Guest post by Alec Rawls
Anthony posted the video earlier. Professor Lindzen as casually bemused dragon-slayer. Highly quotable, so I thought I’d create a transcript. Here is Lindzen’s damning conclusion (after demolishing any scientific basis for Australia’s new carbon tax):
If they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians.
Transcript follows:
Full transcript
Andrew Bolt: Professor Lindzen, thanks for joining us from Paris. Now our government says we must have a carbon dioxide tax to help stop global warming, which it says is damaging Australia already. Can we start with some basics? First, how much is the planet actually warming?
Richard Lindzen: Well… over the century, or maybe 150 years, it may be somewhere between a half and three-quarters of a degree Centigrade. I don’t know what it is locally in Australia. Since ’95 , … 1995, there hasn’t been much warming, certainly not that can be distinguished from noise.
AB: Is that warming lower than what the climate alarmists have been telling us to expect?
RL: Oh yeah. You have a constant game going on. The IPCC once said that they thought it probable that man’s emissions had accounted for most of the warming over the last 50 years. A more correct statement might have been that according to current models man has accounted for between 2 and 5 times the warming we’ve seen in the last 50 years, and the models have cancelled the difference by arbitrary adjustments, and they call them aerosols, but they vary from model to model and they’re just fudge factors.
AB: Now if we see a rise in carbon dioxide emissions as we have, a very big rise, in this last decade or more, but no real warming, what does that say about global warming theory?
RL: What is says is that—and it doesn’t uniquely say anything—it says there are certainly other things going on that are just as big. These things like El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, are giving you as much variability as whatever man is doing, and because of that you can’t even tell if man is doing anything.
AB: Can I ask you? If we do get further warming caused by man, will that warming be good for us, or bad?
RL: That’s always hard to tell. It will be good for some people, a little worse for others. It will be completely within the range of what human beings have shown they are capable of adapting to and even prospering under.
AB: What effect would a carbon dioxide tax in Australia—the aim is to cut emissions by 5% by 2020—what effect would that have on the world’s temperature?
RL: I don’t think anyone could possibly detect it even with future technology. It would be nothing, for all practical purposes, and it would be nothing if the whole world did the same.
AB: So does it make any sense at all to adopt a tax, or to spend directly on programs to cut emissions?
RL: Depends on who you are. For governments, you know, they want taxes and they know people don’t like to pay them, and I think if they can possibly confuse people into thinking they’re doing it save the earth, they’ll do it more willingly.
AB: So you’d consider this more a sort of big government measure than anything that could really influence the world’s climate for the good.
RL: I think there’s no disagreement in the scientific community that this will have no impact on climate, so it’s purely a matter of government revenue. And, as I say, I mean if they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians.
AB: Well, it’s a very depressing scenario you paint, but thank you very much Professor Lindzen for joining us from Paris. I appreciate it.
RL: Good luck. Good luck.
A more in-depth interview with RL from Paris is to be found here.
http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2011/07/professor-richard-lindzen-on-global.html
Depressingly, the NZ Labour Party is gong the same way as Australian Labor under Juila Gillard. NZ Labour’s Phil Goff says he will form a coalition with the NZ Greem Party – which of course favour high “carbon” taxes: http://t.co/kevo4V0
It appears that he is paying no attention to the Australian reaction to the carbon tax policy.
And therein lies the rub.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the AGW debate – no-one (as far as I can see) seems to be saying that cutting co2 emissions or introducing carbon taxes will have any noticeable effect on the temperature. And that demonstrates how the precautionary principle works. The precaution becomes the issue and the issue about which one decides to be cautious becomes secondary. We see it in all acpects of public governance throughout the world – climate change; euro bail outs; bank bailouts; health & safety regulations designed to address risk in, say school outings, ends up prohibiting them or making them untenable/too expensive; regulation of the professions, laws and public policy passed based on knee jerk “precautionary” approaches to the behaviour of the “worst” tiny minority; and so it goes on, everywhere you look.
It is a template used by political classes the world over and we should not be surprised to see it used in relation to AGW/climate change/ocean acidification/biodiversity, etc. etc. There is little reason deployed in government.
Thanks for the transcript. Dr. Lindzen is one, of many, who do know what they are talking about.
