Australia’s Carbon tax’s poisonous pill

Australian Coat of Arms (adopted 1912)

Image via Wikipedia

Story submitted by Richard Abbott
At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”. To form a minority Labor party government three elected independent members sided with Labor and to ensure upper house control of legislation change the Greens offered their solidarity provided a carbon tax was introduced.

Currently Australian parliament is debating the carbon tax bill, which has emerged with a rather bitter and poisonous pill. The carbon tax legislation’s emission right is to be treated as conventional property rights, therefore making it almost impossible to repeal once enacted, because of the enormous compensation that the Australian government of the day would be required to pay to the 500 polluting companies being forced to purchase carbon emissions permit credits.

Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal when global climate change is found not to be caused by industrial man. The poisonous pill added was to prevent the Liberal opposition party repealing the carbon tax legislation at the next federal election in 2013. Not surprisingly the prime minister’s popularity at the last media poll was 28% and with this announcement today likely to drop further. Sadly because of the Independent’s own personal guaranteed agendas and Greens with their agenda Australia is now guaranteed a carbon tax far removed from climate change.

Prime minister Gillard said when she announced her change of mind that we would now have a carbon tax, as Australia needed to set an example for the world to follow. (Albeit Australia contributes 1.4 % of the total global emissions.)

Yes, we will be the laughing stock of the world, seen jumping head first off a cliff into a shark infested sea, as we will have no way back, because we were sold a tax that has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.

More: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/labor-plants-poison-pills-in-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226138227483

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

180 Responses to Australia’s Carbon tax’s poisonous pill

  1. DaveF says:

    “…and leaves no chance for repeal…”
    But wouldn’t a future Australian government be able to reduce the tax to a peppercorn amount?

  2. UK Sceptic says:

    Regress Australia, fear…

  3. John Marshall says:

    Get rid of this woman Australia! Get an election and VOTE HER OUT. Remember Labour did severe economic damage to the UK and the Australian Labour Party is no different.

    If you don’t Australia will become a third world country for no reason.

  4. twawki says:

    With the media inquiry, the internet filter, bloggers mentioned as being targeted its not just prosperity of our nation that is being targeted but also our free speech

  5. Grimwig says:

    Who’s suprised? The second rate politicians of today care not a jot about the good of their countries but only about their own political opportunism. Like the others, Gillard will do anything for power.

  6. Orson Olson says:

    The obvious questions. First, are there constitutional objections to wrangle with, if this passes? Second, what if the value of the “rights” falls through the floor? (The carbon trading market in Chicago closed last year; only EU mandates have kept Europe’s open, as I understand it.)

  7. bananabender says:

    Unfortunately an Australian federal election can be theoretically delayed until November 30 2013.

  8. bushbunny says:

    Tony Windsor said on Channel 10 news last night that he’d been overseas and was pleased
    to see the carbon abatement operating there? Ay? It’s a disaster. Maybe one can’t repeal this legislation but you could amend it? I mean we did get rid of capital punishment. John Marshall
    we been trying get her out and the Independents. But this might – make it worse we have had the Convoy of No confidence and even so many objections to this carbon tax that the three out of the four independents last night – oh so weak and trivial, said it was a step forward, etc., and Tony say he was pleased with the carbon abatement occurring overseas.

  9. Peter says:

    Rural and Regional councils are some of the 500 polluters. does any one know who else are going to pay the tax?

  10. JeffT says:

    Great to see this posted here on Watts Up With That, Anthony.
    I’ve been posting links to this Australian article everywhere I can post this item, all day.
    Most of the Australian public appear to be blissfully unaware. (dumbed down ?)
    Thank you for posting it.

  11. BargHumer says:

    Condolencies to the Ozzies. Who would have thought that these no-nonesense people could have been so easily neutered. To be taken in by something reasonable is one thing but to dive headlong into something everyone know will do no good to the country or the planet is just incredible. Of course, as we say, “it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good” – I don’t see who will really gain in Oz from this one.

  12. Ecotretas says:

    If we’ve got rid of the “green boy” here in Portugal, why don’t the Australians get rid of their “green girl”?
    Ecotretas

  13. Peter Jones says:

    There’s no doubt she will be voted out next election but she will do a lot of damage on the way out the door. We will have to pay OTHER COUNTRIES for the right to mine our own resources because industry will be forced to purchase Carbon Credits overseas through Carbon exchanges.

    All this after promising NOT to introduce a Carbon Tax as part of her campaign before the last election.

    Her views are promoted by the powerful ABC network in Australia which is dominated by lefty Climate Change fanatics.

  14. Matters are indeed turning serious in Oz. There is Union thuggery, including a case where the female head of the Health Services Union was left a shovel on her front porch (as in … dig you own grave). Unions align with this colour of Government; several Ministers are former Union officials.
    There is a media Inquiry being planned, with the Minister in Canberra refusing to say if media, including blogs, will need to be licenced under the proposals. He’s the guy with the $36 billion compulsory national Internet monopoly proposal, which his folk will filter for inappropriate content. Name is Senator Conroy.
    Then there’s this misnamed “Carbon tax” that carries the poison pill. Australians do not need it nor want it, so the Government is proceeding against the wishes of the people. That’s grave.
    Even one of my sons was moved to blog on Andrew Bolt -
    “Well, if you can’t express yourself in a blog you can always start leaving dirty shovels on peoples’ front doors. Sorry, forgot the country needs a media inquiry, not one into the conduct of unions… “

  15. Roger Knights says:

    I wonder if this “pill” was inserted in the bill in order to give one of the Independents or Labor back benchers a justification for breaking ranks and voting No, claiming it is Too Much. Gillard would thereby be off the hook of supporting this policy, which she only agreed to in order to get support from non-Labor members, but in a way that gives her plausible deniability of breaking her pledge to them.

  16. Bye bye Australians, it was nice knowing you. Although there is still little hope.

    Look at Egypt and Libia: they did get rid of their government, so:

    Get your people on the street!
    Fight for your right to live warm, happy and prosperous!
    Make them run and hide and take back the country that is being stolen from you!

  17. Roger Knights says:

    Prime minister Gillard said when she announced her change of mind that we would now have a carbon tax, as Australia needed to set an example for the world to follow.

    If that’s the case, the bill ought to have a sunset clause whereby it goes poof if the world doesn’t start to follow its example within three (say) years.

  18. scott says:

    DaveF,

    I thought that too, but the fear is that such a reduction would amount to seizure or reduction in value of an asset by Government, for which compensation must be paid under Oz constitution. There is another poison pill in this that requires, without a parliamentary agreement, an annual CO2 reduction of 10% – we seem to have found ourselves in a national (economic) suicide pact that very, very few of us actually signed up to (Greens voters were the only ones).

    Madness….

  19. L. says:

    “Get rid of this woman Australia! Get an election and VOTE HER OUT”

    How? There isn’t another election for almost 2 yrs.

  20. charles nelson says:

    There’s a ratchet mechanism at work with all taxes.
    No matter how reviled the tax, no matter how virulent the protrests
    the incoming government/party will NEVER cut a source of revenue.
    Why would they?…someone else has done the dirty work for them.
    Watch this happen in Australia.

  21. Robertvdl says:

    Do they want blood on the streets ?

    Clarke and Dawe – It’s All Going Beautifully in Australia

    http://youtu.be/NU-Ldvnxzfo

  22. MikeA says:

    The Prime Minister appears to have have little personal interest in the issue, the main drivers are the policy makers of all the federal parties. I think an emissions tax and carbon reduction are still opposition policy. The Australian Liberal and Labour are two peas in a pod.

  23. Dale says:

    This “carbon tax” is really just a socialist wealth redistribution tax. Take from the rich, give to the poor. The whole “Clean Energy Package” will have no effect on the climate.

