Global warming down under: 10 little facts

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
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Institute of Public Affairs
Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
joannenova.com.au

About these ads
This entry was posted in Opinion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to Global warming down under: 10 little facts

  1. rbateman says:

    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.

  2. paulc says:

    Thank you for the legitimate definitions.

    I hope that some of the US politicians will wake up and recognize the facts.

  3. Cynthia Lauren Thorpe says:

    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

  4. Jackbill says:

    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.

  5. Patrick Davis says:

    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.

  6. AusieDan says:

    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).

  7. jasmr says:

    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!

  8. Adam says:

    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

  9. AusieDan says:

    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.

  10. Greg Cavanagh says:

    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?

  11. Keith Minto says:

    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.

  12. Willis Eschenbach says:

    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.

  13. AusieDan says:

    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).

  14. Dr John Penhallurick says:

    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.

  15. Zeke the Sneak says:

    “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.

  16. tango says:

    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

  17. Paul R says:

    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.

  18. Allan says:

    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

  19. Harry the Hacker says:

    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.

  20. TomRude says:

    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.

  21. Peter O'Brien says:

    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.

  22. Wombat says:

    “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.

  23. Wombat says:

    “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.

  24. Edim says:

    Spot on! If the Orwelian speak would stop, the hysteria would disappear.

  25. Wombat says:

    “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.

  26. Wombat says:

    “The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.”

    It is at the moment. (And the greatest cost so far this year is extreme weather events and forest fires).

    But the world must move to a low carbon economy, and Australia should be positioning itself in the emerging industries, not in dying ones.

    Furthermore, Australia has suffered economically from flooding, drought, forest fires, and coral bleaching. As the greatest per capita producer of CO2 (Largely due to this competitive advantage that Mr Carter discusses) outside oil export based economies, there is a greater onus on Australia to reduce emissions than any other first world nation.

  27. Wombat says:

    “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.”

    Mr Carter fails to Notice that the GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990. That CO2 emissions have only increased 15% strongly suggests that the carbon tax is both effective and no great burden to economic growth.

  28. Christopher Hanley says:

    “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Orwell.

    I was born during WWII so grew up during the Cold War and can vividly remember reports of the 1953 East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and of course the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968 but it’s only now that I’ve a hint of what it must have been like living under those ‘peoples’ democratic republics’, being fed a constant diet of lies and exaggerations.

    Take this quote from the editorial in Melbourne’s largest selling daily: “….
    “…..What these events [Japan earthquake & tsunami] prove is that climate change is real…”
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/nature-sends-a-grim-warning/story-e6frfhqo-1226020086330

    ……that is probably at the extreme end of the stupidity scale but as others have said, there is a constant barrage in the media of references to ‘climate change’, ‘carbon pollution’ and similar nonsense, enough to send an old bloke’s blood pressure to dangerous levels.

  29. King of Cool says:

    Thank you Professor Bob for re-iterating those key points.

    I also agree with Adam’s sentiments above. These points would be better served by being bandied around on the ‘ABC Drum’ rather than WUWT where most people would agree with you.

    I note you are a contributor on the ‘ABC Drum’ but have only had one article published in 2009. Those on the other side of the argument need to be constantly reminded that there is an alternative voice that can present a case on global warming. Or is your miniscule material there because you have no choice in this matter?

    One other thing that our American friends should be aware of is that our Prime Minister may have had a standing ovation from the US Congress but she is getting the big thumbs down at home.

    Her approval rating has slumped to its lowest level since she deposed of her predecessor Mr Rudd and on a two party preferred basis, the Opposition has leapt to a 54-46% lead. All polls show that the public is against a carbon tax and this issue has had a major influence on the approval rating. This is accentuated by the fact that she emphatically stated just prior to the election that would be no carbon tax.

    Readers should also be aware that as an ex-industrial lawyer, she is a cunning and wily debate and an excellent public speaker as well as being quick off the mark with the media. She is now stuck with the carbon tax and will fight to the death to change the public’s mind.

  30. John Wright says:

    I have long considered that Bob Carter is the best spokesperson we have for the sceptic position on global warming.

    In this essay, I think the response to Statement 8 is the key point we should never lose sight of.
    On the other hand, the response to statement 5 as it stands: “Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions”, contains a non sequitur that will be seized upon by those of bad faith. The problem is just one word : “result” – Unless of course Bob can clearly and briefly demonstrate the cause and effect, it might be more judicious and accurate to say something like, “such has not prevented a 15% INCREASE (…)”.

    Regards, John W.

    REPLY:Fixed italics per comments below. Please learn how to use italics properly with HTML coding. Mistakes unfortunately affect the entire thread. – Anthony

  31. Paul Deacon says:

    Well done, Bob, and keep it up. You have plenty of supporters.

  32. Fitzy says:

    Pop over to NZ Bob and rip our lame duck govt a new one, we have an ETS, a moribund political landscape, and a strange desire to out do the misery of the 13th Century by returning to the technology and politics of the12th.
    Many thanks Bob.

  33. Mariss says:

    “7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”

    There is no nice way to put this: Australia is economically a small country with little to no impact on the rest of the world. No one will follow your example because no one will notice it.

  34. Kev-in-Uk says:

    As I spent 3 weeks visiting a cousin in Oz in the late 90’s just as the greens were getting going. Anyway, I do have a soft spot for the Aussies – and they are a great bunch of folk.
    What I don’t understand is how come in sporting matches, (to use as an analogy) – the Aussies do tend to be able to pull themselves out of a hole with amazing regularity and determination. This seems to come from some deep seated self belief and it is high time the general public in Oz did the same thing and took out these fanatical alarmists for good.
    all I can say is I hope they come to their senses, and sharpish!

  35. Steve says:

    Interesting about Norway’s carbon tax, which is relatively high. Strangely enough since its implementation in 1991 its had 70% economic growth and is by all accounts still a very wealthy nation. The point being, given the case of Norway and other European countries that have carbon taxes, doesn’t it seem a little alarmist to imply, perhaps, that such a tax will crash economies?

  36. Roger Knights says:

    Wombat says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Mr Carter fails to Notice that the GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990. That CO2 emissions have only increased 15% strongly suggests that the carbon tax is both effective and no great burden to economic growth.

    So long as the growth comes from increased oil revenues!

  37. Nick says:

    I don’t know how you might go about replacing Gas or Coal or if it’s even possible without a huge burden on the economy/s, but Oil? Your kidding?…

    In a barrell of oil you get constituents parts. Some is for Kero (jet fuel) some for diesel some for gasolene and some for polymeres.

    Not all berrells are created equal. Some barrels are better suited to a higher proportion of Diesel and some Gasolene etc etc.

    If we manage to replace Diesel (Bio Diesel) or Gasolene (Electric) where are the oil company’s going to get the revenue to replace what they’ve just lost from the barrell?

    Where are they going to get funds for exploration from?
    Where are research and developments funds going to come from?

    So while we pay a premium for the Green and Clean Bio Diesel and Electric car. We cop in the neck big time from oil company’s trying to retain their viability.

    So we have a tax on the Co2 component of a barrell of oil, The price of a barrell goes up because it now costs a truckload more to produce because your throwing away a portion that you used to get revenue from.

    So while we have replaced Diesel and Gasolene we have distorted the economics of a barrell of oil.

    We have also introduced additional costs to the other fuels and products produced from that barrell. A Co2 charge.

    We haven’t even examined Coal and Gas yet.

    If this is not madness beyond measure I don’t what is.

  38. Christopher Hanley says:

    “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Orwell.

    I was born during WWII so grew up during the Cold War and can vividly remember reports of the 1953 East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and of course the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968 but it’s only now that I’ve a hint of what it must have been like living under those ‘peoples’ democratic republics’, being fed a constant diet of lies and exaggerations.

    Take this quote from the editorial in Melbourne’s largest selling daily: ….
    “…..What these events [Japan earthquake & tsunami] prove is that climate change is real…”
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/nature-sends-a-grim-warning/story-e6frfhqo-1226020086330

    ……that is probably at the extreme end of the stupidity scale but as others have said, there is a constant barrage in the media of references to ‘climate change’, ‘carbon pollution’ and similar nonsense, enough to send an old bloke’s blood pressure to dangerous levels.

  39. Old Macdonald says:

    Prop Carter,

    I would add a number 11 as cited in ‘Hansard’ amongst many other places:

    11. That a ‘Carbon Tax’ will create business investment, Jobs, productivity, and prosperity.

    If a ‘Tax’ can do these things well………hell why don’t we just have one giant flat rate 100% ‘Australia Tax’ that would enable massive business investment, massive Job creation, massive productivity, and massive prosperity for all. This may entail the rewriting of all the theories of economics but hell, this is Australia and our politician’s are masterminds, just give them all your money and property and you will be in Utopia. No more worries !!!

  40. el gordo says:

    Wombat said: ‘The point of a price on carbon is that some methods of producing energy are favored over others. It is not a blanket cost on all energy.’

    You don’t live in Australia, a proxy tax has already been dumped on us and then Julia shoots herself in the foot by promising even greater hikes.

    Give up the green pill, it’s going out of fashion.

  41. Kaboom says:

    God, I hate responding to trolls.

    Please let me refrain from properly chastising “Allan”……

  42. Patrick Davis says:

    “Christopher Hanley says:
    March 14, 2011 at 12:56 am

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/nature-sends-a-grim-warning/story-e6frfhqo-122602008633o

    From the article…

    “The biggest earthquake recorded in Japan, perhaps the greatest in Japanese history, sent a tsunami sweeping through cities in the country’s north.”

    Even the person(s) responsible for monitoring quakes stated that the quake was the biggest since modern measuring methods were installed. So, yet again, more scare monerging from the Australian MSM.

  43. Det says:

    If this tax is leveled, the extra revenue should be used for the environment accordingly!
    This should not contribute for pay rises of the politicians or disappear otherwise untraceable!
    There should be public projects of supporting the environment like building ponds, create forests or re-naturalizing rivers.

    Otherwise it is as usually another rip-off and reaching into the wallet of the everyday person in the end.
    This does not only apply to Australia, but also the UK and the US…

  44. Perry says:

    You stupid, witless, cretin Wombat,

    The GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990, because of all the natural gas they export. After World War II, Norway experienced rapid economic growth, with the first two decades due to the Norwegian shipping and merchant marine and domestic industrialization, and from the early 1970s, a result of exploiting large oil and natural gas deposits that had been discovered in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea.

    Why you trolls bother is beyond all understanding. It’s a wonder you can even read & write. Do you like sex and travel?

  45. Some time ago I posted that the greenhouse gas was water vapor 93% with methane 3% and CO2 bringing up the rear. The reason CO2 is irrelevant is because the absorption spectra for infra red are fully occupied. I was a little puzzled that there was no one disputing this and when I noted this the only comment was ” you are preaching to the choir”. It is high time some courageous journalist asked Julia Gillard or Bob Brown to describe how a green house works , what are the greenhouse gases and why does CO2 change 6-800 years after the temperature changes on the Vostok ice cores. For the concerned young give up Earth Hour- they can’t turn the power house off but start by boycotting soft drinks and beer and releasing all that pollutant gas. I worry that the good Dr Bob may be preaching to the choir and wonder how we can have so many politicians in Canberra without one honest scientist among them. Maybe their Naplan should include a test of physics and chemistry as well as the three Rs. Geoff Broadbent

  46. Nick says:

    For all those that don’t understand the Australian venacular. A wombat is used when describing a dimm witted action or silly train of thought that will result in self harm or harm of others.

    Common usage. “AAAhhh, ya stupid wombat”.

    If you’ve been paying attention to your Australian documentaries, Crocodile Dundee, ;-). You’d notice the usage.

    Wombat by name, Wombat by nature

  47. Cirrius Man says:

    Interestingly………….

    If you visit the world’s poorer countries which are home to 3/4 of the entire earth’s population, virtually no one talkes about climate change. Wondering where your next meal is coming from is far more important. Our survival instinct takes over !