Dr. Lindzen said a few years ago-
‘I think that humans may affect climate but after 40 years of searching I cannot find the human signal’.
Come on Australia the remedy is in your hands through the ballot box. Vote Gillard out!
The “carbon” tax revenue will fall short of the compensation (Bribes) being offered by Gillard to the tune of AU$4.5 billion. I guess if Gillard has to “sell” this tax to the voting public, then that suggests to me Aussie voters are not convinced a tax will reduce emissions and cool the planet.
Thanks Alec. Gone into perm storage in ClipMate.
There’s that calm, reassuring common sense again! Ah:-)
Its looking highly unlikely that Gillard will get her tax through. Australians hate leaders that think they can away with it when a large majority is against. Its now 71% who are against her
http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-julia-gillard-hits-all-time-low-in-essential-media-poll-before-carbon-tax-call/story-e6frfkvr-1226092552058
Can you show us the evidence to support what you say? /sarc /sarc /sarc … /sarc
(not that they’d bother to acknowledge it…).
That has ALWAYS gotten me about Crimate Silence. Distinguishing ‘the signal’ from the noise. That half a degree or so is a very special half-a-degree. It really means 30 dgrees, for purpose of alarmist argument.
The really good thing about this is that people are now probably looking up the data and finding out how they have been conned by the AGW.ers. Its probably backfired on them by trying so hard.
I am in Oz for a wee bit and was able to watch The Bolt Report live this past weekend.
Below are links to the clips. Dr Lindzen is in Part 1 of the most recent episode.
http://ten.com.au/video-player.htm?movideo_p=44795&movideo_m=117200
I’m dumbfounded by the stupidity of this tax.
Gillard’s ‘carbon’ (dioxide) tax is intended to force Australian consumers to switch to more expensive ‘clean’ energy while simultaneously exporting enormous amounts of coal to (mainly) Japan with the government’s enthusiastic approval; these exports are expected to grow about 25% in the next five years more than canceling out any (putative) environmental benefit: “the coal industry has a bright future under carbon pricing [sic]” she declares in her glib and vacuous way.
Of course none of it has anything to do with AGW etc., but in keeping sweet with her coalition partners the Greens, who keep her in power and whose leader (a 67 year old onetime physician) twittered on the day of the tax announcement: “the earth just got a little happier”.
One of the more alarming parts of the carbon weekend here was the claim on a later Andrew Bolt show that closing coal mines will lead to an increase in employment. This will come, the man from Government said, from the larger numbers of people needed to generate each unit of power from alternative energy sources, as has been shown in Germany.
This is about a logical as saying that 5 people can be diverted to make a widget, faster than one person could. But, that it not the issue. The issue is whether we need a new widget in the first place, when we already have one that works.
Former Conservative Prime Ministerial contender & economist Dr John Hewson was on the panel. He failed to point out the stupidity of this claim. Perhaps he was not given a chance there, but he should make a statement afterwards, if economics is to retain respectability.
“Christopher Hanley says:
July 11, 2011 at 2:49 am”
That’s really funny. After all Brown has been suggesting way for people to save, by turning stuff off. I guess everyone else needs to “turn off” except him. Typical, but not a surprise. I wonder if we’ll get all the infrastructure, like roads, public transport, schools, hospitals etc if Australia implemented a carbon tax he was talking about BEFORE the election? With a shortfall of AU$4.5 billion, after compensation, I am not convinced.
The basic stupidity of politicians seems to be increasing, or perhaps I have less patience with people who want to pick my pockets as I get older.
Why does it take Andrew Bolt to get his own show before someone like Lindzen is presented in the Australian media? No wonder people think there is no scientific doubt.