  24. MikeA says:

    I think the conventional property rights bit might be inaccurate as well, sounds a bit wierd to me. Our Parliament can pass any damn law it pleases, we have no constitutuion as such.

  25. DWH says:

    The proposed carbon tax is also designed to generate sufficient funds such that approximately $AUD 5 billion PER YEAR of Australian taxpayers funds is to be “exported” to “overseas countries” so that Australian taxpayers (industry) can “purchase” CO2 offsets from these “overseas countries” each year from the time of introduction of the tax. This is to be mandatory under this tax instrument: our erudite governing class has decreed that Australia meets its IPCC-driven imperative through this instrument. I am not sure which countries will benefit from this largesse, but as an Australian, I am aghast at such a deliberate attempt to impoverish our own country, all in the name of politics, and for no practical useful end: the imposition of the tax will result in a 0.003 degree C reduction in GMST as Australian CO2 output is reduced 20%, under the tax regime, AND assuming the projections of the various IPCC AGW models are “valid”. If a more realistic AGW scenario from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 load (i.e. to 800ppmv) is accepted, the reduction in GMST which will result from imposition of the Australian tax is of the order of 0.001 degree C.

    Is not a better option one which ensures that Australia is robust financially so that it can manage and adapt to future climate change? The impoverishment of this nation as a result of the proposed tax will make such adapatation more demanding of our resources, with consequent greater difficulties for our descendants. Furthermore, as IPCC-modelled climate sensitivities to an increasing anthropogenic CO2 load are so uncertain at present, should we not be insuring for future contingencies by generating as much national wealth as possible to buttress us against any future climate shock? Of course, it need hardly be noted that such a future (anthropogenically-mediated) climate shock is now appearing increasingly unlikely because the negative feedbacks of aerosols, for example, clouds, up till now largely unknown in the climate research fraternity, appear likely to reduce the impact of such a CO2 increase, with a benign 1 degree C increase in GMST now seeming likely from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 load to ~ 800ppmv.

    In short, our erudite governing class is proposing the impoverishment of our nation for no valid reason.

  26. Greg Holmes says:

    It is a severe lesson to all voters to think before you act. The legislation which is being forced down the throats of the Aussie populace is 3 people (greens) who are basically dictating to millions via a Government of weak politicians who would rather see their country ruined than fall on their sword and have another election. Disgraceful greed, but a lesson to all, I am sure that you will remember the culprits names come settlement day.

  27. Mike Borgelt says:

    The problem with Gillard is that she’s not just evil but stupid too.

  28. William says:

    Australia appears to be eager to become the Greece of the Southern Hemisphere. The label “green” does no change irrational government policies, engineering reality, or economic science.

    What will the carbon tax funds be used for? What will be the net benefit (affect) of carbon tax and carbon trading schemes? (Massive overhead, “green” carbon sink shams, the loss of the Australian industrial base, and no net benefit to the environment.)

    Multibillion dollar subsides does not change facts. Solar companies and biofuel companies are going bankrupt for a reason. The European amply named wind farms that are constructed in farms in the center of the continent where the wind does not blow.

    CO2 is not an evil dangerous gas. Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the “green” houses to levels of 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to raise yield and reduce growing times. Plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves when CO2 rises to reduce evaporation loss of water which enables them to make more effective use of water. (Desertification is reduced, yield increases in dry regions.)

    Global warming is over. A paradigm shift in scientific beliefs followed by public beliefs is going to occur.

  29. Richard A says:

    Dave F. …The tax has been set so that for a future government to repeal the tax the 500 largest emission polluters in Australia (who are only known to the government) will require to be reimbursed billions of dollars from the Australian government to compensate them for their purchases of emission permits. I understand that we are the only country adopting a carbon tax not to have an out clause.

    Hence my conclusion that it is a governance socialist tax that has nothing to do with climate change, as if it were related to climate change, then their would be an out clause when science finally proved that man does not contribute to climate change as Al Gore would have us want to believe.

  30. LazyTeenager says:

    Makes this claim:
    Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal

    And then makes this claim:
    has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.

    Caught red-handed by a self contradiction.

  31. Patrick Davis says:

    The carbon tax revenue falls short to the tune of ~AU$450mil after compensation/tax cuts/benefit increases. 9 out of 10 house holds will receive some amount of compensation/tax cuts/benefit increases. Households with income of more than, I think, AU$100k WON’T receive any “benefit”. The Govn’ts clean energy future home page has a “How much will I get?” estimator (Heh! Of course, estimates can, and do, change. Not sure how many supporters understand the difference between a calculation, an estimate and a quote). on it. Of course these “benefits” will diminish over time when the tax becomes an ETS. It’s already expensive to do business in Aus with many companies “offshoring” work. I can see this speeding up. There are 18 bills in the carbon tax legislation which, apparently, MP’s had only 18 minutes to read each bill. Sounds great eh? And Gillard wonders why the ALP is floundering in polls and performance.

  32. Patrick in Adelaide says:

    Someone had a comment on the article with respect to the people of Australia petitioning the Governor General. I wonder if there is any legal currency to this idea. The part of the article which finally got to me was;

    “Appearing before the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes, Treasury said its models were “publicly available” and that anyone willing to pay for those models could obtain them.

    That evidence was misleading. For Treasury relied on a model developed by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. And ABARE has now confirmed it will not make available the model Treasury used.

    Moreover, Treasury blended the ABARE model with other models and data sets. Given that, only Treasury can provide users with the capacity to test its modelling: and the government clearly does not intend it to do so.”

    I think now I know how Anarchists are born.

  33. oakgeo says:

    How can you tell when a politician is lying? Its lips are moving.

    Australia and Canada may be the only two traditionally “western” countries that largely avoided the financial crises of the last several years. Now the Aussies are set to self-immolate, leaving Canada forelorn and ignored. As a Canadian I’m starting to feel very lonely…

    But Hey! Canada’s official opposition to the ruling Conservatives is the NDP, the most rabid, far left party that Canada has ever produced. And you never know… a juicy Conservative scandal along with a good ol’ NDP love-in by the CBC (similar to the Brits’ BBC or Oz’ ABC), and they could catapult into power! Oh, Nirvana! There is yet hope that we can rejoin you guys in the mire.

  34. Joe Lalonde says:

    Shows how economics is supreme to the word of the people.

    I suspect when she gets out of office, a high paying position waits for her.

  35. Ken Harvey says:

    The only legitimate aim of a new tax is to raise money for a government to spend. While this is not an aim that many of us find laudable, it is at least better than the more recent practice of spending without
    first raising the additional revenue required to finance it. During the course of a rather generous lifetime, I have never once seen a new tax designed to promote some supposed public behavioral good, achieve its aim. I have seen effects aplenty, but never those effects that were purpose designed.

  36. Epigenes says:

    Gillard has always been a liar, she is lying now and she will always lie.

    There is Youtube video showing her lying to a voter re this policy.

    Gillard lying

  37. Epigenes says:

    Greetings,

    Scrap the last post by me – the link did not work.

  38. Epigenes says:

    Gillard has always been a liar, she is lying now and she will always lie.

    There is Youtube video showing her lying to a voter re this policy.

    Gillard confronted and accused of lying

  39. Beth Cooper says:

    Julia Gillard was not elected by the majority of the electors and is dancing to the tune of the unelected minority Green Party and we all know what they represent :( Julia Gillard takes the record for Australia’s most unpopular Prime Minister though much loved by the ABC left wing media. Most Australians are pining for the next election tho’ what to do with the Labor legacy is the burning question.

  40. Gary says:

    This is an example of a flaw in the Parliamentary type of representative democracy – the coalitions are more fluid than the two party system because of multiple parties shifting on allegiance on specific issues. Not that two parties is a perfect situation, but at least it tends to stabilize the volatility.