    So, when the carbon tax does come and subsequently sends us back to povery it will completely destroy all support for the Green and Socialist movement as as we regress back towards our former colonial ‘Right Wing’ selves.

    On the other hand, maintaing a high wealth and carbon full lifestyle makes many of us forget about the perennial struggle of survival and focus on saving whales, dophins, starving people in Africa, this list is endless, ..etc. This green and socialist view is fuelled by our moral compass bending to try and justify our rich and pleasant livestyle.

    So, If the Greens are serious about maintaining their supporters, converting the non-believers and living in a pure green society where we all worship the new Gaia …….

    We need CO2, and lots of it !!!

  48. John Smith says:

    Hey Wombat

    You are a Wombat… nothing more to be said…

  49. Old Macdonald says:

    Det says @ 2:12 am,

    “There should be public projects of supporting the environment like building ponds, create forests or re-naturalizing rivers.”

    “Building ponds” means man made, “create forests” means man made, however, “re-naturalizing rivers” means destroying man made dams, weirs or ponds.

    With logic like that it is little wonder that the world is in for some worrisome times. Please Det, if you have another thought keep it to yourself.

  50. Professor Carter’s article is clear and well argued rebuttal of the government nonsense being pedalled in Australia at present. The option of doing nothing at all glares out like a beacon of common sense.,
    His book “Climate the Counter Consensus” should be compulsory reading in schools instead of the current Green Garbage being force fed to our minors. The Warmists are not just misguided but are acutally organizing a massive fraud on us all for their own gain and moral satisfaction. Ignorance of the historical and geological facts of climate are very widespread and need emergency aid..

  51. Jimbo says:

    I just posted this on another thread but is also seems appropriate here.
    ———————-

    Let’s look at C02 ‘reductions’ since Kyoto Protocol according to the Guardian:

    Guardian – 11 March 2011
    “Worldwide, emissions soared by nearly 40% from 1990 to 2009, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/kyoto-protocol
    http://www.pbl.nl/en

    This scam is not about reducing c02 it is about greens getting all they ever wanted using one magic bullet. The Romans survived the Roman Warm Period without alleged ‘climate emergency’ and in fact they thrived. This was the time that:

    “Polynesians migrated across the Pacific from island to island, with the last outpost of Easter Island being settled around A.D. 400…”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18780/

    So much for ‘sinking’ coral island atolls.

  52. Peter Stroud says:

    Thank you Professor Carter. I have tried in vain to persuade our Energy and Climate Secretary, Chris Huhne, via my MP, to take note of your expert opinion. Also the opinions of other scientifically qualified realists. All to no avail. In fact I wonder if he is now commenting under the name Wombat!

  53. sHx says:

    I admire Bob Carter for planting a few seeds of doubt in my mind and help me turn from a mild believer of CAGW to a climate agnostic. That was on ABC radio’s Counterpoint program with Micheal Duffy way back in 2005.

    I admire Bob Carter as a scientist, though, not as yet another scientist-cum-politician, like James Hansen. So, I’m not happy seeing him acting like a Liberal Party stooge opposing the Carbon Tax.

    Imposition of taxation is essentially a political matter not scientific. Governments can tax thin air, if they so wished, because governments are first and foremost concerned with managing political interests, not scientific ones.

    It is not pretty seeing Bob Carter turn into another politician like so many other CAGW scientists.

  54. Nick says:

    Cirius Man

    A must read/listen when talking about the Greens, their ideology and the effect they will have on the poor.

    Former ALP Senator John Black suggests that green voters don’t conform to the popular stereotype. His research company has studied the demographic data and he offers a radical reappraisal of their attitudes and voting preferences. The richest voters in Australia he says are not Liberals but Greens.”

    This interview was first broadcast on Monday 21st June 2010 before Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister

    “the Greens are a party of the inner city, of the professionals, of the higher incomes, and that’s all a function of basically no kids.”

    Transcript and Audio of interview

  55. Stuart MacDonald says:

    Professor Bob Carter says:

    Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.

    No it’s not! I’m used to seeing this long ago discredited meme from idiots who perhaps don’t know that the very short timescales where this is sometimes, but not currently, true cannot be used to evaluate climate trends, I’m disappointed to see an academic fall into the same trap.

  56. Beth Cooper says:

    Tonight, (15th March,) Prime Minister Gillard expounded many of the above fallacies on the ABC to a far from compliant audience. She stated her intention of getting across to audiences through talkback radio the ‘fact’ that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

  57. Dixon says:

    Hey Bob – thought of running for PM? You’d get my vote!

  58. DaveS says:

    Steve says:
    March 14, 2011 at 12:41 am
    “Interesting about Norway’s carbon tax, which is relatively high. Strangely enough since its implementation in 1991 its had 70% economic growth and is by all accounts still a very wealthy nation. The point being, given the case of Norway and other European countries that have carbon taxes, doesn’t it seem a little alarmist to imply, perhaps, that such a tax will crash economies?”

    Norway is hardly a typical case. Where has a big chunk of that economic growth come from? Natural gas. Topography and geology have been very kind to the Norwegians – they can get a lot of their own electricity needs from sensible renewables (hydro – not much impact of carbon tax on that) while growing rich on the proceeds of selling fossil fuels (or however you wish to categorise natural gas) that lie under the North Sea. Lucky them!

  59. Roger Knights says:

    Wombat says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    “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 prophesied is an emergency.

    However there are few ecologists that would agree with him.

    So what? They’re worse alarmists than climatologists. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/

    Wombat says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    China, with its managed economy is also placing itself ahead of the pack with low carbon technologies.

    It has a large windfarm planned, but its “lead” is mostly talk–or a misunderstanding. Where it’s ahead is in its manufacturing of solar panels and windmills, because of its low labor costs (and unenforced environmental laws).

  60. Mike says:

    Bob Carter wrote: “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”.”

    Now, if I were to call you folks “idiot global warming deniers” I’d get snipped. So, why are you publishing Carter’s rant?

  61. john gardner says:

    ms gillard was asked in parliament last week if the government (under Rudd?) had done a deal to give 10% of the carbon tax to the UN. She fudged the answer by saying the proceeds would be used for ‘compensating low income earners … and climate projects’ (or something similarly vague). A new tax is bad enough, but I would be really p!$$ed off tofind out that the government has done such a squirrelly deal and covered it up. What else are these mongrels hiding?
    Johnfrombrisbane

  62. Peter Hartley says:

    An otherwise generally useful comment is unfortunately marred by one exaggerated claim, namely:

    “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.”

    It is true that the elasticity of household demand for energy and petrol is low, so a higher cost of these will cause cause little reduction in household demand. That said, the longer run elasticity is higher as households change their purchases of capital equipment toward more energy efficient types.

    All of this is largely beside the point, however, since the main adjustment would not come from households. Indeed, the point Bob makes elsewhere in the essay that such a tax would devastate key Australian industries implies that the tax would reduce Australian emissions of CO2. Since these industries would simply move to other jurisdictions, world emissions will not be much affected, but Australian emissions would fall. That is not a good thing, however, but a consequence of Australia voluntarily reducing its natural advantage in energy-intensive activities, and thus uts standard of living, as Bob elsewhere notes.

    Finally, the comment about Norway ignores the fact that not all else was kept constant as the price was changed. It is not a clean experiment. More than likely the tax did reduce emissions below what they otherwise would have been, but a more sophisticated analysis than a simple correlation between energy price change and emissions would be needed to correctly assess the matter.

    The more general point I would make here is that we should be careful not to overstate our case — just as we accuse the AGW crowd of overstating theirs. There are enough valid, non-controversial arguments against this policy that we do not need to overstate the case.

  63. Tim Clark says:

    I don’t know how this happens, but it appears that;

    John Wright says:
    March 13, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    left his his off and it continues.

  64. Tim Clark says:

    MODS;

    Now that action surprises me. I guess I need to state it in writing.

    John Wright says:
    March 13, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    John apparently left his HTML italic closing tag off.

  65. truth says:

    Patrick Davis:
    This seems to be the new strategy they think will scare everyone into begging for an ETS.
    I’m increasingly seeing AGW proponents recommending the linking of all these severe weather events to CO2-induced global warming as a useful tactic, since we’re all proving to be difficult to herd in the direction of carbon trading.
    On Real Climate, there’s an admonishment of the moderators by one blogger for allowing such a suggestion by another blogger, on the grounds that it would damage the cause.
    Real Climate did post the comment though—which goes as follows—-
    “A whole bunch of big storms, floods, droughts and fires are things that can invoke the fear necessary to get action on GW.”
    I’ve seen similar comments elsewhere, so I think we can expect to see a lot more of this , mad though it is, as a tactic of desperation.
    It does appear to work in changing some minds though, judging from some blog comments—and a relentless barrage of it will be hard to counter.

  66. John Wright says:

    Sorry, forgot to close my HTML markup (or whatever you call it) and it seems to have caused all comments to be in em – . Have I managed to stop it now?

  67. hide the decline says:

    shx @ 4:03 am:

    You need a dose of reality amigo.

    The Carbon Tax which indeed is political, however, is base on the scientific premise of limiting ‘Anthropogenic ‘advances in the Global temperature record. It was the so-called climate scientists themselves that prepared and licensed the politics of climate science (viz) the IPCC.

    At the Australian political level the so-called climate scientists have welded themselves in politics, with for example, Professor Will Steffen “was the inaugural director of the Australian National University (ANU) Fenner School of Environment and Society. From 2004 he has served as science adviser to the Department of Climate Change, Australian Government.” and is currently serving as “an expert on the federal government’s multi-party committee which is investigating ways to price carbon.”

    Once the climate scientists crossed this science/political line it is not unreasonable to expect, and some may demand that scientists like Professor Carter should be given equal time to speak out on the political weather/climate policies that are clearly lacking in scientific and commonsense symmetry.

  68. amicus curiae says:

    WOMBAT: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.====
    ah you sound like a pollie! thats doublespeak.

    we have a 50% Petrol Tax too and how much of that actually goes to roads as its meant to?
    Wombat get down your hole and stay there!

    as for Bobs concise article the msm and govvy biased broadcasters wont play his interviews, wont print his articles and keep the denier verbiage to the fore,
    they have to cos he speaks the truth and thats a non no.
    I see Nick Minchin who is retiring spoke out in no uncertain terms that the world isnt at risk of carbon, and in fact its been cooling.
    tony abbott then, with a idiot yes man, refuted it and said they did agree man had caused climate affects.,
    damn fool! if he had the balls to stand up and say what Minchin did his cred would soar!
    I am now less likely to support his mob, Barnaby is the saving grace there, but may not be able to stop tonys foot in mouth problems.

  69. truth says:

    Wombat:
    Norway has huge export income from its oil, hydro and natural gas reserves.
    It doesn’t have the problem with distance from markets that is an Achilles heel for us in Australia—- it has huge markets for its energy right on its doorstep.
    If the warmists kill coal and oil stone dead, Norway still has hydro, and they’re planning to build thorium reactors.
    Germany imports huge amounts of gas from Norway—has done for more than thirty years—and Denmark gets hydro power from Norway—so it has no problem with export income.
    Are you too trying to surreptitiously link the severe weather and forest fires to CO2, Wombat??
    It’s strange the way warmists who so often lectured us that weather was not climate, are suddenly, in their desperation , linking every bit of weather they see to CO2.
    Which are the renewable energy sources that are ready to power the emerging industries , when an ETS kills off our coal industry?
    We already can’t compete with Asian countries in manufacturing, because of our labour costs—so what will replace manufacturing when an ETS increases costs every year as is intended?

  70. Vince Causey says:

    Wombat,

    “I am surprised that Mr [Professor] Carter has not heard of the Greenhouse effect, or is not aware that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas;”

    I am sure Professor Carter has heard of the greenhouse effect, and it was very amiss of him not to mention it. Still, as the main point of his article was about spin and spinmeisters, I am sure Mr. Carter could have turned to Mr Wombat and say, ‘Here is what I’m talking about.’