The carbon tax in Australia has come about because the party who went to the last election stated in very plain English that ‘there will be no carbon tax’ if we win government. Well, they didn’t win government and are only in government due to a minor party. The Greens (with about 10-12% support in the population), with a few independents that blow which ever way the wind is blowing to feather their nest (but will be undoubtedly gone in the next election) as they represent nothing one can put their finger on. Australia’s wealth is based on its natural resources and now they are to tax that out of existence. It is like Saudia Arabia taxing gas (petrol) and putting out of business the very natural resource that gives them wealth. Australia will now tax the very source of its wealth to buy in renewable energy technology produced overseas and become a poor nation just to allow a political party to stay in power. Australia is now run by the leader of the Greens (Bob Brown); (a radical party by any definition) and an ex-doctor who decided that saving a wild river from a dam decades ago as an activist, and the thrill of power that that gave him, better than being a medical doctor – the degree of which was paid for from government (tax payer) funds as his university degree was free and hence the investment for the degree totally wasted. He is gay, and although his sexual orientation has nothing to do with politics, he has produced no family and has no idea on the pressure of living that creating the next generation comes with for they are the future so it is a bit like a Roman Catholic priest advising on marital issues and child rearing. Raising a family costs energy and, even with compensation, it still costs. He has no first hand experience and draws his views from a theoretical knowledge of what it should be like. The state (Tasmania) that the leader of the Greens comes from is an economic basket case and if it wasn’t for redistribution of wealth from the energy and resource states to his state, the standard of living in his state would be significantly poorer. His supporters?; mainly urban city folk who are now the primary consumers of the world and so disconnected from the realities of life that they think that their Green lifestyle is delivered to them by some magic and that energy, food, water, etc. comes from a slave class that should be punished for their wicked ways so they can live in luxury – as is their due. More than 80% of the fossil fuels that Australia produces that is untaxed is sent overseas to create wealth – to give the Greens their comfortable standard of living – is burnt overseas in the global atmosphere, then the tax that Australians pay on the 20% that may be burnt in Australia is bearing all the costs for next to absolutely zero impact on global warming (assuming that it is due to CO2). The minority puppet government of Australia has as its master the Greens and will dance to whatever tune they play to enforce their vision of what life should be like on its entire population even though a very small minority actually voted for the Greens, which by definition, are at the extreme of the main stream view of the population. If this is democracy then my sincerest apologies to all those families who lost loved ones that fought and died to defend democracy against tyranny.
Well good to see our Ozzy friends on the rush to the bottom with us here in the UK, I see another energy company has put it’s prices up again by 30% over here int he UK. Just a simple Google search on fuel prices UK 10 years makes me realise that the elites of the world have no idea what there doing, the telling sign is at the bottom the amount of people in fuel poverty.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/green-growth/energy-price-rises/
Wow, there’s the virtue principal for you. Please save the world. . . and we’ll ship more coal to Japan, so that *they’ll* be the one responsible for ruining the planet, not us.
And tonight the public funded Australian Broadcasting Commission, did their usual “unbiased best” by presenting “three Leading Australian Scientists” Professor Barry Brook the chair of Climate Change at Adelaide University, Professor Peter Cook, representing the “Centre for Greenhouse Gases, presently engaged in promoting Carbon Capture and Storage and Professor “Snow” Barlow of land and environment at Melbourne University, to comment on the Gillard Carbon Tax and of course the thrust was to support the Government, though Peter Cook was critical that there wasn’t enough mention of Carbon Capture and Storage.
In Australian parlance the old diggers would say WOT no exception, no balance!! But, perfect for the left biased ABC, who refuse to even think there could be differing opinions to their version of media consensus.
Then later they have Q & A where Gillard will answer all those hard questions – I’d like to see that, but with a carefully stacked audience and a biased presenter like Tony Jones, it may be wishful thinking that any alternative to the Julia repetition will be allowed unless carefully scripted. Will it be the hard as nails robotic julia, or the wistful soft I’m reaching out to all Australians who care Julia…..
RB says:
July 11, 2011 at 2:01 am
Good analysis RB. I would read your last sentence as “There is little WISDOM deployed in government.”
What is totally bizarre about this ‘carbon price’ is that they are taking the money with one hand and giving it back with the other .. By penalising Australia’s largest export industry, what happens if Australian Coal becomes too expensive? I bet there are plenty of other countries willing to take their place. India springs to mind, along with Africa and Russia – at the expense of the Australian Miners, Mining companies and ultimately the Australian economy. Aus Coal was its biggest export for 2008/9 at 55 Billion AU$
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports.aspx
What is this sheila smoking.