  41. Stacey says:

    We have the Carbon Tax well and truly in place in the uk, except its a stealth tax. Gas and Electricity prices being pushed up at ridiculous rates to fund uneconomic so called sustainable energy schemes.

  42. Cardin Drake says:

    As an American, it appears our only chance for economic success is for other countries governments to make themselves uncompetitive on the global stage at a faster rate than our own government destroys our ability to compete. Bravo, Australia…..unfortunately, there is the small matter of China.

  43. Alan Watt says:

    I think many miss the point: a new tax *is the goal*; the environmental argument is just the excuse. The Australian government needs new tax revenue because it has overspent and overcommitted for other programs. Rather than admit previous sins, the easier course is to raise taxes. The climate change discussion is just a way to obfuscate the reason for it.

    I realize that as a US citizen I have no moral right to criticize other governments for overspending. We’re guilty of the same thing on a much larger scale; it’s just we have a bigger line of credit and can hide from reality a little longer …

  44. polistra says:

    “This “carbon tax” is really just a socialist wealth redistribution tax. Take from the rich, give to the poor. ”

    NO. EXACTLY WRONG. It’s Gramscian redistribution, not Marxian redistribution. Take from the poor and the middle, and give abundantly to the obscenely rich. The poor suffer most from energy-related taxes.

  45. AlexS says:

    Every law can be repealed. So that is an excuse that i don’t know why.

  46. Luke Warm says:

    Nasty piece of legislation, indeed. Australia will be the laughing stock of the world over this one. Gillard’s legacy – her parting gift to her country to show her love for us is sure to earn her the label “worst Prime Minister ever,” although many have already awarded her that epithet. For non-Australian readers, the cruel, pointless carbon dioxide tax comes on top a series of bungled, spendthrift, wealth redistributing (from the productive to the unproductive) and wealth destroying policies. Some examples are: a home insulation scheme that cost billions but resulted in millions of homes getting sub-standard installations causing, in some cases, houses to burn down and even deaths; unnecessary extended stimulus spending in response to the GFC that included measures like giving billions in cash to the lazy to spend on booze and cigarettes and tens of millions of Australian dollars to expatriots (to boost the domestic economy!); a GFC stimulus initiative to build school halls that still hasn’t been fully delivered after four years and has resulted in billions of dollars of rorting and in many cases the buildings are of poor standard or poor value for money or are even unwanted (e.g., schools got halls when they already had one) and that took up valuable playground space; hundreds of millions spent providing pensioners with AUD $300 dollar HD set top boxes (that’s what she paid – regular retail price AUD $50), even though the vast majority had already addressed the conversion from analog to digital television themselves; meaningless, politically correct apologies to Aborigines, who continue to live in 3rd world conditions; an AUD $40 billion dollar overkill fibre optic cable roll out that duplicates existing private sector investment and ignores technology trends and cuts out future investment in wireless which would be more cost effective, especially in remote areas; government debt up from $AUD 0.0m to $200 billion and rising at $1m a day; the creation of 20,000 meaningless green bureaucrat jobs, mostly in Canberra; creation of outrageous green subsidies (e.g., solar power installation & feed in tariffs) that it has had to withdraw because of rorting and budget unsustainability; tens of millions of dollars on green loan schemes that it then had to withdraw due to rorting; plunging the government budget into deficit to the tune of tens of billions and no-one can see it coming back into the black under current government policies – and when a natural disaster actually occurred, she had to raise taxes because there is no money left in the taxpayers’ kitty; national productivity is falling significantly following labour law changes (think UK Labour Governments of the 1960′s) at a time when other countries are stepping up competition in international markets. One could go on and on, I’m sure I’ve missed some of the real beauties because they are too painful to contemplate. But this Carbon (Dioxide) Tax takes that case in all respects: cost, stupidity and political bloodymindedness. How Gillard rose so far in politics is a mystery but the mystery can be solved if you read Australian Labor Party rules and understand she rode on the back of certain political correctness agendas that placed particular criteria ahead of commonsense things like talent.

  47. theBuckWheat says:

    “Albeit Australia contributes 1.4 % of the total global emissions.” Obviously a big sin that will cost much in order to achieve absolution.

  48. kim;) says:

    Some interesting Maths I found…. http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/11145/The-Answer-Flannery-Refused-To-Give-MAYBE-Just-0-00005-C-In

    Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?

    Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…

    So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.

    So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

    Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

    2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln[(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.

    Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

  49. Pamela Gray says:

    “A little revolution, now and then, is a healthy thing, don’t you think?”

    Time to turn on your voice in the streets of Australia. Hiding it away in blogs and twitters has NOT the same strength. The American colonies marched in the streets and threw tea into the harbor. Our nation went to the streets with arms over slavery. Women marched for the vote. Many more marched for a dream. If you want change, say it, do it, don’t just type it.

  50. Richard A says:

    Alan Watt. We are indeed aware!. The other salient point is that both our incumbent prime minister and her predecessor, whom she knifed in the back, have ideals of grandeur to obtain a seat on a one global nation order.

    Alex S ..Yes every law can be appealed, but always at a cost that will ultimately disadvantage those who can least afford! You have to try and understand that we Australians are mere puppets in a game being played by political zealots who have egos beyond comprehension!.

  51. Paul R says:

    The Red Kangaroo and Emu on each side of the shield on the coat of arms are supposed to have been used as they’re not prone to retreating or moving backwards, we need to change the coat of arms now to reflect our regression.
    Maybe a Brown snake and a Red Back spider on each side of a GE wind turbine.

  52. RichieP says:

    I see the idle layabout’s back. How about this then
    “the Gore camp theory …. has nothing to do with climate change” I removed a bit to hide the decline. Perfectly good way to process data isn’t it?
    The only person “Caught red-handed by a self contradiction” is the liar Gillard who made a promise and then broke it.

  53. Dale says:

    @ polistra

    “NO. EXACTLY WRONG. It’s Gramscian redistribution, not Marxian redistribution. Take from the poor and the middle, and give abundantly to the obscenely rich. The poor suffer most from energy-related taxes.”

    I’m sorry, you are mistaken in regards to Australia’s carbon tax. Half of the tax is being given to the poor as “compensation for higher prices”. An unemployed single person will be ~$200 better off under a carbon tax. Myself, a family with 3 kids earning over $150K, will be ~$900 worse off.

    The highest compensations are for the lowest earners (and the tax-free threshold is being doubled, which will mean a million more Australians won’t have to pay income tax [out of ~7.5 million workers]). The compensation gets smaller as you earn more, reaching $0 at $150K family income. Not sole income, family income!

    This is most definitely, rob from the middle & rich and give to the poor.

    For a clearer picture of this wealth distribution tax, see the official compensation estimator:
    http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/our-plan/cameo-tables/

  54. G. Karst says:

    L. says:
    September 16, 2011 at 2:08 am

    “Get rid of this woman Australia! Get an election and VOTE HER OUT”

    How? There isn’t another election for almost 2 yrs.

    Answer: The same way as Libya and Egypt. Civil assembly and demonstration marches demanding new elections, or at least a plebiscite on carbon taxes. All power resides in the people… when they march. When they start to kill you, the people… you have won. Simples!

    Too bad the people allowed this to happen in the first place. Until then, enjoy life, living in a non-developed 3rd world country. Sorry. GK

  55. Monroe says:

    When you have a carbon “guilt Tax” as we do in BC the real crime occurs when it’s found out where the money ends up. Here it’s thrown at anything “green”.

    The only thing worse than a true believer is a guilty one that has your money.

  56. Vince Causey says:

    LazyTeenager,

    “Makes this claim:
    Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal

    And then makes this claim:
    has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.

    Caught red-handed by a self contradiction.”
    =========================================

    Sorry if I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but what exactly is the contradiction?

  57. cedarhill says:

    Even dictators can be repealed. Libya, Iraq, Italy, USSR. Might be the first time for Australia.