    Did you happen to forget to mention that by basic physics, the temperature sensitivity to doubling CO2 levels is only about 1.2c? That in order to get to catastrophic warming and ‘tipping’ points, models have to assume large positive feedbacks? Professor Carter is quite correct when he writes “However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming.”

  71. Vince Causey says:

    Wombat,

    “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.”

    If you mean that when the price of fossil fuels are forced to become very expensive, then wind and solar will become a less expensive option, then you are correct. If you mean that that this will somehow increase productivity and create wealth, then you are completely wrong.

  72. hide the decline says:

    Mike @ 5:49 am:

    You say – “Bob Carter wrote: “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”.
    “Now, if I were to call you folks “idiot global warming deniers” I’d get snipped. So, why are you publishing Carter’s rant?”

    Now tell us again exactly what Bob Carter said and then tell us exactly what “a writer from the well regarded American Thinker” said.

    On the other hand don’t bother because I can see that the hat fits pretty well on you.

  73. Vince Causey says:

    Wombat,

    “But the world must move to a low carbon economy, and Australia should be positioning itself in the emerging industries, not in dying ones.”

    Why, other than that it is the ideology of the green industry? And what are these emerging industries that you are referring to? Surely not the industries of the medieval age (wind)? If you thing that China is gearing their economy to medieval technology, then explain why they are building one coal fired power station each week? Their only interest is in building and exporting these archaic and useless technologies to the gullible West.

  74. Annei says:

    Wombat says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    “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).”

    Dear Wombat…you seem to be talking about Carbon MONOxide, which is poisonous to us; or did your little square symbol stand in for a 2? Carbon Dioxide is not poisonous to us in the amounts found in the atmosphere, and it is, in fact, essential to our survival. Check your school lessons about photosynthesis.

    As Australia has had a much cooler and wetter Summer than for years; I’m not inclined to worry overmuch about warming. Our little place Down Under is wondrously green for this time of the year! It’s usually baked brown in February.

  75. t stone says:

    The dissonance in the warmists arguments never ceases to amaze me. A glaring example of this can be seen in points 6 and 7:

    “6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
    7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”

    So Australia is supposed to follow the rest of the world, but they have to lead as well. When your arguments are based on a faulty premise, rationalization and circular logic are your only rhetorical weapons.

    Contradictions do not exist. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

  76. Ed Scott says:

    The bottom line in the scare tactics of global warming, climate change, climate chaos, etc, is not related to science, per se, it is the corrupt use of science imposed on a gullible public to further political purpose: taxes, the never ending blood of social engineering politics levied on life itself.

    The saying that the government taxes everything but the air we breathe, may soon be restated as the government taxes everything.

    We the People continue to believe that the government is the servant of We the People.

    An academic from Australia suggests the ultimate tax:

    Tax Parents for Children’s Carbon Emissions
    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2007/12/10/tax-parents-for-childrens-carbon-emissions/
    CNSnews | Patrick Goodenough | Dec. 10, 2007

    Having babies is bad for the planet, and parents of more than two children should be charged a birth levy and annual tax to offset the “greenhouse gases” their child will be responsible for over his or her lifetime. At the same time, those who use and prescribe contraceptives and sterilization procedures should earn tax relief for such greenhouse friendly services” that help to keep the population size down.

  77. Willy Roberts says:

    Never trust a d-bag with a bad comb-over. Way to point fingers and not offer any real solution…

  78. Stuart MacDonald says:

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:22 am

    The dissonance in the warmists arguments never ceases to amaze me. A glaring example of this can be seen in points 6 and 7:

    “6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
    7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”

    So Australia is supposed to follow the rest of the world, but they have to lead as well. When your arguments are based on a faulty premise, rationalization and circular logic are your only rhetorical weapons.

    Contradictions do not exist. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    Sorry, but it is your thinking that is faulty (hardly a surprise, how else would you arrive at anti-science beliefs), it is perfectly possible to take a lead even if you are playing catch up; see Apple and the iPhone. They came from nowhere to lead, first in innovation and latterly as a market leader.

  79. Taphonomic says:

    Maybe you just need to loop this video over and over of a world leader being honest (for a change) about the effects of cap and trade on electricity rates.

  80. Snotrocket says:

    @Wombat:

    “Mr (sic) Carter fails to Notice that the GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990. That CO2 emissions have only increased 15% strongly suggests that the carbon tax is both effective and no great burden to economic growth.”

    First of all, a little courtesy, even from a warmist, would not go amiss. I think you will find that becoming a Professor requires quite a lot more skill, energy and dedication than you applied to your idiot comment.

    Secondly, have you ever been to Norway? Do you know what the cost of living is like there? The price of simple things that Aussies understand, the price of a beer?

    I think you will find that Professor Carter was arguing that the price of goods would increase with a ‘carbon’ tax. From my experience there, I figure he’s right.

  81. Vince Causey says:

    Stuart MacDonald,

    “Sorry, but it is your thinking that is faulty (hardly a surprise, how else would you arrive at anti-science beliefs), it is perfectly possible to take a lead even if you are playing catch up; see Apple and the iPhone. They came from nowhere to lead, first in innovation and latterly as a market leader.”

    Let me see if I understand you. Apple, who manufactures products that the world needs, for which there is consumer demand, and which enables society to function at a higher level of efficiency, is the same as Australia’s ETS – an uneconomical, attempt to replace cheap reliable fossil fuels that everyone wants, with an expensive renewable energy that nobody wants and that will increase the costs to society. Have I got that about right?

  82. Spen says:

    Australia is major coal exporter. Surely to avoid being hypocritical the Aussie government should close down their coal industry for the benefit of mankind. (or perhaps they will just live with the hypocrisy?).

  83. Richard G says:

    Wombat says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    {“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.}
    ______________________________
    I would point out that biodiversity is highest at low latitudes (warmer climate) and lowest at high latitudes (colder climate). A warming world should increase diversity. Diversity loss due to habitat destruction is in no way linked to atmospheric CO2 or temperature change. Try blaming deforestation, pollution, over harvest, overgrazing. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a nutrient.

  84. Stuart MacDonald says:

    Vince Causey says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Let me see if I understand you.

    Yes, let’s.

    Vince Causey says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Apple, who manufactures products that the world needs, for which there is consumer demand, and which enables society to function at a higher level of efficiency, is the same as Australia’s ETS – an uneconomical, attempt to replace cheap reliable fossil fuels that everyone wants, with an expensive renewable energy that nobody wants and that will increase the costs to society. Have I got that about right?

    No, no, you haven’t. You have completely failed to grasp my very simple point, that aiming to lead in a field from the chasing pack is not contradictory, unheard of, or impossible, and instead created a spurious straw man fallacy composed of unsupported assertions about the efficacy of technologies in two specific fields.

  85. t stone says:

    Stuart MacDonald says:
    March 14, 2011 at 8:27 am

    “Sorry, but it is your thinking that is faulty (hardly a surprise, how else would you arrive at anti-science beliefs), it is perfectly possible to take a lead even if you are playing catch up; see Apple and the iPhone. They came from nowhere to lead, first in innovation and latterly as a market leader.”

    Smarmy and cute, but hardly an argument. I’m not sure what I said to make you think I have “anti-science beliefs,” unless you refer to everyone who is skeptical that way, but I don’t know, nor do I pretend to. My argument is this: you either lead or you follow, you can’t lead the same people you are following. You are either leading the lemmings over the cliff, or you are following them to the same demise. The reason Apple is so successful is because they refuse to follow. Consequently, the rest of the world is playing catch-up to them. Their success and leadership is undeniable, but you don’t mention anyone they’ve ever followed.

    It is this “relativism” that warmists use to muddy the waters and fog the air, making any answer correct. That is the ideology and rationalization that makes it OK to say that the good old-fashioned hard winter we had here in the U.S. is caused by global warming. Up is down, black is white, science is consensus, etc., etc., blah blah blah. Any assertion is correct in this fantasy world, so your ad-hominem remarks might be believable, but it doesn’t make them correct. I try to restrict my arguments to ideas, and I don’t really like the terms “warmist” and “skeptic”, but, as they say, “when in Rome…”

  86. eadler says:

    Professor Carter is guilty of making foolish statements even as he condemns what he considers nonsense. Clearly he is avoiding the real underlying issues in favor of empty rhetorical points.

    Professor Carter says:
    To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.

    I agree that is CO2 not normally considered a pollutant. However, the addition large quantities of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will over time modify the environment in a deleterious fashion, even though people don’t get sick directly from CO2. There is no single word for this kind of substance, so pollution is used as the closest one which describes what is happening.
    The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the Environmental Protection Administration of the US can institute controls over CO2. Here is how this is justified.
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

    Professor Carter Says:
    Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.

    This does not prove that there is no need to limit CO2 emissions as soon as possible. Cyclical factors such as ENSO cause a warming and cooling cycle that is larger in amplitude than the steady warming that occurs as a result of the GHG driven radiational imbalance. The fact that climate change is not a rapid process doesn’t mean we don’t need to stop the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

    Professor Carter says:
    It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.
    This is true. Nobody argues that the increase in GHG’s is going to be paid for only by stockholders of companies that do the work. However in an industrialized societies, it is only the creation of financial incentives for the corporations that run our economy, that will create changes in technology which will reduce GHG emissions. Those companies that do the best job at this will survive and the public will benefit. This should spur private companies to do some of the research that will combat climate change. The costs will be borne by consumers and life styles will be modified. Everyone knows this. We don’t need the great “wisdom” of Professor Carter to point this out.
    Professor Carter says:
    At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.
    There is no way to know for sure what will happen and projections vary, but Professor Carter’s statment is obviously wrong. The laws of economics say that a reduction in emissions will occur.

    http://home.uchicago.edu/~kortum/papers/AERpp_final.pdf
    Various estimates put the reduction at carbon price of $20/ton in the range of 5 to 15% and at $50 /ton at 8 to 22%.

  87. Snotrocket says:

    I am watching, in awestruck disbelief, like millions of people round the world, the pictures coming in from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. This human mind just cannot take in the cataclysmic destruction that has befallen so many entire communities in that benighted country and which is being broadcast to us in HD and full colour.

    And then I read, through a link on WUWT, an editorial from the Melbourne Herald/Sun:

    “Like New Zealand, Japan is earthquake-prone, sitting on shifting tectonic plates.

    What these events prove is that climate change is real. Stark memories of the earthquake and the tsunami that took 200,000 lives in Asia remain.

    And then, and THEN, I read the excresencies that pass for comment from the likes of Wombat and his ‘ecologist’ friends. These people make me sick! They talk about a ficticious climate emergency yet they are looking at an EARTH emergency that is nothing to do with CAGW: and they have the unashamed gall, the unremitting arrogance and the know-nothing ignorance to make a claim that the ‘pollutant’, CO2, is likely to cause an emergency of similar – or worse – proportions.

    These ugly, filthy sores, these coprofagic, onanistic trolls, festering on the backside of humanity will not be happy until they have taken western civilisation – for all its faults – back to the dark ages of their totalitarian wet dreams. They shall not win. The strength of the people of Japan, as they dig themselves out of their own personal abyss will be my strength now as I fight the ‘useful idiots’ like Wombat and his pals.

  88. Snotrocket says:

    @eadler says: March 14, 2011 at 11:03 am

    “…I agree that is CO2 not normally considered a pollutant. However, the addition large quantities of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will over time modify the environment in a deleterious fashion, even though people don’t get sick directly from CO2.”

    eadler: Wanna vouchsafe to us poor deluded mortals what the “large quantities of CO2″ would be? Wanna let us in on the secret of how long ‘over time’ is gonna be?

    Did you know that what you’re doing will inevitably make you blind – over time, of course.

  89. kwik says:

    Wombat says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    “Mr Carter fails to Notice that the GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990. That CO2 emissions have only increased 15% strongly suggests that the carbon tax is both effective and no great burden to economic growth.”

    Oh come on!!! Thats BS and you know it.

    I live in Norway and absolutely no one cares. It is just another tax piled upon all the other taxes. No one except the poorest care.