Why would it be so difficult to take the government to court to make them first prove that more carbondioxide causes warming?>
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Re; Hanley,
Of course that leader will think that “the earth just got a little happier”, since he thinks the earth of himself.
As an Australian, I can firmly say with no fear of contradiction that Ms. Gillard is the political equivalent of a zombie, a walking putrescence who is so disconnected with reality that she firmly believes that driving a stake into the heart of her own country’s economy will win her support from those who are left bloodied, disenfranchised and unemployed by her Quasi-Stalinist policies. He address to the nation was almost painful to watch for most Australians, with one subsequent opinion poll with News Limited suggesting that only 8% of the population would vote Labor at the next election! Like Custer at Little Big Horn, her arrogance and overconfidence knows no bounds and the upcoming massacre will lead to the decimation of her party for a generation. She remains immune to logic, reason or scientific discourse. She is without doubt the worst Prime Minister in our history, against extraordinarily stiff opposition from such totally inept predecessors as Whitlam, Fraser and Rudd, who are god like figures in the pantheon of political failure. After only 12 months in the job, she has managed to alienate huge segments of the community with every deceit, platitude, knee jerk reaction, policy catastrophe and half-baked crackpot ideology she espouses. Let her fate, and the fate of her party at the next election give pause to other world leaders who seek to perpetrate the AGW fraud. The apathy of the general public is slowly being awakened by word of mouth which is far more powerful than any propaganda methodology the spin doctors of government can dream up. This carbon tax is the ultimate pyrrhic victory for Gillard, and will be indelibly inscribed on her political headstone. So be it. Bring it on!
Pretty clever rabble rousing, this bill. Designed to appeal to the “entitlement” community, which will be compensated to an extent greater than their costs and of course, to the precautionary morons who think we must do “something” while also ripping off business. Those two constituencies might be a majority in the US.
.
It is a bit early for the penny to drop with the Australian public yet (although they are unhappy about it – resulting in over-compensation right now), but when analysis is done and the usual green ‘we did it for the world’ grows a little thin, some of the unreality will sink in.
Australia’s largest export is coal, coal provides most of its base-load power.No nuclear. The stated aim is to prevent any more coal-fired power stations being built in a country which has hundreds of years of coal, to cover current exports and home use.
Secondly, we shall go to a carbon trading scheme, yet there will not be enough carbon credits to cover their quota and will have to pay billions of dollars to overseas traders to “reduce” nominal emissions. Official economic assumptions even then are based on the rest of the world having a carbon trading regime also. Did I mention that assumptions also presume that geothermal, solar and wind will be economically viable by then?
In summary, they throw away cheap power, risk sending all mining investments – iron ore is a huge money-spinner also – to other countries (Africa is just one location) which have no carbon trading or taxes and then use taxpayers money to ‘buy’ their carbon credits from out of the country. It looks like a death wish for the Australian economy.
Last point: for all that, Australian emissions will still INCREASE from 578 megatons of CO2 in 2009-10 to 621 megatons of CO2 in 2020!!
I’m really upset right now. Julia Gillard has just claimed on ABC that sceptics have been disrespectful to scientists during this debate. This coming from a woman who calls anybody who questions any aspect of her quasi-religious belief in “Dangerous Climate Change” a Holocaust Denier. If she could find a way to brand sceptics “Child Molesters” I reckon she would. This woman is the head of a political party that funds an organisation called GetUp!. GetUp! is opposed to free speech. GetUp! is on record threatening venues who have let Monckton talk. On record blackmailing companies who oppose the carbon tax. The only up side is the latest poll released a few hours ago has her falling even further in the polls. Two more years we have to put up with this.
It is all about transfering power from THE PEOPLE to THE ELITE .
of course to safe us from doom.
It has nothing to do with Climate.
step by step they take our freedom away
Andrew Bolt is the journalistic equivalent of a zombie, a walking putrescence who is so disconnected with reality that he firmly believes that driving a stake into the heart of science will win him support from those who are find themselves in dire need of a dose of indignation.
(Note, I would never be so rude, I’m just copying the creative writing of Winston above.)
I know I am repeating myself, but it’s because I don’t get an answer to my simple question.
Why would it be so difficult to take a government to court to make them first prove that more carbondioxide does cause warming? The government here (in South Africa) has recently put a carbon tax on cars.