  58. Alberta Slim says:

    It’s time to get Paul Hogan out of retirement, don his “Crocodile Dundee” outfit, and lead an “Australian Spring”.
    I’m sick of looking at Julia in her “Sieg Heil” pose.

  59. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Minor spelling correction- change “lead” to “led” in the following: ‘At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”.’
    Common error.

    IanM

  60. PhilJourdan says:

    Roger Knights says:
    September 16, 2011 at 1:52 am

    That is truely Machiavellian! For Austalia’s sake, I would hope you are right.

  61. Latitude says:

    We will have the most open and transparent government….
    …I will hire no lobbyists

    “we have to hurry up and pass it, so you can read what’s in it”

  62. pyeatte says:

    It is total nonsense to say you cannot repeal a tax in the next election cycle. You most certainly can.

  63. klem says:

    In most western countries, income taxes were introduced to pay for wars. I think in the USA the excuse for income taxes was to pay for the civil war, in Canada it was to pay for WWI. I’ll bet the same excuse was used to introduce income taxes in Australia. These wars were long ago paid for, yet income taxes remain. The excuse for this carbon tax is to ‘save the world’. And after the world has been saved that tax will remain, just like income taxes are still around.

    The wool was pulled over the eyes of North Americans to pay for past wars, today the wool is being pulled over the eyes of the Ozzies (and New Zealanders) to save the world. I used to think they were smarter than that.

  64. TomRude says:

    Next Jaccard’s carbon tax!

  65. SSam says:

    Wow… Australia is slitting it’s own throat. Imagine trying to put a tourniquet on that wound.

  66. William says:

    In reply to kim’s insightful comment:

    kim;) says:
    September 16, 2011 at 6:22 am

    Some interesting Maths I found…. http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/11145/The-Answer-Flannery-Refused-To-Give-MAYBE-Just-0-00005-C-In

    Kim your comment includes a discussion of facts and basic arithmetical calculations which clearly shows the Australian carbon tax and carbon trading scheme is a scam that will have no significant net environmental benefit to the world or to Australians, even if we accept the IPCC’s CO2 warming “amplification” mechanism.

    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    (Satellite analysis published in peer reviewed journals indicates planetary clouds increase rather than decrease when the planet warms so the feedback response to an increase in forcing is negative rather than positive. Doubling of CO2 therefore results in less than 1C of warming rather than the IPCC 1.5C to 5C. The IPCC 1.5C to 5C requires the atmosphere to amplify CO2 warming.) —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Expanding the carbon trading scam to the entire Western world (China, India, and Africa will not and/or do not have trillions of dollars to waste on scams) will not change the result. 100,000 times zero or 100,000 times a negative number is not a positive gain.

    The mantra the science is over and anyone who criticizes policy that has the label “green” connected to is either in the pay of big oil or is a ‘denier” is propaganda to inhibit a discussion of the facts and basic arithmetical calculations.

  67. Drew says:

    John Marshall says:
    September 16, 2011 at 1:18 am

    Saying “get rid of this woman” creates division because it sounds as if you are anti woman or believe that Julia Gillard has no right to her elected office. I know it sounds like a misdirecting gripe but I think the office of Prime Minister does deserve respect, even when we believe there has been serious disagreement with the policies. Other mainstream media and ALP/liberal minds are bringing up these points, so just don’t do it. Don’t give them something they can keep going on about something which hurts us all and prevents people who can’t focus properly on understanding what it is you wanted them to actually understand. Prime Minister Julia Gillard deserves her due title, and I believe by being respectful you can get through to people that the carbon tax is something worth being cynical about. If you mention once her proper title and then say ‘she’ or ‘her’ then it would be perfectly acceptable, but I believe the negative connotations associated with your comment override the better point you try to make to the kinds of minds we wish to communicate to.

  68. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Up here in Canuckistan we have a couple of examples of greenie stupidity.

    Ontario used to be the engine of the Canadian economy until they decided that green electricity was required to save Gaia and they have gone all heavily subsidized windmills and solar panels . . .

    And in BC the great greenie plan to to Carbon Neutral means that schools and hospitals need to waste money buying carbon credits, which of course means less education and less healthcare.

    And to make it worse, they are buying those carbon credits from Industry !

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Climate+changing+province+carbon+offset/5412127/story.html

  69. SSam says:

    Drew says:
    September 16, 2011 at 10:03 am

    “…but I think the office of Prime Minister does deserve respect…”

    No person, office or entity deserves respect. Respect is earned, not deserved.

    If the occupant tarnishes the existing respect that the office or position once held, it is the fault of the occupant, not the person perceiving the repugnant behavior.

  70. BargHumer says:

    @Luke Warm
    Good to see your list – it helps with the bigger picture.
    @Polistra
    It is good to know how the scam has been put together. From what you have said it seems clear that this was a calculation in advance to make sure there was no possibility of a great revolt. Those who will benefit (the “poor” as you say) would be crazy to protest against getting more cash, and only the most well informed of them with any conscience would even think about opposing it. It sure is a stitch up! Even Hogan couldn’t fix this!

  71. john S. says:

    Dear Ozzies:
    You do NOT have my sympathies. Your government has already introduced a number of ‘green’ and animal welfare policies that have curtailed the freedom of your people (especially farmers). You made no noise about such regulations (violations) because they didnt affect you directly. Now that you are more likely to be affected,( even having to pay out of your own pockets !) you are up in arms. Shame on you! Now take your medicine.

  72. Paul Deacon says:

    The people of Australia have the government they deserve, i.e. the one they voted for. For some reason, it takes Australian voters many, many years to smell corruption, but they get there eventually (NSW state elections).

    It is nonsense to say this tax cannot be repealed – just because one lawyer says so. I am sure the repealers can be just as creative as the enacters.

  73. MartinGAtkins says:

    I wouldn’t worry it too much. The two houses of the Australian parliament have the unfettered right to strike down amend or enact new laws at the behest of the two houses. The only time this is not true is if it is contrary to the Constitution

    The Gillard government cannot enact a law that that can’t be removed by the houses unless it first makes it Constitutional law.

    Without going into detail, it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

  74. kim;) says:

    @William says:
    September 16, 2011 at 8:58 am

    Thank you for confirming.
    IMO I think the whole AGW hypothesis promoters are not worried about AGW But implementing the Global Marshall Plan of economics.

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

  75. Mac the Knife says:

    To my Aussie Friends,

    There comes a time when people of good conscience must decide if they would rather die on their feet, rather than live on their knees. Only the Australian citizens have the power and (maybe) the backbone to take pitchforks and torches in hand and go confront the monster in the castle….

    Now is the time. Tomorrow will be too late.

  76. Pompous Git says:

    MikeA said @ September 16, 2011 at 2:13 am

    ” The Australian Liberal and Labour are two peas in a pod.”
    Actually, it’s Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dumber…

    MikeA said @ September 16, 2011 at 2:22 am

    “Our Parliament can pass any damn law it pleases, we have no constitutuion as such.”

    That is manifestly untrue. We do have a constitution and a fine one it is. It’s just that people do not read, or understand it.

    First, the parliament is not the government; the Queen of Australia is our government. Our representatives in parliament are there to express the WILL of the electors. Let’s say a majority of electors tell their representative that it is their WILL that they vote against this current bill. If said representative votes in favour, then the electors are entitled to demand of the Governor General (the Queen’s representative) that she remove the representative from the parliament and holds a bye election. Should the GG refuse, then the Queen is bound by the Australian Constitution to do the reoval of the recalcitrant representative.

    If you write to a representative and tell him you want such-and-such, you will mostly be ignored. If you express your WILL that such-and-such be done, then you will nearly always be paid attention. Because the Rep knows that you have some understanding of our constitution and your rights as an elector.