    No one drives any less around in their cars because of this tax. You do the driving you have to do. Right? Bring children to kinder-garden. Get to work. It’s cold in winter here you know.

    So how many degrees has this tax reduced? 0.000000000000000000001 degree?

    It is all just political bullshit. From start to end. The norwegian state has turned completely insane and grown into a huge monster. And monsters needs funding.
    And funding means tax.

  90. kellys_eye says:

    Whilst it could easily be argued that all politicians are just plain stupid I feel this must be wrong (no one can be THAT devoid of intelligence) – if ‘all’ politicians are trying to implement a carbon-based tax worldwide, who benefits? Where would any taxation raised be spent? They *must* know the effect it will have on their respective economic outputs, so WHY are they seemingly hellbent on ruining what are perfectly good economies?

    What is it that they are hoping to achieve but are keeping from the public?

  91. DirkH says:

    eadler says:
    March 14, 2011 at 11:03 am
    “Cyclical factors such as ENSO cause a warming and cooling cycle that is larger in amplitude than the steady warming that occurs as a result of the GHG driven radiational imbalance.”

    I see you’re guilty of making foolish statements. The “radiational imbalance” is at best a hypothesis – it has not been measured. Hansen & Schmidt allege they found it through model runs – so it has been found in models but not in reality. Do the words travesty and Trenberth ring a bell?

    You should at least pepper your allegations with several bucketloads of “mights” and “coulds” and “likely”‘s.

  92. Stuart MacDonald says:

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Smarmy and cute, but hardly an argument. I’m not sure what I said to make you think I have “anti-science beliefs,” unless you refer to everyone who is skeptical that way, but I don’t know, nor do I pretend to.

    As a general rule, I tend to dismiss anyone who tries to pass of the kind of junk thinking you used as logic and reason as anti-science.

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

    My argument is this: you either lead or you follow, you can’t lead the same people you are following. You are either leading the lemmings over the cliff, or you are following them to the same demise.

    Your argument is bunkum, the Australian government are saying they are trailing where they should be leading, to rectify that they must, by definition, catch up; there is no contradiction, these are future goals, they do not have to be performed simultaneously, but one can be achieved as a consequence of the other.

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

    The reason Apple is so successful is because they refuse to follow. Consequently, the rest of the world is playing catch-up to them. Their success and leadership is undeniable, but you don’t mention anyone they’ve ever followed.

    Because I thought it obvious they were following anyone who produced a mobile phone before they did, I will be sure not to hold your comprehension in such high esteem in future.. The iPhone created a paradigm shift in the mobile market, there is no reason to suppose the same could not happen in carbon pricing/taxing.

  93. FrankK says:

    I agree with you Bob but:
    I find with some people I know (including my wife) is that they confuse toxic pollutants generated by cars and other exhausts such as carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, sulphur dioxide and other “nasties” are responsible for the “global warming”. They also know and have experienced many obvious polluted cities around the globe. Hence they feel very strongly that these undesirable pollutants should be reduced, and yes I admit I can’t disagree with the reduction issue.

    Its something that the sceptics (including me) tend to skip over and keep on repeating that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Many because of the confusion discussed above therefore find this conclusion difficult to comprehend.

    The word “carbon” that has now come into common usage by many does not necessarily mean to them just CO2 but encompasses all of the “nasties” as well. Putting aside the “global warming” issue, perhaps the discussion should start to indicate the volumes of each that we are dealing with. At the moment it seems to me skeptics and a number of alarmists, and concerned individuals are talking about different “carbon” and other gases etc.

  94. Wombat says:

    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.

    In Europe they are. And might well increase their commitment to reduce emissions from 20% to 30%.

    It is true that America is behind the ball, but the American economy is failing, in the face of which, ones ethics take a back seat. And there are exceptions. California is still a world leader in environmental including greenhouse legislation. And Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington partake in the same emissions trading scheme.

    China’s economy allows it to move by state planned rather than market forces, albeit clumsily. As the world’s largest car manufacturer, their commitment to 1% electric vehicles will place them as a clear market leader in the new technologies. Their argument that the crisis was not caused by them doesn’t work for western economies, the worst per capita emitter of which is Australia.

  95. Stuart MacDonald says:

    by Professor Bob Carter

    Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate

    Then it could be you’re losing ground:

    Snotrocket says:
    March 14, 2011 at 11:45 am

    These ugly, filthy sores, these coprofagic, onanistic trolls, festering on the backside of humanity

    Oh, and it’s “coprophagic”, from the Greek; phagein, I’ve never understood the eagerness of climate contrarians to demonstrate their ignorance.

  96. Wombat says:

    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.

    The Australian economy is built on mining, who’s activities would be profitable if they paid 60 Billion dollars towards a CO2 tax, and made no changes to their business methods; Education, which is not CO2 heavy; and Agriculture which is exposed to CO2 price, but is also seeing the highest prices ever (globally). Due in some part to climate change.

    The gains are also clear. A position in industries of the coming decades, less exposure to the continually increasing price of oil (and the disasters that comes with deeper drilling, such as last year’s months long spill from the sunrise oil field), and a better ethical position.

  97. Wombat says:

    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.

    As an Australian, you will be aware of the damage to agriculture and life from the increasingly intense floods, fires, droughts and storms in the last few years. “Dangerous” is fair.

    It is not your field so you may not be aware of the devastation of desert and freshwater ecosystems that climate change has brought to the country. Nor the reduction in growth of the great barrier reef, nor the increase in incidence of bleaching events. But these too can be seen to be dangerous if you take the time to understand why biodiversity is important.

  98. Great points, and I totally agree, but there’s a typo here:

    “is to render our whole economy to (sic) competitive (sic)”

  99. Vince Causey says:

    Stuart MacDonald,

    “The iPhone created a paradigm shift in the mobile market, there is no reason to suppose the same could not happen in carbon pricing/taxing.”

    There is no reason to suppose it could happen, either. Yet it is this blind, ignorant faith that is so dangerous.

  100. Wombat says:

    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.

    The statement refers to a global effort. Australia is part of that.

    And it’s not close. The cost is five times cheaper, using the economics of Professor Sir Stern, Baron of Brentford, and very conservative estimates of the cost of inaction.

    For Australia, the mean cost for a family of four is nil, because a carbon tax goes to the government, so the average family of four will need to pay less GST or income tax to the same value.

  101. Vince Causey says:

    eadler,

    “Various estimates put the reduction at carbon price of $20/ton in the range of 5 to 15% and at $50 /ton at 8 to 22%.”

    And this would be good for the economy, why exactly?

  102. Denis Purdy says:

    @Wombat

    While Mr Carter is a geologist, and may not understand that the massive drop in biodiversity currently being observed is an emergency.

    As Bjorn Lomberg has pointed out, the ‘massive’ drop in biodiversity has been greatly exaggerated; however, to the extent that loss of biodiversity is occurring, it is primarily the result of loss of habitat. There is no credible evidence of climate caused loss.
    This loss of habitat is only to get worse if we adopt taxes etc that promote the use of biofuels which will cause further deforestation in Indonesia or Brazil for example. Green policies such as carbon taxes will severely compromise the world’s ability to feed itself within the land area currently cultivated.
    This cultivated land area actually decreased due to the green revolution and biodiversity was the winner. The biggest threat to biodiversity in the world today is ‘green’ policies.

  103. Vince Causey says:

    Wombat,

    “In Europe they are. And might well increase their commitment to reduce emissions from 20% to 30%.”

    Yep, and that’s why Europe is boned.

  104. Stuart MacDonald says:

    Vince Causey says:
    March 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    There is no reason to suppose it could happen, either. Yet it is this blind, ignorant faith that is so dangerous.

    Seriously, learn some basic rules of debating, and stop pumping out ignorant straw man fallacies. I’m not arguing that it will, only that the possibility means the Australian governments assertions that they need to catch up and take a lead are not contradictory.

  105. d says:

    I like Austrailia i hope they dont do something that will hurt their economy. Why dont they just build several large solar furnacses in their remote areas and also go to electric cars. i think this whole carbon tax is a waste of time. Also i hope that whatever they do it is what the citizens want and not just a few politicians raming it down everyones throat.

  106. 4 eyes says:

    The best thing that can happen in Australia is for there to be a PUBLIC technical debate covered by TV over say 5 or 10 sessions between sceptics and AGW proponents discussing the points raised by Bob, amongst other things. Such a debate with right of response and a chance to revisit claims and counter claims over series of episodes would make great viewing. The AGW folk don’t want this and will squirm their way out of it because they know their argument is full of holes and political bias. However they would outwardly resist having such a debate on the grounds that a clear majority, in their minds, of scientists believe in AGW. The need to present and discuss facts is irrelevant to them. The vote is all that counts. The talking up and the dumbing down on this issue is appalling and is one of the main reasons the public’s view on science is deteriorating.

  107. Vince Causey says:

    Stuart MacDonald says:
    March 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Vince Causey says:
    March 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    There is no reason to suppose it could happen, either. Yet it is this blind, ignorant faith that is so dangerous.

    Seriously, learn some basic rules of debating, and stop pumping out ignorant straw man fallacies. I’m not arguing that it will, only that the possibility means the Australian governments assertions that they need to catch up and take a lead are not contradictory.
    ==================

    If you have simply been arguing that needing to catch up and take a lead are not contradictory, then I don’t disagree with you. I had, perhaps mistakenly, assumed you were also arguing that the Australian policy is a good thing, and that was the point I was trying to address.

  108. Richard M says:

    Vince Causey, you are right on in your analysis. Stuart MacDonald is trying to put two items together that were not stated together and oppose each other. If they had been put together as one statement then he would be correct. But, they were stated as different reasons to promote the tax. Typical alarmist double-speak.

  109. t stone says:

    Stuart MacDonald says:
    March 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    “As a general rule, I tend to dismiss anyone who tries to pass off (sic) the kind of junk thinking you used as logic and reason as anti-science.”

    “Your argument is bunkum…”

    and finally:

    “Because I thought it obvious they were following anyone who produced a mobile phone before they did, I will be sure not to hold your comprehension in such high esteem in future.”

    Argument from intimidation is not an argument. It is a tactic to avoid an argument or debate, and you are good at it. It is a piss-poor way to win a debate, however. Does it work OK on your high-school debate team? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) By the way, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling but I don’t believe you ever held my comprehension in high esteem. Patronization doesn’t work very well, either.

    One more thing – you also say:

    “…there is no contradiction, these are future goals, they do not have to be performed simultaneously, but one can be achieved as a consequence of the other.”

    So then what exactly is the plan? Lead now and follow later, follow now and lead later? Either way you are right (and so was I); there is no contradiction.

    I like this blog because the troll traffic is usually minimal, but this thread seems to be a giant exception. Fun, nonetheless.

  110. hide the decline says:

    Wombat @ 1:36 pm says:

    “For Australia, the mean cost for a family of four is nil, because a carbon tax goes to the government, so the average family of four will need to pay less GST or income tax to the same value.”

    Wombat, your statement has to be the most moronic statement that any person could put on paper. What part of a ‘Tax’ on production, and specifically a tax on energy production, could possibly in your wildest dreams have a ‘Nil’ effect on a family of four because it (the Tax) “goes to the government” ?

    So if the tax were to go to anyone else other than the “government” then it (the Tax) would have an impact on a family of four, is that right ? But what about the compensation Wombat ?

    The bottom 20% of Australian households will receive ‘Cost of Living Increase’ compensation with the next 20% of Australian households being ‘Carbon Tax Neutral’ and the so-called top 60% of Australian households paying the full ‘Carbon Tax’ cost of living increase AND THEREFORE BY DEFAULT, all the compensation, with the government being nothing more than a conduit for the compensation.

    You really should pay attention.

  111. Lady Life Grows says:

    Billboard suggestion:

    CARBON chemistry is called “Organic Chemistry.”

    We are carbon based life forms.

  112. Katy Denis says:

    Thank you as ever for your clear, concise and helpful information. If only more media outlets would share this with the public.