If it cannot be proven in court that more CO2 does cause warming, and, if on the the other hand, it can be shown that more CO2 is probably beneficial, then surely the tax becomes invalid?
I mean, surely, people like Bob Carter and Lindzen, myself and many others, could be brought in as witnesses and testitfy that CO2 produces little or no warming?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
“Mick says:
July 11, 2011 at 3:31 am”
Minor nitpick. Ms. Gillard said….”There will be no carbon tax in a Govn’t I lead.” Labor didn’t win, but the Labor leader, Gillard, is leading Govn’t.
There is a trend here. In my experience, countries that have “done the hard yards” in terms of implementing “painful Govn’t policy”, Thatcher (UK), Clark (NZ) and now Gillard (Aus).
An assertion accompanied by nothing resembling evidentiary or supporting material …
Such that we may learn, understand and come to comprehend on a level on a par with your own, could you please provide support for this/these assertions … the alternative being a request to “dissipate noiselessly into thin air”?
.
“John Brookes says:
July 11, 2011 at 7:02 am”
At least Bolt is in touch with reality. Gillard, I am convinced she still thinks she is a politics student. I recall a politics student once who actually complained about the size of the seats in a parliament house and associated buildings. They weren’t quite wide enough to acomodate this particular student and it was claimed that this was some form of discrimination. I kid you not!
First of all, nobody can show the real climate works the same as the models. (More correctly – nobody can show the climate models correctly model the actual climate).
Second, if the models are correct, then the changes being advocated won’t amount to anything. This is easier to argue than the first point, as the models simply need to be run with before and after inputs to show the changes will be insignificant.
I am happy that Canada is ignoring the lead of other countries in economic suicide. The current U.S. administration seems intent on tanking their own economy. Australia, too, it appears. WUWT? is a powerful voice, but I despair that it will not be enough to prevent what these leaders clearly intend to do. Thanks to Dr. Lindzen for his clarity.
“Man Bearpig says:
July 11, 2011 at 5:07 am
What is totally bizarre about this ‘carbon price’ is that they are taking the money with one hand and giving it back with the other .. By penalising Australia’s largest export industry, what happens if Australian Coal becomes too expensive? I bet there are plenty of other countries willing to take their place. ”
CANADA is trying – CP/CN rail and coal companies are upgrading facilities and shipping just as much as they can to port … closed coal mines are being reopened as demand rises and rises …
Maybe OT, but I have just had a chance to catch up on news items of the day, Monday, in Aus. On the ABC’s 7:30pm report, they had aired views on the “carbon” tax. A couple, living in a nice looking house, probably a 750 square metre block of land, here in Sydney were worried about “…reducing their carbon…” to protect the future. The woman who looks into her childrens eyes “knows” she is doing the right thing. One of their claims to lowering their “carbon footprint” is an installation of 18 PV solar panels. Not sure which ones, and their rating, but get this…and it is a real doozie…they claim it generates…wait for it…3 MEGAWATTS. That’s right 3 MEGAWATTS.
John Brookes says:
You sir are an idiot and I suspect a real Zombie
“driving a stake into the heart of science” What planet are you living on, what science? can’t you see the crap that the IPPC have been promoting, take of the blinkers man and look at the doctored and cherry pick facts, data manipulation the warmist have dished out for years, none of it can stand the light of day!
Winston’s comments are spot on!
Andrew Bolt has covered this CAGW hoax for many years and I would put him up against any Warmist spin-doctors anytime, anywhere, no matter what their profession!
Australia owes Andrew Bolt and people like Winston a debt of gratitude for fighting for Australians and all freedom loving people the world over.
Truth always wins and Bullshit always stinks!
Attention moderators:
I have tried a few times now get a a notifications link on follow up comments –
it seems it does not work
( I will now try again)
And now it works….
…sorry…
It’s not so much the climate debate that is depressing, it’s the constant wheedling to tax more in the name of saving the Planet. As time goes on, the CO2 tax (aliases and variants included) scheme looks more like a train wreck. The cost of doing business like this is beyond taking a hit on prosperity and well-being, it will kill it….for nothing.
Lindzen for President!!