  77. DaveF says:

    Scott 2:01 and RichardA 3:02:
    Thanks for the explanations; as you say, Scott: madness. Best wishes, Dave.

  78. Roger Knights says:

    “Australia need[s] to set an example for the world to follow”

    Australia;s hip-hopping won’t entrain the BRICs, just entertain them.

  79. Brian H says:

    Who’d a thunk? Aus and the UK the poster children of decarbonization stupidity. Well, we needed a few more horrible examples to drive the lesson home, I guess. Join Denmark and Spain in the Dunce Corner.

  80. William says:

    In reply to Kim’s comment:

    kim;) says:
    September 16, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    IMO I think the whole AGW hypothesis promoters are not worried about AGW But implementing the Global Marshall Plan of economics.

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

    The problem is the “greenpeace” types would have us living in huts.

    Ideas do not belong to Gore. Gore, Real Climate, and Greenpeace’s us vs them propaganda removes thoughtful discussion and logical based consensus from the process. If you question the mantra you are a “denier”, a Republican, in pay of big oil, or a skeptic.

    Everyone would support practical actionable energy conservation and consumption control schemes. There are engineering sound and economically constrained solutions (money does not grow on trees, budgets must be balanced) to all of the issues.

    Practical positive changes such as birth control in third world countries where there are currently five to six children per family, starving or under nourished children, all rational people would support.

    The Green peace types have made their minds up without thought or reason. For example, the Green Peace types without reason rule out nuclear power. Research investment in thorium nuclear reactors or a Canadian heavy water reactor design that uses natural rather than enriched uranium would make sense for multiple reasons. The Canada heavy water design is fail safe. The reaction shuts down if the heavy water if removed from the core.

    The Greenpeace types and the socialist agenda types remove reason as a tool to solve problems. (I might add I am married to a completely unrealistic socialistic type, who I love. Their heart is in the right place however there are sadly mislead. i.e. The fantasy path they promote will continually lead to a Greece type debacle.) Communism failed as people are not robots.

  81. Rosco says:

    There is nothing to prevent any future Australian Government from taking any of several paths to get rid of the monstrosity – as said reduce the tax rate to near zero through executive regulation or introduce retrospective laws to override any compensation claim.

    There is precedent in Australian law – retrospective laws have been introduced to close tax avoidance loopholes previously with the effect that a tax liability was created for previously legal deductions. The taxpayers whose previous tax deductions were thus rendered invalid were required to pay the tax burden imposed – no compensation.

    This is not an insurmountable hurdle.

  82. Rosco says:

    Should’ve added that it is possible to retrospectively outlaw the Green Party and induce an obligation for a refund of taxpayer monies wasted on folly.

  83. angry says:

    Listen to gillard and swan blatently LYING to Australians prior to the last federal election to DEFRAUD them of their vote !!!!

    http://www.hotheads.com.au/carbon%20tax%20scam.htm

    SAY NO TO COMMUNISM !!

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!!!!!

  84. ferd berple says:

    DaveF,
    I thought that too, but the fear is that such a reduction would amount to seizure or reduction in value of an asset by Government, for which compensation must be paid under Oz constitution.

    Here in BC we kicked out Gord Campbell that brought in HST after telling us he wouldn’t. Now we have voted to repeal the HST – after most of the province signed a petition to get rid of it.

    So, the government is now telling us it will cost 2 billion. Big Deal. The government brought in the tax without asking.

    THEY owe the 2 billion. Starting with Gord Campbell and the Liberal party. When they have paid it back, come and talk to us about re-election. Before then, the LIberal’s are finished as a political party. The biggest vote against HST came in Liberal ridings.

    Every one in OZ needs to point to BC, let you elected official know what happens when you p’off the voters. At some point the voters simply don’t care about the poison pill. They will shove it down the throats of the politicians that tried to feed it to them.

  85. ferd berple says:

    Rosco says:
    September 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm
    Should’ve added that it is possible to retrospectively outlaw the Green Party and induce an obligation for a refund of taxpayer monies wasted on folly.

    Now there is an idea. Seize the assets of the Liberal Party for having lied about the HST.

  86. bushbunny says:

    I think you’ll find that this Craig Thomson deal will cause some concerns in Parliament. I don’t believe that the legislation that will only start next year, will go easily. The Australian Governor
    General has no power to call an election unless there is a double dissolution. The Queen has no powers in Australia, those that believe this are wrong. She is the constitutional monarch and I have a letter from her that states ‘she can not interfere or even comment on Australian politics’.
    The Greens have one representative in the House of Representatives, and this carbon tax
    is hanging on a thin thread, with only the assistance of the three Independents. It’s the end
    of the ALP next election, and I think two of the Independents may not be returned. This being
    Wilkie (with his poxie pokies reforms) and Oakeshott (won’t take notice of the concerns of his electorate. Windsor (?) he had a very strong support in New England, but is almost driving this
    carbon tax. As far as comparing Australia with Libya, Syria and Egypt, I am sure you are mistaken. Australians would never cause insurrection other than through the legal form of
    elections. To think otherwise is abhorrent to the nature of our country. Rude words at 10 paces certainly. Remember Gillard, Wong, Swan are members of the Australian Fabian Society. Does
    that answer your questions. I hope the carbon tax will be held up for some reason. I wonder if the States would consider taking the Federal Government to the High Court eh.

  87. kim;) says:

    In response to William
    William says:
    September 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    Well said!
    I would surely support initiatives that brought India and China to reduce the amounts of Black Carbon [ soot ].

    Sadly, they don’t seem interested – much. :(

  88. King of Cool says:

    Gillard did more than change her mind. She categorically stated on national television days before the election that “There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead”. This was backed up by her deputy Mr Wayne Swan who called Tony Abbott “hysterical” for warning the public that Labor would introduce a tax.

    You could therefore say that her government is illegitimate as it is based on deception involving one of the major issues of the election. There is no doubt that had Gillard not categorically promised no carbon tax she would not have won many of the marginal seats that decided the election and Abbott would have won in his own right.

    As well as this flagrant broken election guarantee, Gillard also promised a citizen’s assembly:
    ”We need consensus among political parties, but we need consensus in the community even more,” she vowed ”It is vital to be clear what I mean by that community consensus – I do not mean that government can take no action until every member of the community is fully convinced.
    It will not convince everybody, and I will not allow our country to be held to ransom by a few people with extreme views that will never be changed. But I want to see a process that directly involves a representative range of ordinary Australians.”

    The assembly was to have a year to examine ”the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions”.

    Gillard believed the assembly would back her commitment on climate change but. ”If I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change, then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change” she determined.

    Gillard would have been wrong had a citizens assembly been held and it was representative of the community.

    Not only to rule by deception on two vital counts but to now make it difficult to unravel the legislation that is being imposed on the people must rank Gillard with Gaddafi and other leaders who have arrogantly chosen to neglect the very foundations upon which democracy is built – which she will dearly pay for – no matter how long it takes.

  89. nano pope says:

    This has nothing to do with pollution or the environment. Currently around 25% of Australians recieve a pension, unemployment benefit and/or family assistance cheque from the government. Under a carbon (dioxide) tax this will rise to over 50%. This is just classic Fabianism, Marxism by stealth. It is their dream to make Australia the newest second-world country, and this is their vehicle. It’s as simple as that.

  90. Dale says:

    @ ferd berple

    “Now there is an idea. Seize the assets of the Liberal Party for having lied about the HST.”

    I assume you mean GST? May I remind you that Liberals initially ruled out a GST, and then when it came up later went to an election with the GST as one of the election policies. So Howard got an electoral mandate to implement the GST.

    Juliar & Clown do not have a mandate for carbon tax. In fact, only 12% of the population voted for the party pushing the carbon tax. The two major parties ruled out a carbon tax.

  91. Ex-Wx Forecaster says:

    Why do “labour” parties seem to back legislation that bankrupts nations and kills jobs…and, presumably, labour as well?