  113. Les says:

    Bravo Professor Bob. Your comments should be required reading for all politicians, particularly Malcolm Turnbull and the few Labor blokes who have a brain.
    Send it on everyone!

  114. Allan says:

    Kaboom says,
    “God, I hate responding to trolls.

    Please let me refrain from properly chastising “Allan”……”

    Thank you for this surgically precise cutting criticism Kaboom. I’m not sure what was trolling about what I said.. I thought it was important and on topic to mention this mis-information about my country being the worst per capita CO2 emitters. If you are upset that I didn’t provide a link then fine here it is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

    Of course you could have found this yourself with a half seconds effort but it is more fun to just post random inflammatory comments isn’t it? Also we are number 12 not 6 as I thought. Sure, the countries ahead of us are export economies (aside from the U.S) as Wombat states, but Australia also has one of the most diffuse populations in the world so much of our CO2 per capita comes from moving things around, which we probably can’t really avoid can we?

    In any case, the line I hear again and again from politicians is just that “Australia is the worst CO2 per capita emitter” no caveats no nothing. Just that, and it is plainly untrue.

  115. Allan says:

    Also, I note that Canada which is comparable to Australia in many ways, due to large land mass and low population distribution, is only slightly behind us in CO2 per capita. Then if you look at Canada’s sources of energy you see that 15% comes from nuclear (banned in Australia and not popular in light of the problems facing those poor Japanese people) and most of Canada’s electricity comes from hydro, which is also effectively banned in Australia due to the green fear of damns. So thanks much to all the greenies in Australia for making us such bad CO2 emitters!

    Allan

  116. charles nelson says:

    I think Wombat and co are putting up a valiant rear-guard action. They still recite the official warmist creed, (which is a very difficult thing to do if you have any scientific training) but it’s the subtle change of tone that I enjoy hearing, that old righteous, suprematist, ‘I’m Right, the science is settled, you are a flat-earth Denialist…’ thing is definitely fading away.
    So let’s hear more from Wombat and co, as they will soon be extinct and I enjoy the plaintive sound of their voices in the wilderness. Their puzzled squeals of discomfort are like a tonic to me, sweet reward for the years of warmist claptrap foisted upon us all by their media chums.

  117. Ross Brisbane says:

    As an Australian I will post how I interpret the following as one who follows and understands the science that is driving the present world politicians into an era of carbon sensitive awareness.

    1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.

    The argument is about carbon and a carbon tax. We need to place a price on carbon and those who generate such dependence on carbon fossil fuels. We should tax the inefficiently but reward innovation. We should not penalise the consumer – we should penalise the traders in the carbon based economies. We begin to shift the emphasise on cheap dependence to a diminishing resource and start revaluing that dependence. We reward consumers but penalise a lack of innovation and alternatives. It is a diminishing resource that will only get more expensive. There are no other options. We run out of coal and oil in the next two hundred to three hundred years.

    A carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.

    Carbon dioxide only becomes a real issue when a doubling of it remains in our atmosphere over and ABOVE 400ppm – That is – it becomes dangerous at 500pmm and amplifies further beyond that. Any science presentation that is telling you it becomes saturated at 400ppm is an unprovable hypothesis. Not to worry – she’ll be right is not an option.

    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, and especially energy-intensive fossil fuel industries. These “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers. And we reward the cause when they decrease outputs of CO2 and when they start innovate by placing responsibility on them. Any tax generated should be used to shore up consumers and reward the compliant innovators. The cost placed on carbon translates into turning the earth green again. It is also an insurance policy against striking out following generations with abject poverty because we the present generation were lazy and wanted it cheap and go on burning the stuff.

    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. Yes it is – but its dependence hides the devil in the detail. We as a present generation cannot and must not sell our soul for cheap living when the following generations face a world with diminishing resources. Without planned innovation paid for and pledged by our generation – a transition must be made. Man did not land on moon without a taxation cost. It’s innovations echo through everything we use today. We can do this. We need to examine our own biased negativities.

    5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.

    Putting a price will not lower emissions into our future for at least another one hundred years. It will be a slow crawl way from our carbon cheap addictions. Our future generations will thank their forefathers for their planning with selfless insights.

    6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.

    They are! China builds one wind tower per hour! China shuts dirty coal fired stations at the rate of one per week.

    7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.

    Leadership is carried in the very heart of prophets long ago who were being stoned daily by their own people because they dared tell the truth. These words echo: “Your nation will be destroyed because you lacked a progressive vision. You placed your hope in former fore fathers – living on their past prosperity.

    8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.

    If the disasters come we will be ready. We will be prepared based on the minor signs now inbuilt into our climate. Not when “they” come to visit our nations – the man of the house is prepared to meet them head on. “The thief in the night could not enter.” We will go the way. We will walk the mile. We will give our children the futures they deserve. We can and will do this – even if it costs those in government because it was right thing to do.

    And infamous of our generation – we be known into all the generations. Those who told us safety when it was not safe. Those who told us peace when there was no peace. Those who spoke of promised prosperity when the robber took all. Those who spoke of wondrous harvests when famine, drought and pestilence destroyed the crops of millions.

    9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.

    Yes it is. Mr Carter with due respect – you seriously do not know. I am afraid for you as you well know you are one of only a few in my great country who deny the issues up ahead. I think you are dead wrong the way I see it and read it. And time will tell whether you speak the truth and speak of inaction as your only solution. Generations that follow in my country will remember you.

    10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.

    Indeed.

    Reworded responses:

    However, it is also the case that there is a demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. 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. We agree.

    The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term 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.

    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.

    And Ross Brisbane is an Australian citizen who vehemently disagrees with Dr Carter. When we do not tax and place a price on things present the climate battles we face of our tomorrow will be much harder to overcome.

  118. truth says:

    Wombat:
    You’re Ken Henry—our soon-to-be-retired Secretary of the Treasury— aren’t you?
    Off to look after the hairy-nosed wombats, with a spot of blogging on the side??
    You seem to think China has the moral high ground over us—but they’re building right now—– 24 large-scale brown coal mines, and 8 clusters of coal-fired power plants in the ‘autonomous region of Inner Mongolia’, between 2011 and 2015.[see Andrew Bolt’s blog}:
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/2011/03/

    That’s brown coal —the dirtiest kind—the kind that we’re phasing out right now.
    They’ll be producing at that region, 237 million tonnes of brown coal annually.
    That’s just one region.
    They’ve also polluted some of their farmlands and the locals there, with highly toxic by products of their much-vaunted solar programs.
    And we shouldn’t give them special dispensation because of their developing status.
    When a country systematically —-for political and ideological reasons— brutally murdered millions of its best and brightest, and denies its people democracy still—–then no special allowances should be made for it in its catch-up stage—and certainly not by countries that always honoured freedom and human rights.
    Why is it, Wombat, that people like you who are so concerned about GW, never mention the research of Drew Shindell of NASA and others as well, that finds that 50% of the Arctic warming [ and some of the glacier melt], is caused by black carbon—soot—from China, India, Indonesia, Brazil?
    Why would you not be loudly supporting and speaking out about what Shindell urges—that the mitigation of that be done as a priority, because it will make a difference much earlier than any CO2 mitigation can do?
    Could it be that warmists worry that mitigation of black carbon will do too good a job—and demonstrate a lesser impact from CO2 than they now claim?
    Is this part of the post-normal science—where the imperative is to tailor the message for the end result required—an alarmed populace?

  119. zzzak says:

    Great website,glad that I found it however there is one small error that needs to be addressed,the economist spokesman that this bunch of commies quote is Prof.Garnaut but the correct pronunciation is ‘guano’ after what comes out of his mouth.

  120. Absolutely marvellous! I note that the GREENHOUSE GAS is WATER VAPOUR-93%. No refutes that or even questions it. If true that is the finish of all the rot about CO2 which was 3000 ppm 65 million years ago followed by 20 million years of cooling. The graph is in Bjorn Lomborg’s book and he has not noticed it! Discussing CO2 without a passing knowledge of past levels sounds like Gullivers Travels where the Brobdignagians argue learnedly over whether to cut open the egg at the big or the small end. If you want to trade in nebulous gases like CO2 why not water vapour – or better still clouds as you can at least see what you have purchased. Our gorgeous “Morning Glory” clouds which roll across our Gulf would be worth a motza as glider pilots love to surf the cloud wave! Lord-what fools these mortals be! Geoff Broadbent

  121. Wombat says:

    Perry says:
    March 14, 2011 at 2:20 am

    You stupid, witless, cretin Wombat,

    The GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990, because of all the natural gas they export. After World War II, Norway experienced rapid economic growth, with the first two decades due to the Norwegian shipping and merchant marine and domestic industrialization, and from the early 1970s, a result of exploiting large oil and natural gas deposits that had been discovered in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea.

    Why you trolls bother is beyond all understanding. It’s a wonder you can even read & write. Do you like sex and travel?

    I understand the basic economic environment under which Norway’s GDP has tripled over a time when its CO2 emissions have only increased 15%.

    Nevertheless, given all that extra drilling, mining and exportation that they have been doing, a 15% increase in CO2 is very modest. (Especially when the population has also increased about 12% over that time).

    So I find Mr Carters claim that carbon taxes have no effect on emissions as not supported by his example of Norway. Certainly there has been a drastic reduction in emissions per GDP there.

  122. Wombat says:

    Geoffrey Donald Broadbent says:
    March 14, 2011 at 2:51 am

    Some time ago I posted that the greenhouse gas was water vapor 93% with methane 3% and CO2 bringing up the rear.

    Where did you get these figures from Geoffrey?

    More accepted figures are about 35% reduction in the Greenhouse effect if water vapour is removed from the atmosphere, 9% reduction in Greenhouse effect if CO2 were removed, and Methane much less than that.

    These are lower than you might be used to seeing, because of the overlap with other gasses. If you leave only water vapour in the atmosphere, you leave about 65% of the greenhouse effect, and if you leave only CO2 in the atmosphere, you leave about 25% of the Greenhouse effect.

    But your source seems to be somewhat different from either of these ways of calculating the proportional effect of a greenhouse gas.

  123. E.M.Smith says:

    I’m a pretty quick fellow when it comes to soaking up information. I can often ‘skim’ and get it all. I was pleasantly surprised to find someone who does not inflate their verbage with a load of gas and that actually made me slow down and think about what was being said. Each sentence an economical and worth construct, worth my time.

    Well done, Sir. Well done.

  124. Patrick Davis says:

    “Ross Brisbane says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Carbon dioxide only becomes a real issue when a doubling of it remains in our atmosphere over and ABOVE 400ppm – That is – it becomes dangerous at 500pmm and amplifies further beyond that. Any science presentation that is telling you it becomes saturated at 400ppm is an unprovable hypothesis.”

    Can you present any science which states CO2 become “dangerous” (That is “dangerous” climate change) at concentrations at 500ppm/v. Until then, this claims is bogus.

    “Wombat says:
    March 14, 2011 at 1:36 pm”

    Regarding the Victorian bush fires. Fire 1, caused by a failed/downed power line. Fire 2, caused by an arsonist. All fires enhanced by silly local council rule regarding the clearing of fuel from properties. Not sure where climate change and CO2 emissions come in to play.

  125. justin says:

    [snip . . off topic]

  126. Old Macdonald says:

    Ross Brisbane says: – March 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    “Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.”

    “And Ross Brisbane is an Australian citizen who vehemently disagrees with Dr Carter. When we do not tax and place a price on things present the climate battles we face of our tomorrow will be much harder to overcome.”

    Well hell Ross, I guess that Prof Carter is not allowed to be an Australian citizen like you.

    For the record Ross, I am an Australian citizen to and when you use the word “We” (above) you assume to speak for me and the rest of the Australian people.

    You would agree that, and even with your level of arrogance and to avoid any doubt, that a minority government such as the Gillard labor government would need to put *any* large proposition as proposed by the introduction of a Carbon Tax back to the people. This would, in turn, determine the exact number of people (after preferences) that “We” represents.

    Suspension of democracy is not an option amigo.