Can’t you see it? Can’t you see the end result? I’ll let you in on it. The tax WILL be implemented, the Labor party WILL lose the next election but, crucially, the TAX WILL STAND. There is no way any ‘new’ government will repeal a tax that allows the politicians to ‘manipulate’ the electorate. The opposition that cries ‘foul’ today is the party that blames the outgoing lot but ‘carries on regardless’.
There is scant difference between ANY political parties these days and a carbon tax would be introduced by any party colour if they thought they could (and they CAN) get away with it.
Ah, but the weasel words from some government muppet yesterday was that this is NOT a tax (hence the Prime Bogan did not lie in her promise not to levy a carbon tax by her government) this is an ETS.
I despair – I sense a rise in the prescription of anti-depressants coming on in Australia in the not too distant future.
The worst thing about this tax is that it won’t have a large financial impact on people to start with, they will all think it is not a big deal. The real impact of this tax will be 10-15 years down the track. An increase of 2.5% a year over inflation will soon grow into a VERY big number and with this amount of revenue flow the Government (Red or Blue) will fight to keep it as Kellys_eye states above.
It is very similar to the international free trade agreement that conservative prime minister John Howard (a drop kick of the first order) signed. It seemed to have little impact early on but now it is decimating farmers and manufacturers. There was only 2 countries stupid enough to sign this agreement Australia and New Zealand, now we have severe restrictions on what we can stop from coming into our country, the latest is Chinese apples, whilst all the local apple growers in my area are going broke.
Adelai Stevenson stated on a trip to Australia last century that Australia was so rich in resources that a donkey could run it. We have had a long line of politicians who have made donkeys look very smart.
But once the tax is in place, and the Liberal/National coalition gets into power, you can be pretty sure that they will find all sorts of reasons for not dumping it. They might rename it, and fiddle with it a bit, but it will stay.
So we are still doomed.
Australians, get used to it. This tax has been approved by the lower house, and the new Senate is a joke that will rubber stamp everything from the Reps. The tax will become reality next year, just as we are now all paying extra income tax this year to bail out Queensland for not managing its dams (or its accounts) properly. The mining tax will become a reality. The demise of contractor labour will become a reality.
This government has two years left to serve. We do not have any say in the administration until then (think NSW for the past 4 years). By then the tax will be embedded and it will require the movemement of heaven and earth to rescind it. Won’t happen. Apart from perhaps Greece, Australia is now the most economically suicidal nation in the West. What a stupid, ignorant bunch of possums we are.
“If they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians.”
~ Lindzen ~
Indeed it’s an approach advocated by famed free-marketeer economist Milton Friedman … it’s called a “Pigovian Tax”.
REPLY: I had to look that one up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
-Anthony
There will be an election in Australia in 2013.
The tax that will be operational then, may or may not be abolished.
That will largely depend on the financial position of the government at that time.
(My guess is that there will be NO budget surplus – but that’s only a forecast or is it a prediction?)
But we will at least be saved from the futile attempt to reduce our emissions by a full 80%.
“AB: What effect would a carbon dioxide tax in Australia—the aim is to cut emissions by 5% by 2020—what effect would that have on the world’s temperature?
RL: I don’t think anyone could possibly detect it even with future technology. It would be nothing, for all practical purposes, and it would be nothing if the whole world did the same.”
I did some number crunching on this issue since in Alberta, Canada, they still want to spend about a billion dollars on one carbon capture project. At the present time, humans emit about 90 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every DAY. I DO NOT believe this to be the case, however let us assume there will be the IPCC average number of 3 degrees C increase in temperature due to our emissions if we do nothing. So if a billion dollars is spent to capture 1 million tons a YEAR, this amounts to a fraction of 1 in 32,850. So if nothing is done, the temperature will presumably go up 3.0000 degrees C, but if a billion dollars is spent, the temperature would go up by 2.9999 degrees. Or to put in another way, if we take the temperature of 10,000 cities now and then again in 100 years from now, 9,999 cities will have the same temperature and one city will be 1 degree C warmer.
I challenge an Australian government scientist to prove my numbers are out to lunch.
“If they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians.”
Ah ha. So that’s why Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling by $4T. He’ll need to add $2T a year just to pay the US share for the next 40 years.