  92. bushbunny says:

    King of cool, maybe you may not recall, Aussies will, that during the 2007 pre-election, Peter
    Garrett said jokingly to a reporter, ‘Oh when we are in power, we’ll change our policies’ he was rebuked. But – in the hindsight today, both Swann and Gillard, are doing just that.

  93. sammy says:

    Maybe the Abbott government come late 2013 could in lieu of repealing the tax, work into the legislation with the help of the best legal eyes a framework to sit above the carbon tax which effectively counteracts everything that this new tax does thereby making the permits purchased worthless. They should also look to do it in such a way that their own legislation will be almost impossible to repeal so that Labor – whenever they get back in – hopefully never – would be stuck with. Thus ridding us of this baseless tax.

  94. bushbunny says:

    Dale @ 9/16 9 pm. HST? LOL I worked on that campaign for Ian Sinclair, and you are so right they got in despite introducing another tax. But this gave up the Sales Tax though. It replaced sales tax. And it was the Social Democrats who changed their tune and voted it in eventually. They changed their tune post election too. But the Lib/Nats coalition didn’t get in with a lie. Before we transcend though I do believe the Independents were in a quandary. If Tony and Oakeshott had backed the Libs we may have had another 75-75 and this would call another election, and even so, may not have given us another result. However, Tony Windsor does not like the Nationals having been rejected by them as a candidate in the State parliament prior to him standing for Federal politics.

    He has gone from strength to strength until 2010 though. I will admit I was one of his strongest
    supporters but was warning him back in 2007 about the proposed ETS, that Rudd eventually scrapped that led him to him being rejected by the Gillard Group. I remember that Penny Wong was asked during the 2010 election tally room coverage ‘Has the scrapping of the ETS been the reason for labour’s poor showing’. ‘No’ she said’, ‘The word is that the planet is cooling’. And I believe Gillard said this too, but I can’t find any record of this on the Internet.
    Maybe a IT sleuth may find it? To me there are hidden agendas in this legislation, such as
    the tax on diesel and also ‘curbing methane production in livestock’. There was suggestions
    that cattle and sheep be taxed per year $11 and $7 per head respectively for methane production. That was squashed by the MPCCC, but – its still in the legislation, and how do they intend to curb it. You see feed lot beef, they produce less methane than cattle reared on natural pastures. NOT what the Greens, and PETA are promoting.

  95. bushbunny says:

    Sammy you are so right. But carbon permits are worthless in other countries. Italy gives them away free. And there have been scams. However, the international trade of carbon permits issued by Australia are not supposed to come into fruition until 2015. I can’t see any Australian
    industry buying them from overseas before then? Can you?

  96. Dale says:

    @ bushbunny:
    There’s over 1000 pages to the 19 “clean energy future” bills. It’ll take a week or two for the poison pills and scams to come out.

    Let’s hope some ALP backbenchers are thinking of their political futures, and cross the floor. Count on Turnbull (Lib) to cross the floor to support them and with the 3 indys and Bandt (GRN) supporting the package, Libs need 3 ALP backbenchers to cross to kill it.

    Hey, a complete long-shot and very unlikely, but a couple ALP Senators could solidify their own careers and become heros by blocking the bill and cause a double-dissolution. ;)

  97. Peter Miller says:

    In late 1975, an equally goofy Australian Labour Party under Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the governor general – the Queen’s representative – and new elections were called, which led to a landslide victory for the political opposition.

    Such a scenario would be unthinkable today, especially as David Cameron the UK’s prime minister, is equally as ‘climate change’ obsessed as Gillard.

    History will judge Gillard, like Britain’s Brown, as one one of the most arrogant and economically disatrous leaders in their country’s history.

  98. Patrick Davis says:

    “bushbunny says:
    September 16, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    I think you’ll find that this Craig Thomson deal will cause some concerns in Parliament. I don’t believe that the legislation that will only start next year, will go easily. The Australian Governor
    General has no power to call an election unless there is a double dissolution. The Queen has no powers in Australia, those that believe this are wrong. She is the constitutional monarch and I have a letter from her that states ‘she can not interfere or even comment on Australian politics’.”

    Well said. I am a British born migrant to Australia and I tell my Aussie friends this and they all laugh at me. The fact remains the British Monarch has had no powers in Australia since federation in 1901.

  99. mike g says:

    Well, here in the USA, we’re just as stupid, with blinders on. We are abandoning coal in favor of natural gas as a way of reducing GHG emissions, despite peer-reviewed research showing the footprint of natural gas is higher than coal, once fracking-induced methane leakage to the atmosphere is accounted. I anticipate we will realize our error immediately upon having shutdown the coal plants and begin to shutter the natural gas fired plants.

    Actually, it may turn out like tobacco taxes. With the government becoming reliant on the carbon taxation and working surrupticiously to ensure continued usage.

  100. Blvr says:

    I’ve never seen such a bunch of self righteous, aggrandizing nonsense in one place. Complete garbage being spouted from self centered idiots. Why don’t you get your facts straight – this will NOT be a major drag on the economy, let alone turn us into a 3rd world nation. The CO2 calculations are an absolute dogs breakfast – 2020 is not the baseline year for a start. And who do you think you are with your talk of revolution? Che Guevara? This is Australia you Simpletons!

  101. BargHumer says:

    @Blvr
    “A dog’s breakfast” means a mess or a muddle to most people, so why would there be a carbon tax based on a mess and a muddle, and one that is known to be harmless without knowing one end of the mess from the muddle? Self righteousness sounds a bit like a black put and a kettle somehow.

  102. Streetcred says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    September 16, 2011 at 3:07 am
    Makes this claim:
    Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal
    And then makes this claim:
    has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.

    Caught red-handed by a self contradiction.
    =====
    Not exactly Lazy, the “unrepresentative swill” of our Nation use Gore’s bile as the excuse to push the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. Approximately 50% of the impending TAX goes to ‘reimbursing’ low income welfare recipients and the balance goes to buying Australia’s seat at the UN’s future new one world socialist government. What happens when the 500 “biggest polluders” relocate off-shore to Asian locations ? … who will be the next 500 “biggest polluders” ? … and will they also relocate ? … and who then will eventually provide employment for Australians? Dwindling taxpayers will be yoked like oxen to the frame of the Socialism and whipped to provide more to feed the largesse of the great Socialist Empire.

  103. Patrick Davis says:

    “Blvr says:
    September 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm”

    If you believe a carbon tax/ETS WON’T be a drag on the Australian economy then I suggest you check out whats happening in New Zealand. Although there are other factors, the ETS was a major impact (And incidentally one reason why the NZ govn’t is scaling back and/or stalling expansion into other areas/industries). A cabon tax on big polluters, with exception to Victoria most of the biggest “polluters” are state owned utilities such as power plants, will result in those costs being passed on to consumers and busineses. It already is expensive to do business in Australia, companies are stalling projects, laying off workers AND sending work offshore. Anyone but the dimmest of the dim can see what is going to happen in a post carbon tax economy.