  127. Geoff Brown says:

    “Ross Brisbane says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    The only bit that you got right, Mr Brisbane was your No.2. You didn’t have one.
    Your usual standard was maintained.

  128. Snotrocket says:

    Stuart MacDonald says: March 14, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    “Oh, and it’s “coprophagic”, from the Greek; phagein, I’ve never understood the eagerness of climate contrarians to demonstrate their ignorance.”

    Stuart, I likewise find that it the right-on warmists who are the most pedantic. Next you’ll be telling me how to spell ‘color’ and ‘center’.

    I figure I was spot on about ‘nonanists’…. ;-) Cheers.

  129. Thumbnail says:

    Ross Brisbane: Firstly, carbon tax is actually a tax on carbon dioxide. I would appreciate you using the correct term for this tax. Any business that is taxed will pass those increased costs onto the consumers: we Australians….

    Where is your evidence that we only have 200 to 300 years of coal left? I have not personally done much reading on the “peak coal”.

    Knowing about ‘peak coal’ would not make this tax any less wrong.

    We should definately find new and alternate sources of energy, but why believe the line that ‘coal is the cheapest form of energy’? Why not put the money into new ideas, research and development, and generate energy at a competitive price to coal? The vast majority of ideas fail, but the few that thrive will make it all worthwhile. The tax will only raise prices, for no benefit to consumers.

    Ummm. Did Henry Ford build the automobile because horse and buggies were taxed? Did automatic typewriters come into existence because manual typewriters suddenly attracted a tax? Ross Brisbane can you provide one example of a thriving industry that came about because the Government taxed the life out of the previous suppliers? Just one?

    Putting a price on carbon, if we accept the arguments of the AGW proponents will deliver a temperature decrease of .07 degrees Celcius. That is no gain for alot of financial pain.

    Ross, the very idea that we can control the climate is akin to saying “I am going to stop the next windstorm” or “I, Penny Wong, will part the great Pacific Ocean”, or some other such rubbish. We cannot control nature. We do our best when we plan, and adapt to change.

    Huh? On one hand you say we need a carbon tax which is based on a belief you hold, and on the other you say yes we can adapt. Pick a camp, friend. Pick one colour of jersey or another, mate.

    Yes, climate changes. Just get over it will you?

  130. Stuart MacDonald says:

    Richard M says:
    March 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Vince Causey, you are right on in your analysis. Stuart MacDonald is trying to put two items together that were not stated together and oppose each other. If they had been put together as one statement then he would be correct. But, they were stated as different reasons to promote the tax. Typical alarmist double-speak.

    You are just babbling here and making no sense. I am not trying to conflate the two statememts and even if I was, eg; ”Australia must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions and should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”, it would still contain the same ”different reasons to promote the tax”. What Australia must do and Australia should do. My point is, and always has been, that these different reasons, irrespective of if they were stated seperately or together (or, indeed, at all, Professor Carter doesn’t cite his sources and a Google search only returns this article or reposts of it), are not contradictory.

  131. Accordion Girl says:

    Well, looks like Ross Brisbane has decided he is the know-all of all things carbon???
    He comes in like the big man of knowledge suggesting that he knows more than Professor Bob Carter whose work I have followed for some time.
    Well, I know whose knowledge I would rather take as truth.
    Dr. Carter has credibility as do many other scientists who actually tell the truth and do not fudge figures.
    You know, I think modelling has been occurring for so many years (thirty I believe)that these poor people who are following the IPCC do not really undertand what the starting point was.
    Anyway, when the media keeps showing funnels spewing steam and refer to it as greenhouse gases, what hope does the general public have of knowing the truth?

  132. Paulb says:

    I note the PR companies are sending their shills to work this Blog. Very common these days when there is so much access to other people’s money at stake. Shills are usually obvious because they wade in late-ish, regurgitate talking points, ridicule others a lot, and never have opinions on subjects that aren’t hot button to their customer.

  133. Old Macdonald says:

    Yeh and I’ll bet their all smokers to !! =/sarc

    [non-sequitor ?]

  134. Stuart MacDonald says:

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    [snip . . a long ad hom . . not helpful to the debate]

  135. Stuart MacDonald says:

    [snip . . try posting without profanity]

  136. truth says:

    Kelly’s Eye:
    Most of the governments are Socialist—or, as in the case of the UK, afraid not to appear Socialist—it’s not fashionable or politically correct these days not to appear Socialist.
    For these Fabian Socialists, their domestic economy, and the sovereignty of their country and the autonomy of its citizens —-isn’t all that important.
    What they aspire to is global governance by bureaucrats of the UN, or some other global body, which they expect to oversee the redistribution of wealth from the Western democracies to the so-called ‘developing’ nations.
    Consequently , under the framework for the [thankfully abortive] Copenhagen Convention, Australia would have committed to payments of billions in taxpayers’ money every year straight to China, India, Brazil etc etc.
    These payments would have been enforced by the COP, which would have oversight of our economy, in order to make sure we toed the line.
    Global fingers will be in every national pie, if these people have their way.
    The aim is that these ‘developing’ countries will be helped to leapfrog over the Western democracies by a certain time—the justification being that the democracies , who chose not to slaughter, enslave or cull their populations, but instead freed them up to innovate and produce, emitted CO2 in the process of free enterprise—- and must now pay for their sins—-must be hobbled until the Communist dictatorships and Socialists of various kinds overtake us.
    It doesn’t worry Gillard et al that their carbon policies will impoverish us, because by that time they will have ‘moved on’—probably to some powerful position in one of the massive international bureaucracies that the new global governance , as foreshadowed in the Copenhagen framework , will require.
    Sharan Burrows has done it—‘ moved on’ from Australian union boss to the head honcho at the International Trade Union Confederation, and an honorary chair at the World Justice Project, with Clinton, Kissinger , Jimmy Carter and others.
    Julia will do it , and Rudd is already trying to get his foot in.
    We are just the useful pawns in all this—but we have to stare them down.

  137. Stuart MacDonald says:

    Stuart MacDonald says:
    March 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    “As a general rule, I tend to dismiss anyone who tries to pass off (sic) the kind of junk thinking you used as logic and reason as anti-science.”

    “Your argument is bunkum…”

    and finally:

    “Because I thought it obvious they were following anyone who produced a mobile phone before they did, I will be sure not to hold your comprehension in such high esteem in future.”

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Argument from intimidation is not an argument.

    I’m not employing argument from intimidation or any other form of fallacy. I have shown your assertion that the two statements are contradictory to be false, it is a truism that follows from this that your thinking was junk and your argument bunkum; this is logically sound, not logically fallacious.

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    It is a tactic to avoid an argument or debate, and you are good at it. It is a piss-poor way to win a debate, however. Does it work OK on your high-school debate team? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) By the way, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling but I don’t believe you ever held my comprehension in high esteem. Patronization doesn’t work very well, either.

    Again, because your reasoning is faulty (I’m not arguing from intimidation), your conclusion is wrong. I am not avoiding the debate, I have shown you where you were wrong by giving an example of someone playing catch up whilst looking to lead.

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    So then what exactly is the plan? Lead now and follow later, follow now and lead later?

    I have no idea what the plan is, that is why I have never commented on one. Irrespective of what the Australian government chooses to do about carbon taxing in the future, it does not change the fact that the 2 statements in question, as they stand now, do not contradict each other.

    t stone says:
    March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Either way you are right (and so was I); there is no contradiction.

    Hokum! Either the statements contradict each other, as you assert, or they do not, as I do.

  138. Old Macdonald says:

    Old Macdonald says:
    March 15, 2011 at 4:07 am
    Yeh and I’ll bet their all smokers to !! =/sarc

    [non-sequitor ?]

    (A) – No. – Not when applied as (sarc) to the lack of evidence that suggests that “PR companies are sending their shills to work this Blog.”. Smacks of the same lack of evidence that suggests that ‘Skeptics’ deny any linkage between ‘Smoking’ and cancer and that the same are in the back pockets of big oil. I’m sorry that you did not pick my sarc along this line and the need to ask the ?

  139. R. Ed Neck says:

    Tragically, Australia’s government is setting the stage for greater challenges in the world markets. This type of thinking is along the same lines as the one declaring that fresh water from their coal bed methane wells needs to be handled as a “hazardous material” due to suspended coal fines and despite the pleadings from the local ranchers.

  140. t stone says:

    Stuart,

    The statements – as stated (are you following me?) – are contradictory.

    When you say: “Again, because your reasoning is faulty (I’m not arguing from intimidation), your conclusion is wrong.” – you are arguing from intimidation. You make the claim, the assertion, that my reasoning is faulty and my conclusion is wrong but fail to explain or back up your assertions with any facts. If you had an argument, I would think you’d use it. Instead what you’re left with is ad hominem attacks and claims that my reasoning is faulty without any proof. What you did was change the context in rationalizing that the statements are not contradictory. It’s unfortunate that the context wasn’t clear to begin with or we might not be having this argument. Context is crucial, and in that respect you can say that things are relative. But that does not mean there are no absolutes. So at face value, the two aforementioned statements (#6 and #7) are contradictory.

    IMO, your arguments (or lack thereof) and methods are symptomatic of what is wrong with that side of the debate. I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks or used profanity (I’m sorry you weren’t so lucky, really). I think that context manipulation (and dropping) to fit a preconceived conclusion is a poor way to argue for higher taxes, more regulation and restrictions on freedom, especially in the absence of proof that the sky is falling and our current climate is unprecedented. If you can prove it, then maybe you have an argument (and maybe not). As far as I can tell, no one’s offered any proof yet.

  141. Stuart MacDonald says:

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
    Stuart,
    The statements – as stated (are you following me?) – are contradictory.

    Yes they are, as my Apple analogy shows, it is perfectly possible to play catch up and, with good innovation still aim to take a lead.
    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    When you say: “Again, because your reasoning is faulty (I’m not arguing from intimidation), your conclusion is wrong.” – you are arguing from intimidation. You make the claim, the assertion, that my reasoning is faulty and my conclusion is wrong but fail to explain or back up your assertions with any facts.

    Except the fact that Apple have shown that you can both play catch up whilst aiming to take the lead

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    If you had an argument, I would think you’d use it.

    I do have an argument, I have used it, to date, despite many opportunities, you have failed to refute it.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Instead what you’re left with is ad hominem attacks and claims that my reasoning is faulty without any proof.

    They are not ad hominem attacks, your reasoning is faulty because your premise is flawed, as I have demonstrated with the Apple analogy.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    What you did was change the context in rationalizing that the statements are not contradictory.

    I didn’t change the context, I introduced an explanatory analogy.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    It’s unfortunate that the context wasn’t clear to begin with or we might not be having this argument.

    If the context isn’t clear the fault lies with you; it was you who introduced this particular digression.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Context is crucial, and in that respect you can say that things are relative. But that does not mean there are no absolutes. So at face value, the two aforementioned statements (#6 and #7) are contradictory.

    This is a non sequitur; context is indeed crucial and there are definitely absolutes, but it does not follow from either that the statements are contradictory.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    IMO, your arguments (or lack thereof) and methods are symptomatic of what is wrong with that side of the debate.

    My argument is sound, you are the one who has failed to substantively engage with it, preferring instead to attack the straw man of my allegedly underhand debating methods rather than refuting the Apple analogy.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks or used profanity (I’m sorry you weren’t so lucky, really).

    Presumably you have already forgotten your little ad hom aside at the top of this post (are you following me?), or your use of ”piss-poor” in an earlier one. You just haven’t been subjected to the uneven moderation policy.

    I would also state, for the record, there was no profanity directed at you, I merely reiterated Snotrocket’s earlier ad hom.

    Finally, again, my assessment of your reasoning is not an ad hominem attack, it is a truism that follows from the fact your premise has been shown to be flawed.

    t stonesays:
    March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    I think that context manipulation (and dropping) to fit a preconceived conclusion is a poor way to argue for higher taxes, more regulation and restrictions on freedom, especially in the absence of proof that the sky is falling and our current climate is unprecedented. If you can prove it, then maybe you have an argument (and maybe not). As far as I can tell, no one’s offered any proof yet.

