.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the actual facts are or how many times the lies and distortions are exposed the fact that our political parties are being given no other policy directions other than those that include a carbon tax is the reality, despite what the current leader of the opposition might say.
Just think once we’re paying the new taxes on everything the climate should be a s stable as the front seat of a Lexus.
Thank you for the post Bob, but i feel that u forgot an important one. “Australia is the largest per capita emitter of CO2”. I think this may have been revised back to “one of” the worst recently by some, but the dominant message is that we have the worst. I can’t link this claim at the moment but remember seeing the report that placed us about sixth per capita.
Allan
Please – needs to go further. I’ve already written to my local MP.
As for our politicians – a bunch of incompetents the lot of them – including Malcolm. I don’t think you’ll see him change his spots.
Here in Canada where some Provinces -Quebec, Ontario and BC- have gobbled up the global warming and even imposed a carbon tax scheme and scam, your 10 points would really be a great rebuttal since they use the same arguments.
Great post, Bob, and pretty much in line with your previously crystal clear articles in Quadrant and other publications. It is beyond comprehension how our government can blithely pursue this destructive tax in the face of all the evidence, that after 60 years of intense industrialisation, all the indicators are negative as to the warmist proposition – flat (or cooling) temperature for 15 years, record snowfalls in both hemispheres, negligible sea level rise, healthy polar bear population etc etc. Add to this the stench of Climategate, the failure of Copenhagen and Cancun, the back-pedalling by the USA and Japan, the pace of growth in China and India, the example of failed programmes in EU etc etc, and you would think that a prudent government, with the true interests of its’ citizens at heart would at least recognise that there is no looming catastrophe that Australia can avert and now is NOT the time to charge ahead.
“Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.
To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.”
While it is true that CO₂ is not supernatural, so therefore it must be natural, and while it is true that it is vital for plants, I am surprised that Mr Carter has not heard of the Greenhouse effect, or is not aware that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas; nor that it when CO₂ dissolves in water, the result is a weak acid called Carbonic Acid (pKa 6.352).
It is these properties that makes it a pollutant, and detrimental to many ecosystems when its concentration increases.
It’s naturalness and its vitalness notwithstanding.
“There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie.”
While Mr Carter is a geologist, and may not understand that the massive drop in biodiversity currently being observed is an emergency.
However there are few ecologists that would agree with him.
Spot on! If the Orwelian speak would stop, the hysteria would disappear.
“A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.
The point of a price on carbon is that some methods of producing energy are favoured over others. It is not a blanket cost on all energy.
Europe has had a price on carbon for many years, and China, with its managed economy is also placing itself ahead of the pack with low carbon technologies. Letting these countries get ahead is a terrible decision for Australia’s future.
Neither will there be an net effect on the consumer. Some products will become more expensive, but only because of money collected by the government – which releases the same amount from the budget for reductions in GST and/or income Tax.