  104. bushbunny says:

    The problem with this pox climate tax, it has no logic to support it, that the majority of Australian’s
    don’t agree with. The science of AGW is wrong. Carbon emissions have not abated, as Tony Windsor of the New England electorate have driven this, not just supported it. This government is behind the times, as always, and will not accept what is happening overseas that thwarts their reason for establishing an ETS and Carbon tax. Clean energy is going backwards. Victoria
    is establishing new legislation for building more wind turbines, that might effect building more in their state. Mainly restricting the limitations where they can be built, ie.,10 km from not only towns but human habitation. Look might sound weird, but I watched a program on TV in Australia about wind turbines causing health problems with people who lived near there. Now I suffer from Menieres disease. When the program was transmitting I did develop funny problems too, like those that some of the people complaining were suffering from. I am not lying. When the program stopped the problem went away. You see with Menieres one has an inner ear problem,
    often those symptoms do become a problem when there is a build up of fluid in the inner ear, usually from a viral problem. However visiting a EN & Throat specialist he said, don’t wear ear phones as low frequency auditory reception you can’t pick up normally will upset your ears. I suffered this watching this program? The health problems suffered by people complaining about these being the result of living near a wind turbine, mimic Meniere’s disease. A Canadian
    report seems and suggests that the problems experienced are generated from the auditory system. Low but not physically noticeable generation of sound waves that irritate us. Not all people might experience it, particularly the farmers receiving $10,000k to $30,000k a year rent to establish ONE turbine on their property. Can’t blame them, one was receiving $150k a year on his property, barely a portion of the income he would receive in one year farming.

  105. As if all this wasn’t evidence that Juliar and Bob are as low a snake’s rectum, they’ve also gone and set a deadline for public submissions on the 1100 page proposed bill at six days. So if anyone opposed to this bill and capable of more than just armchair slacktivism wishes to make a submission (instead of sitting by and crying about it afterwards), it has to be e-mailed to jscacefl@aph.gov.au. by thursday 22SEP2011.
    In addition, the usual round of public hearings one would expect ahead of a decision on such a major piece of legislation have been cancelled because Juliar says ‘there isn’t enough time’.
    I’m away off to skim through the bill (found in all it’s bloated ‘glory’ here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/bills.htm) and cobble up a submission explaining why I conclude that the bill or parts of it are detrimental policy and could my elected leaders please consider the view of the electorate before making the poisoned challice law.
    I’ve never felt compelled to do so before and it’s probably a futile guesture, but at least I’ll feel legitimately able to say ‘I told you so’ once the rot sets in.

  106. Blvr says:

    @Benjamin it says a lot that you have already decided your view before reading the legislation.

  107. Blvr, I’ve skimmed the legislation as rapidly as possible and in any case the general concept of the tax on thin air has been common enough knowledge. It’s only courtesy of an e-post from Menzies House that I’ve been made aware of the possibilty of making public submission on bills such as this (I was under the impression this was done by invitation after public consultations of the sort side-stepped by Juliar ahead of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 on the grounds that there isn’t enough time).
    What my decision says, or should say to the intelligent reader, is that I am not suckered in by the gullible warming myth, nor the hype surrounding it (did you catch the piteous Gore-a-thon?); the hypothesis was dubious when I studied Earth Sciences in 1991, by now the theory and it’s champions are thoroughly devoid of any credibility to anyone with an open, analytical mind and no vested interest. The complete failure of the models (which seem to be the only ‘proof’ that gullible warming is human carbon dixide emission driven) to predict the weather during the first ten years of this century should set alarm bells ringing on it’s own, and we’re expected to support a ruinous tax on emissions of carbon dioxide to stave off the diabolical predictions these shite in-shite out models make about weather in 2100?
    As a result of the bodgey excuse for ‘science’ used to justify anti carbon (dioxide) policies, I am predisposed to oppose to an additional tax on the false justification that said tax is claimed to miraculously prevent an imagined elevation of global temperature by a poofteenth of a degree some time in the distant future.
    Additionally I understand that disuassion taxes such as these are designed to fail from the outset; how pointless would a carbon (dioxide) tax, or worse ETS be if it actually precipitated an elimination of carbon (dioxide) emissions? Taxes and trading are designed to earn revenue; if the taxed or traded commodity ceases to exist, so does the source of income. One need not be very cynical to understand that this tax is never intended to actually reduce carbon (dioxide) ‘pollution’.
    Furthermore, to unilateraly take this route, while everyone else in the developed and developing world (except Norway) sits on the fence is at best what Sir Humphrey Applebee would describe as a ‘courageous decision’. In other words politically (or in this case economically) suicidal.
    If the issue at stake were merely an unjustified tax that hobbles the Australian economy for a couple of years with no possibility whatsoever of influencing emissions, much less the weather, then that in itself wouldn’t neccessarily compell me to make a submission; I’d just bide my time until 2013 and join every sensible Australian over 18 in voting the beaked bloodnut and the watermelon puppet master out of office; however the business of poison pills and the unrespectable haste with which they wish to rush this monumental legislation through parliment is a couple of arrogant steps too far.
    Furthermore what I have managed to read of the draft legislation, particularly with respect to the proposal to automatically transition to a supposedly market driven trading scheme, albeit with government imposed ceiling and floor carbon (dioxide) prices, and the way in which the proposal speaks of increased investment and job creation in the ‘green’ sector with a complete detachment from the hard reality of EUssr experience is truely beggaring belief. There is a good reason that EU trading of thin air emission permits has stagnated; sensible people don’t believe the foolish stories any more.
    The only people who could honestly claim to support such an epic fail as this excuse for an act of parliment are unimaginative stock brokers, mediocre ‘auditors’, impressionable, easily bought low income voters or a snake oil salesmen with some second hand wind turbines to sell to the stupidest bidder.
    Everyone else, and unimaginative diversions aside, any links to relevant papers, reports or findings would be most welcome, as I have an honest job to go to, a four year old nipper to raise and not so much free time to labouriously search for robust references to the submission within a week.

  108. Blvr says:

    @Benjamin the underlying theory of AGW is sound, all substantial theories to the contrary have been discredited. There are still some loose ends but they are peripheral to the central hypothesis.

    The tax will only reduce emissions marginally, but it is necessary to get other countries onboard. Treasury modeling has shown that it will not be ruinous to the economy; even if you don’t buy into the detail of that it is obvious that the overall effect will be minimal.

    I’d say stop wasting your time and get on with your day job, which is surely more important.

  109. Blvr says:

    @Patrick the key qualification you make is to ignore other factors, but how do you disaggregate the carbon tax from “everything else”? The reality is that the carbon tax I’d not the thing dragging on NZ at the moment (see “GFC”).

  110. Blvr says:

    @Bushbunny your conclusion on the human impacts of wind turbines via watching a TV program and feeling strange seems about as scientific as those you hold on AGW. I guess you felt neither hot nor cold when you watched “An Inconvenient Truth” so concluded that AGW is incorrect as well.

  111. Blvr says:

    @Streetcred That’s garbage, nobody is going to move offshore because of the carbon tax. The CEO’s are playing a scare campaign at the moment to try to get extra compensation (and doing a darn good job is results to date are anything to go by).

  112. Blvr says:

    @Barghumer the dogs breakfast refers to the earlier calcs saying that emissions will reduce by 0.0000000000000000000001%. For a start the 5% reduction target is relative to a 2000 baseline, not a 2020 baseline.

    In any case nobody is suggesting that Australia can fix this on its own, but we have to be part of the solution.

  113. Patrick Davis says:

    “Blvr says:
    September 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm”

    Unfortunately you are wrong. It’s already happening, the carbon tax will speed things up that’s all. The ETS *IS* dragging the NZ economy, which was damaged in the GFC, that is WHY the NZ Govn’t has scaled back their ETS targets and even stalled implementation in other areas/industries. It cannot be any more obvious than that.

  114. blvr says:

    @Patrick

    Fortunately I am right – the GFC continues as the main factor driving down the economy in NZ. The carbon tax is a minor factor. The economy will pick up again once global demand returns to its former levels.

    No doubt the NZ government is scaling back because it is running out of options, but you will see that this action will have minimal upward impact on the economy even as it had a minimal negative impact to date.

  115. bushbunny says:

    blvr: I said it was strange, possibly psychological. But there is a lot on the Internet about wind turbines and health effects of some people who live near them. I refused to watch or hire ‘The Inconvenient Truth’, but I enjoyed ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. But you know that DVD
    has disappeared from our hire shop. I wonder why? But still available and a free download on
    the Internet. Unfortunately one of the extras or special features included the one about solar activity and subatomic particles coming from the galaxy and how it effected rain fall and cloud cover. I can’t find that on the Internet.