    Another straw man, I’m not arguing for higher taxes, more regulation, restrictions on freedom, that the sky is falling or that our current climate is unprecedented. Consequently, I don’t have to prove any of theses things. I am arguing that statements 6 and 7 in the opening post are not contradictory, and the Apple analogy shows that to be true.

    Not sure how this debate got so dragged out, it is a simple matter of fact that, from the chasing pack, one cannot take the lead without first catching up; the former (#7) is utterly predicated on the latter (#6).

  142. t stone says:

    First of all, my apologies. I may have stumbled into the ad hom trap once or twice, though hopefully not egregiously. I have myself to blame for that. I also became distracted by defining arguments rather than making one, and for that I need to be more vigilant as well.

    With that in mind, I leave you my final submission for this thread:

    Stuart MacDonald says:
    March 15, 2011 at 11:19 am
    “Not sure how this debate got so dragged out, it is a simple matter of fact that, from the chasing pack, one cannot take the lead without first catching up;”

    So it seems you would agree that you cannot lead and follow at the same time? I’m sure that was my original premise.

  143. Mikko says:

    Another clear, concise article from Prof Bob Carter which has a few warmist true believers worried. Why else would “Ross Brisbane” post a comment longer than the original (or did it only seem that way because he used such illogical arguments as “Carbon dioxide only becomes a real issue when a doubling of it remains in our atmosphere over and ABOVE 400ppm – That is – it becomes dangerous at 500pmm and amplifies further beyond that. Any science presentation that is telling you it becomes saturated at 400ppm is an unprovable hypothesis. Not to worry – she’ll be right is not an option”.
    Unless Ross can remember when CO2 was at 500ppm, I guess he is just relying on another alarmist modeller’s hypothesis. But if he, Wombat and the others who think CO2 really does drive dangerous global warming they could do their bit to save the planet (along with Prof Ross Garnaut, Julia Gillard and the Greens) by taking a deep breath and holding it in while the rest of us try to continue normal lives and the planet continues to go through natural cyclic climate change as it always has and always will.

  144. Ross Brisbane says:

    Truth said:

    “We will have stare them down”…………..implying all governments who all fight climate change are socialist.

    I’ll do more more then stare you down. We the people of earth will change this around. We will not be stopped. Our dependence on coal and oil are going burn a hole in you Truth by using a mirror to magnify and reflect the hard truths back in your face.

    Any proponent who seeks to claim some higher moral ground based on this straw man argument of the socialist bogey seriously negates the real dangers of climate change to the following generations.

  145. Mikko says:

    Here’s another brief look at CO2 and its place in the atmosphere:
    http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/03/taxing-the-air-we-breathe.html#more

  146. Smokey says:

    Ross Brisbane says:

    “We the people of earth will change this around. We will not be stopped.”

    Nice that the people of the earth have a spokesman here.☺

  147. Kevin Charles MacDonald says:

    t stone says;
    on March 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    So it seems you would agree that you cannot lead and follow at the same time?

    No, I don’t agree with this. If I can give another example; Betamax were leaders in video tape technology in the 80’s but lagged in pricing and marketing. VHS were leaders in pricing and marketing, but lagged in technology. Two companies in the same field, both leading and both following.

    t stone says;
    on March 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I’m sure that was my original premise.

    It’s still a flawed premise, a straw man to be exact, nowhere in the list is it asserted these things should be done simultaneously, just that both should be done in the future.

  148. Old Macdonald says:

    Ross Brisbane says @ March 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    “We the people of earth will change this around. We will not be stopped.”

    What happened overnight Ross, yesterday you were only speaking for the people of Australia, now it’s the whole world ? I didn’t know there was a vacancy for leader of the world, what did that anti-carbon dioxide twit Jim Hansen step down ? =sarc/

  149. Brian H says:

    I’m very worried that some non-combustion form of energy generation, like fission or fusion, will become too successful. Since we benefit from maximizing atmospheric CO2, perhaps some arrangement can be make to subsidize use of coal, natural gas, etc., even when they’re uneconomic.

  150. hide the decline says:

    Ross Brisbane says @ 15/03/201 @ 3:54 pm

    “Any proponent who seeks to claim some higher moral ground based on this straw man argument of the socialist bogey seriously negates the real dangers of climate change to the following generations.”

    Ross – I have looked up the definition of ‘Socialist’ for you and in-which you may need to, as the world spokesperson on these things; remove the term ‘Straw Man’ from your ecclesiastical point of view.

    Socialism – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    “Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

  151. truth says:

    Wombat:
    What’s surprising to me is the harm that warmists and supposed environmentalists are willing and eager to do to the environment in the name of CO2-induced global warming.
    You insist that CO2 is a pollutant—and cite its reaction with water to produce carbonic acid—yet I presume that you are as happy as many of your colleagues are , to have many millions of tonnes of the aforesaid pollutant buried forever [ you hope], underneath great tracts of our land.
    At an international CCS Conference in Melbourne recently, it was admitted that much was still to be learned about the safety of this process, yet the CO2 will be sequestered in close proximity to our Great Artesian Basin—one of the most important features of our continent—and one I presume we really don’t want to render unusable for future Australians.
    Presumably, pipelines would crisscross the country to carry the CO2, and I don’t think the Australians who really do care about the environment, will accept that, any more readily than did the German citizens that put a stop to it there—the authorities eventually having to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere.
    ‘Environmentalists’ are the ones most eager to defile our landscape , and disturb our peace with wind turbines.
    No beautiful headlands , ocean views or rolling farmlands are safe from the moneymen of the wind industry, who set farmer against farmer, with offers made to struggling farmers that cannot easily be refused.
    Coal seam gas wells appearing whether they like it or not, in the middle of pristine and peaceful farms—sometimes right outside their back doors almost —-have become the terror of our East coast farming families.
    Our environmentally-correct government mandates it
    And your Gaia-worshipping lot are even prepared to play dangerous geo-engineering games with the systems so little is known about.
    With so much still to be known about clouds and the oceans, your AGW friends are gung-ho for pumping massive quantities of chemicals into the atmosphere, and seeding the ocean with iron, amongst other things.

    In the mid-70s, the late Stephen Scneider tried to alarm the world about ‘the coming ice age’—so it’s only since then that the energy that has brought us so much prosperity, has become in your eyes this monstrous and irredeemable threat to all humanity and the planet itself.
    And your claim [ since you support the warmist view] is that by the late 2000s, the world knew all it needed to know about climate —about the threat of that previously- valued energy—all about CO2—all about the oceans—-the clouds—the winds—the ice—the sun—-the whole earth system—done and dusted—no further research needed or welcome , from any but the select and in sync cabal of scientists who agreed with each other, and built on each other’s work without questioning it—those who deleted emails, fudged graphs, corrupted the peer review process—-those who were part of the ‘consensus’.
    Any new research that came to different conclusions, was not to be examined in the interests of truth , but to be desperately ridiculed and its authors demonised—-because the ‘science was settled’—-blinkers on—-mustn’t let any pesky alternative information encroach on that cosy little clique.
    I would be ashamed to be supporting a desperate closed shop such as that in any instance——but in the field of science, for heavens sake!

  152. rafval says:

    DaveS says:
    Norway is hardly a typical case. Where has a big chunk of that economic growth come from? Natural gas. Topography and geology have been very kind to the Norwegians – they can get a lot of their own electricity needs from sensible renewables (hydro – not much impact of carbon tax on that) while growing rich on the proceeds of selling fossil fuels (or however you wish to categorise natural gas) that lie under the North Sea. Lucky them!

    and Australia sells fossil fuels and uranium, lucky them as well I would have thought?

  153. Thank you Ross Brisbane for at least noticing. The percentage effectiveness of water vapour, methane and CO2 I first saw in John Daly’s book “The Greenhouse Trap” long years ago. As well he noted the three absorption bands for infrared for CO2 and the gaps between them. If you are at all familiar with Fraunhofer spectral lines which give a signature for elements in distant stars etc you would be aware that this is possible. As this bit of science is able to dispose of the whole CO2 yarn in one hit I have kept a weather eye open for many years for a rebuttal so far without success. The subtraction method of apportioning effectiveness is not quite satisfactory. I still await a convincing rebuttal. Geoff Broadbent

  154. truth says:

    Ross Brisbane:
    You’re worried about the ‘real dangers of climate change to following generations’, as we all should be.
    But the only way to mitigate that, in your view, is to buy lock stock and barrel—and then regurgitate—the mantras and the propaganda we get from the Australian government and media , to cover up all developments in the science , that present alternative conclusions, and put climate change into a different perspective.
    Yours is the star-struck Gaia-worshipping—‘people as pawns or useful idiots’ view.
    It’s the view that always purports to honour the earth—future generations—foreigners—anyone but the present wicked generation of Australians.
    It’s your cohorts and the elite who misinform you all, who are the real danger to future generations, in my opinion.
    They have their global political agenda, and you will allow yourself to be mobilized to help them achieve it.
    Don’t you ever ask yourself why the media and the rest of the Left in Australia has made certain that only one side of this issue is ever publicised if they can help it?
    That’s propaganda —not information—why are you happy to have these Left wing elites suppress information eg the research of Dr Clive Spash, on the ETS?
    Do you not mind at all that a scientist [ and he’s a warmist, not a sceptic], is gagged and censored, and ultimately nudged out of the CSIRO?
    Didn’t you think the CSIRO was better than that? I certainly did.
    Does it not bother you that ABC presenters [ with no scientific expertise ---just a journalism degree if that]were allowed to make the decision to suppress information and discussion about the climategate emails—to keep that information from Australians—with impunity—to make sure Australians would get no information that would dilute the lies and distortions of the official Left/Labor/Greens propaganda?
    Why , with all the discussion over the aborted ETS [ or CPRS], has there been almost no reporting at all , and certainly no discussion or debate, even when the ETS was the hottest of topics, of the research of Roger Pielke Jr, who concluded that :

    ‘ Australian carbon policy proposals present emissions reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.’

    I don’t think the Gillard government or its supporters and the media give a damn about whether the science stands up to scrutiny or not.
    I believe they only care about the global political agenda.
    I think you probably care about it—but not enough to look into the challenges to the science, and to question the corruption of our democracy that the Left’s strategy requires.
    Anyone who really cares about the environment, would want the mitigation of the black carbon that’s responsible for 50% of the Arctic warming, undertaken forthwith.
    They’d want it to be the immediate focus—to attempt to stop the melt—but it’s not even mentioned at all in Australia—and the burning that produces it goes on.
    Any person who was serious about this moral imperative of our times, as they cast it, would desperately want the science to be scrutinized—and the raw data made available for falsifying or replication..
    They would be damning of any scientist who tried to dodge the FOI laws, in order to avoid scrutiny, because they would want everything possible done to get at the truth.
    If they believed in CO2-induced GW, they would fiercely guard the integrity of the peer review process, expecting that the AGW science would prevail.
    If thy believed in it, they would want inquiries into the conduct of the science to be legitimate and thorough—not shams that a school kid could see through, as they’ve been so far.
    And , above all, they would want to establish a climate of trust and respect with the citizens they expect to vote for measures they prescribe—to conserve energy , live sustainably etc.
    Doesn’t it bother you that our government’s [ and the media’s ] focus is to shut down the science [ because they want us to think it was settled in the last decade, and there couldn’t possibly be anything else to inform it, even though little is known about so many of the most important aspects of it]—to shut down the flow of information—to attempt to shut down and vilify, any scientist or politician who wants to question ?
    That’s totalitarian behaviour—not Australian.
    That would be nothing but bad for the ‘following generation’ you’re worried about.
    What will help them is a prosperous Australia, so that there’s abundant money available for research into everything—including renewable energy.
    An impoverished Australia, and a demoralized populace won’t have the will and the heart—let alone the wherewithal— to get the research done.