Enough already! Let’s choose mitigation and get back to the same old, same old! If AGW ever happens we can throw money at the specific problem(s) and not just throw money in the air. This way the warmers should feel happy and the rest of us can create more jobs.
A tax on CO2 is only a legitimate Pigouvian tax (also called a “micro-economic tax”) if there is an actual negative externality that it is internalizing, but the actual expected external value of CO2 is unambiguously positive. Internalizing this externality would call for a negative tax, or a subsidy.
Why are the side effects of CO2 burning unambiguously positive? First, because history tells us that warmer is better. Not just mankind but the biosphere in general prospers when the planet is warm and suffers when the planet is cold. Thus so long as the warming effect of CO2 is modest, this warming effect is all to the good. If natural variation is in the cooling direction, any effect CO2 has in moderating natural cooling is good, and if natural variation is in the warming direction, a bit more of good thing is also good.
The only way CO2’s warming effect can be bad is if it is powerful enough to overwhelm natural variation and create the scenarios of “runaway warming” that the IPCC warns of (with all of its talk of “tipping points”). But the IPCC is only able to raise such scary prospects by attributing virtually all 20th century warming to CO2, when the evidence says it was due to the 80 year grand maximum of solar magnetic activity that ended in 2003. Take away that misattribution and what is left to attribute to CO2 is only modest, and hence can only be beneficial.
Then there is the plant-food aspect of CO2, which is also unambiguously positive in value. Thus if anything we should be subsidizing CO2. Not what politicians, looking for an excuse to tax, want to hear.
I agree with Alec Rawls.
but now..how about…?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/11/transcript-of-andrew-bolts-carbon-sunday-interview-with-richard-lindzen/#comment-698109
???
Thanks for the transcript. Australia is becoming more and more of a laughingstock o/s.
THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WILL SAY:
Julia Gillard is Australia’s own Nancy Pelosi, arm-twisting her caucus into voting for something which is likely to cost many of her members, and probably Gillard herself, their jobs when the next election comes around. Nevertheless, she, like Madame Defarge, keeps on knitting the seeds of economic destruction into the fabric of the Australian economy.
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/carbon-tax-australias-economic-suicide/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Marshall_Plan
You have to understand the people involved know that the ‘science’ is as corrupt and as odious as they are.
Our PM, Julia Dullard, finance minister, Wrong-way-Wong, the head of the US EPA, Gore himself, are members of International Socialist. This has always been a political scam using crooked science and scientists to fulfill the agenda. They learnt this from the Nazi’s science of Aryan supeiority. enough said Orwell was ignored.
regards
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frederic Bastiat (from his booklet: “The Law”)
sorry, I forgot to paste this. sound familiar???
regards
The sole purpose of this tax is to finance the birth of fascism in Australia.
“Ha, ha, doomie shite denierist. Do you sex mommy you weigh 500 pound? Study up statistics, neanderthal. I reada book. Toss off, A’Turf!”
That’s summation of the best-in-class debate points I was so frighteningly confronted with this weekend on dozens of sites that don’t desperately moderate.
David Mamet, the former lefty playwright now turned conservative summed up this bile-spewing phenomenon as being driven by a very primitive lizard brain level of subconsciousness, namely the urge to hiss and spit at outsiders of one’s inbred group.
I noticed another thing, only this weekend, embarrassingly, for I should have seen it before: those who are most energized to publicly attack the character of skeptics in cartoonish haunted house fashion are also most likely to spend hours at a time mass huddling in miserable raw pain on Tamino’s uber-moderated blog, kvetching, rubbing open sores, searching for the logic of it all: how it’s possible that their bright lockstep Utopian skies have suddenly darkened, blame gaming and themselves wondering how to game the evil system that is the dinosaur ridden fossil fueled “denialist industry.”
Their souls are human reincarnations of cockroaches, and this invokes an odd flavor of pity in me that makes me as comfortable as naively saying a glad-handed “hello” to a bunch of addicts in a reddened needle strewn drug den.
AGW is the crack cocaine of leftism, it’s spiritual Soma, sacrament, and sublime divine halo, one which has stopped growing in their lost rainforest of the mind, now a scarce commodity, the horror, the horror of it all, withdrawal being very devil Himself.