    Ross Brisbane:
    You’re worried about the ‘real dangers of climate change to following generations’, as we all should be.
    But the only way to mitigate that, in your view, is to buy lock stock and barrel—and then regurgitate—the mantras and the propaganda we get from the Australian government and media , to cover up all developments in the science , that present alternative conclusions, and put climate change into a different perspective.
    Yours is the star-struck Gaia-worshipping—‘people as pawns or useful idiots’ view.
    It’s the view that always purports to honour the earth—future generations—foreigners—anyone but the present wicked generation of Australians.
    It’s your cohorts and the elite who misinform you all, who are the real danger to future generations, in my opinion.
    They have their global political agenda, and you will allow yourself to be mobilized to help them achieve it.
    Don’t you ever ask yourself why the media and the rest of the Left in Australia has made certain that only one side of this issue is ever publicised if they can help it?
    That’s propaganda —not information—why are you happy to have these Left wing elites suppress information eg the research of Dr Clive Spash, on the ETS?
    Do you not mind at all that a scientist [ and he’s a warmist, not a sceptic], is gagged and censored, and ultimately nudged out of the CSIRO, for not taking the ‘correct’ line ?
    Didn’t you think the CSIRO that we all fund was better than that? I certainly did.
    Does it not bother you that ABC presenters [ with no scientific expertise ---just a journalism degree if that]were allowed , on the government payroll, to make the decision to suppress information and discussion about the climategate emails—to keep that information from Australians—with impunity—to make sure Australians would get no information that would dilute the lies and distortions of the official Left/Labor/Greens propaganda?
    Why , with all the discussion over the aborted ETS [ or CPRS], has there been almost no reporting at all , and certainly no discussion or debate, even when the ETS was the hottest of topics, of the research of Roger Pielke Jr, who concluded that :

    ‘ Australian carbon policy proposals present emissions reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.’

    I don’t think the Gillard government or its supporters and the media give a damn about whether the science stands up to scrutiny or not.
    I believe they only care about the global political agenda.
    I think you probably care about it—but not enough to look into the challenges to the science, and to question the corruption of our democracy that the Left’s strategy requires.
    Anyone who really cares about the environment, would want the mitigation of the black carbon that’s responsible for 50% of the Arctic warming, undertaken forthwith.
    They’d want it to be the immediate focus—to attempt to stop the melt—but it’s not even mentioned at all in Australia—and the burning that produces it goes on.
    Any person who was serious about this moral imperative of our times, as they cast it, would desperately want the science to be scrutinized—and the raw data made available for falsifying or replication..
    They would be damning of any scientist who tried to dodge the FOI laws, in order to avoid scrutiny, because they would want everything possible done to get at the truth.
    If they believed in CO2-induced GW, they would fiercely guard the integrity of the peer review process, expecting that the AGW science would prevail.
    If thy believed in it, they would want inquiries into the conduct of the science to be legitimate and thorough—not shams that a school kid could see through, as they’ve been so far.
    And , above all, they would want to establish a climate of trust and respect with the citizens they expect to vote for measures they prescribe—to conserve energy , live sustainably etc.
    Doesn’t it bother you that our government’s [ and the media’s ] focus is to shut down the science [ because they want us to think it was settled in the last decade, and there couldn’t possibly be anything else to inform it, even though little is known about so many of the most important aspects of it]—to shut down the flow of information—to attempt to shut down and vilify, any scientist or politician who wants to question ?
    That’s totalitarian behaviour—not Australian.
    That would be nothing but bad for the ‘following generation’ you’re worried about.
    What will help them is a prosperous Australia, so that there’s abundant money available for research into everything—including renewable energy.
    An impoverished Australia, and a demoralized populace won’t have the will and the heart—let alone the wherewithal— to get the research done.

  155. Olaf Koenders, Wizard of Oz? says:

    Thanks for all your input Professor carter. I’ve been watching you and some of your fellow compatriots for some decades now. Glad I made the right choice through empirical evidence and real science/physics rather than politics and word-smithing (read: LIES!!).

    The next time you go on national TV, ensure you have some charts available for the hearing/orthographically impaired – if they even let you display such evidence.

    Never forget that, in the Jurassic there was some 10x current CO2 levels, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans – proof of which are those pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish cramming our museum shelves and, never a runaway greenhouse – ever.

    Congrats bob. Here’s to sanity and REAL evidence [tink].. ;)

  156. Ben Hern says:

    Wombat you’re a quambi.
    I live in Norway and should point out that the carbon dioxide tax here doesn’t affect electrical energy, since mountainous Norway generates much of it’s electricity by hydro-electric means (that would be the same sort of projects so vocally damned by the Greens during the 70s and 80s when ever the Tasmaniacs planned a new dam). The tax on CO2 is thus detrimental primarily to transport and mobility (perhap one reason why Noggies are so enamoured of spending ferie at home or their mountain hytte?).
    The engine of Norway’s economy remains oil and gas, very little is still manufactured in Norway on the grounds of the outrageous cost (though in fairness, high wages are also to blame for that decline). The fact that Norway is a strong supporter of the Gullible Warming scare, speaks volumes; imagine how good for business it is when gullible fools in Germany close power stations burning indigenous coal in favour of gas imported from Norway, ditto for Britain, who also keep Norwegian pension plans afloat by squandering so heavily in subsidising offshore wind energy to the benefit of the neighbours (have a quick search for Sheringham Shoal or Dogger Bank, but see how wind energy in general contributes sweet f/a to a local UK industry).
    Norway also researches tidal power, something we could have been doing in the north west coast in the 1990s if not for the intervention of the same Greens who now talk up ‘renewable energy’ (apparently the risk of damage to a few metres of mangrove swamp downstream of the turbine out-weighed the benefit of ‘green’ energy).
    The only added cost to consumers of electricity in Norway recently has resulted from purely climatic reasons. That being the recent colder, drier winters and subsequently low storage available for generation. Remind me what the faithful have to say about the affects of Gullible Warming; hotter weather and higher precipitation as I recall hearing ad-nauseum.

    Mining activities in Australia may remain theoretically profitable after being emburdoned with a 60M AuD carbon dioxide tax, but not as profitable as they would if moved offshore to Brazil or Mogolia. Once that inevitable occurs, the new gaping hole in the federal budget will require plugging, so the average family of four wouldn’t be better off due to a hypothetical reduction in GST. That’s without contemplating the copious government subsidy for extra wind and solar energy…

    The only way food prices have been influenced by gullible warming is upwards thanks to infatuation with bio-fuels.

    You seriously believe education is a driver of the Australian economy? Enough to replace mining, even after fees rise to counter the elevated cost imposed directly or indirectly by a tax on thin air? Assuming you specifically mean international students coming to study down under, how do you propose this driver will remain unaffected when those students and their sponsers are faced with a 20% tax on everything?

    Aside from green-collar bureaucrats, how do you suppose there is any industrial or long term emploment benefit to Australia? Even if we follow Spain, Germany, Denmark and Britain down the path of ruinous squander in subsidising ‘renewable energy’, there is no on-going benefit to Australian industry; the hardware is manufactured abroad (the unrefined raw materials won’t even come from Australia once the mining industry is driven from the country by this deranged government), the facilities are erected and operated by foreign utilities and energy companies and once constructed, the flash-in-the-pan jobs windfall in the construction industry withers. All that is left to celebrate are more mindless bureaucrats trotting about auditing things and hows does a still more obese parasitic bureaucracy contribute anything actually useful to an economy. The observed statistic in EUssr experience is that for each ‘green job’ created three others are lost. Never mind the jaw slackening cost of subsidies.
    Harping about ‘Green Jobs’ is like celebrating the diagnosis of tapeworm.
    Praising plans for a Carbon (dioxide) tax is as nonsensical as praising the idea of cutting off your left leg before enrolling in an arse-kicking competition.

  157. Wombat says:

    “Wombat you’re a quambi.”

    Ben, do you realise, you called me a shelter?

    “I live in Norway and should point out that the carbon dioxide tax here doesn’t affect electrical energy, since mountainous Norway generates much of it’s electricity by hydro-electric means”

    Norway is also the first country to produce tidal power commercially. Without the Carbon tax probably they would have just burnt some of that fossil fuel that is the mainstay of the economy.

    And under 300% GDP growth and 12% population growth, a 15% increase in emissions is very mild. It is very likely that the carbon price has contributed strongly to keeping this increase down.

    “Remind me what the faithful have to say about the affects of Gullible Warming; hotter weather and higher precipitation as I recall hearing ad-nauseum.”

    Globally, that is the expected outcome. Regional effects are expected to vary. So certainly if you think that a dry winter in Norway means that physics is broken, and greenhouse gasses no longer cause a greenhouse effect, then you certainly are gullible.

    “Mining activities in Australia may remain theoretically profitable after being emburdoned with a 60M AuD carbon dioxide tax, but not as profitable as they would if moved offshore to Brazil or Mogolia.”

    Australian mining does not compete with Brazil or Mongolia for either labour or plant. Plant is constructed on site, and abandoned when the mines close. Brazilians and Mongolians cannot work here unless they have professional expertise in an area that Australia is under-supplied in.

    If the opportunity cost of the money spent operating a mine becomes greater than the profit from operating the mine, let it close. The price of every resource in the crust of the earth is increasing, and once it’s gone, it’s gone. The later it’s mined, the better for Australia.

    “Once that inevitable occurs, the new gaping hole in the federal budget will require plugging, so the average family of four wouldn’t be better off due to a hypothetical reduction in GST.”

    If the money comes in from the CO2 tax, then GST can be reduced. If no money comes in from the CO2 tax, then the family of four isn’t any worse off, because they paid no CO2 tax. If BHP open new mines more slowly, and so less Australians are paying income tax; good, those resources are finite, and Australia won’t always be able to look to the mining industry to keep us in food and water. Let us also look at other industries.

    “The only way food prices have been influenced by gullible warming is upwards thanks to infatuation with bio-fuels.”

    US subsidies for corn-ethanol, are extremely stupid. Sugar produces fuel at over four times the efficiency, but the US doesn’t like sugar, because it’s communist.

    However, the gullible deniers would tell you that the food riots in Haiti, which has exactly zero bio-fuel production, were caused by competition with bio-fuels. In fact global warming is likely to be contributing to famines in Africa and the South East Asia for decades.

    “You seriously believe education is a driver of the Australian economy?”

    One of our fastest growing exports.

    The service sector of the economy, including tourism, education and financial services, constitutes 69% of GDP.

    Natural resources constitutes about 5% of GDP. Do you think that mining is a driver of the Australian economy? The education is about ten times that.

    “Enough to replace mining, even after fees rise to counter the elevated cost imposed directly or indirectly by a tax on thin air?”

    Yes, obviously more than enough to replace mining. You do realise that 69% is more than 5%, don’t you?

    “Assuming you specifically mean international students coming to study down under, how do you propose this driver will remain unaffected when those students and their sponsers are faced with a 20% tax on everything?”

    It’s not a 20% tax on everything. That would be a GST. We put on a GST. Students kept coming.

    “Aside from green-collar bureaucrats, how do you suppose there is any industrial or long term emploment benefit to Australia?”

    By increasing investment and infrastructure in renewable, and therefore in the long term, cheaper technologies. This will increase our long term competitiveness.

    And, lets face it, there will have to be a global price on carbon at some point; or sanctions against those that don’t. We suspect that the world can’t take 2°C of warming and feed itself, and it might be 1.5°C. Extreme weather events have rendered Australia unprofitable this year already. People will wake up at some point.

    “Harping about ‘Green Jobs’ is like celebrating the diagnosis of tapeworm.”

    There are many industries that increase the efficiency of the economy, and are better than reliance on a finite resource. Electric Car manufacture. Wind turbine manufacture. Solar energy capture. Biofuel production. Agricultural research and IP.

    The oil will run out at some point. You can edge the economy into the new world, and save some biodiversity and arable land while you’re at it, or you can hit the wall hard, when no money can get mineral oil, have all the same problems, magnified by increased demand and reduced time to transition, and have killed most of the world’s ecosystems in the process.

    Not that hard a choice, Ben.

Comments are closed.