  116. Truthseeker says:

    For a clear and logical analysis of the political reasons for this piece of legislation, just go here;

    http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2011/09/climate-change-social-change.html#comments

  117. Patrick Davis says:

    “blvr says:
    September 18, 2011 at 9:58 pm”

    No, try the GFC and Chch quakes to name two factors. The fact that the ETS (Its NOT carbon tax) imposed an instant 8% incresase in the cost of living speaks volumes. The reason WHY the ETS in NZ has been “scaled” cack is because the economy CANNOT support it. It is a DRAG on the economy. BTW, not sure if you have been watching what is happening in the global economy, but it does not look good. Still an ETS/carbon tax is no drag on an economy, right?

  118. Blvr says:

    @Patrick Nobody said that a carbon tax (basically the same as an ETS) has no effect on the economy. I’m saying – and so are many other well informed people – that the impact is trivial. Claims that it will be ruinous, turn Australia into a third world country etc are absolute garbage.

  119. G. Karst says:

    My Uncle, just now, returned from a trip to Australia. It was an anticipated trip of a lifetime. He returned somewhat broken-hearted due to the unreasonable high cost of everything. He just could not afford the extremely high prices for accommodation and food, for long.

    I had plans myself, but have put them on hold because of his report. He will not return. This is just one example of how, artificially high cost can send your economy, into a downward spiral. All Australians will begin to feel the pinch and (I suspect) already are.

    Concerned citizens, must understand, that there are much cheaper destinations available and no one is going to buy expensive Australian goods, just because they are Australian. Hope y’all get your government under control, before I leave this world, as it really is a place, I would like to visit. Good luck. GK

  120. Blvr says:

    @Bushbunny The Swindle documentary probably disappeared from the video shop because it was full of claims that had already been discredited even before the documentary had been made. It took the general public a bit longer to catch on to that. Just another example of contrarians rolling out the same old tired stuff over and over again. But if you are not keeping up, it sounds rational.

    BTW I don’t blame the majority for being taken in by the skeptics that are leading the charge against AGW. They are generally convincing at first glance, but it doesn’t take long to expose the flaws in their arguments.

  121. Blvr says:

    @G Karst What codswallop. The tax hasn’t even come into force yet, so how can you blame high prices on it? Prices are high in Australia because demand is high and it is geographically isolated. Demand is high because it’s a great place to live and visit. The effect of the carbon tax on prices will be imperceptible to tourists and the general public alike.

  122. G. Karst says:

    Blvr says:
    September 19, 2011 at 9:02 am

    @G Karst What codswallop. The tax hasn’t even come into force yet, so how can you blame high prices on it?

    Funny, I didn’t mention carbon tax, at all. But now that you mention it. It will make an expensive destination, even more expensive. Good luck with your high demand, it just decreased by two, so the demand, has decreased! To call tourist complaints codswallop, will improve the situation, I’m sure. Please carry on. GK

  123. Blvr, you claim “…I’m saying – and so are many other well informed people – that the impact is trivial…”
    If that were the case how do you propose that the carbon tax will succeed in it’s stated objective of reducing real emissions of carbon dioxide? If this tax, and the ETS planned to replace it after three years, are to succeed in materially lowering Australia’s emissions of carbon dioxide then the effect on energy and mobility costs must be more than trivial; otherwise no one’s energy or fuel consumption habits will change.
    Unless of course you’re implying that the Clean Energy Bill 2011 has no intention of reducing Australia’s real carbon dioxide emissions; that it is merely Juliar’s latest short sighted idea to repay the debt left in the wake of her previous stimulous squander, or more likely to buy low income votes at the next election while concurrently placating the brown puppeteer for however long the Greens remain politically significant.
    That would explain why domestic air, rail and sea transport are subjected to the tax, while inefficient long haul road transport is not, why everyone (including it appears selected ‘big polluters’) qualify for compensation, why the tax doesn’t apply to exported Australian coal or to emissions from decommissioned coal mines, why the tax doesn’t apply to international shipping (of the sort that carries the cheap consumer goods favoured by the voting masses).
    This bill is nothing more than a modern version of Robyn Hood economic policy dressed in an unconvincing green costume. Well informed people can claim whatever they like, this bill is fundamentally illconceived or fundamentally deceitful; in either case fundamentally wrong.
    Interestingly, while the propaganda claims loudly that motor fuel will be exempt from the carbon (dioxide) tax, the draft legislation remarks that road hauliers may opt into the scheme in lieu of paying the planned equivalent increase in fuel levy. Maybe I read this too quickly, but I suspect that if Captain Subtext were to activate his truth helmet and enable the auto-translate option, this should read ‘fuel, although not actually incurring the carbon (dioxide) tax in name, shall nevertheless be subjected to a carbon (dioxide) tax, but it shall not be named as carbon (dioxide) tax, it will be called increased fuel excise…’ But then the voters Juliar wants to buy probably all have free bus passes so their transport cost is compensated eh?
    “…I’d say stop wasting your time and get on with your day job…” You counsel apathy, deceit’s neccessary ally, on the matter?
    Thanks for your concern, but you’ll forgive me for choosing not to accept your advice.

  124. PhilJourdan says:

    Pompous Git says:

    September 16, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Pompous – there is a chap named Adam Smith over at Joanne Nova’s site that can sure use your help in understanding the Australian Constitution.

  125. Blvr says:

    @GKarst Surely a reasonable assumption when you combine your impression of an “artificially high cost” with the fact that you are posting against a post centering on a carbon tax. Perhaps you were implying something else. My dim mind could not penetrate your intention.

    I’m sorry to hear that you won’t be able to visit our country. I assure you that your absence will have a bigger impact on our economy than the carbon tax will.

  126. Blvr says:

    @Benjamin Actually I don’t like the implementation at all, I much prefer Garnaut’s approach. But it’s a start and we need to get started. Do I think it will have a material impact on climate change? Only if other countries join in and we keep increasing emissions reduction targets. There are multiple benefits to the legislation, but they are all in the long term. The reality is that the short term impacts will be small, however. Aside from a few large emitters, it will not even be detectable to the vast majority of people.

  127. bushbunny says:

    Blvr: You are a arrogant ‘p’. Most Australians believe in climate change but not AGW. If a tax
    were to be placed on us and it could do something to benefit our natural environment, I am sure most would approve. You are slandering skeptics for their beliefs, with out any foundation. Most
    skeptics other than saying the AGW scare has no foundation, include world renown scientists.
    And although I have a BA with a major in Archaeology and Palaeonthropology I was against Gore
    well before Australia even thought of a carbon tax being the solution. I am an environmentalist
    too and just finishing my Diploma for Organic Agricultural Production. Wind farms one in UK
    was paid over 2 million dollars (1.2 million pounds) and hasn’t produced any electricity yet. It’s scandalous. China’s carbon tax $1.30 a tonne. Big Deal – Gawd? The Chinese are dictating
    the economy of this world, even offered the EU Bank money to help them out. They produce most of the solar panel and windmills now. Well they are benefiting from countries who are too stupid to see a con, like you, and laughing all the way to the bank as a consequence.

  128. bushbunny says:

    And Blvr, if you are a Fabian society or Green member, naturally favoring redistribution of wealth
    and nationalising power plants and steel industries, decapitalizing the world in favor of socialism
    or communism. Take note ‘The ALP are fine at spending other people’s money, but not making any themselves’. Worst than that they are not judging what goes on overseas. It’s OK to be Green, but surely ‘horses for courses’, e.g., if you are a Vegan or vegetarian, you want everyone else to become one and hold moral judgement on those that eat meat. Stop the Livestock trade.
    Stop people owning pets, by not eating meat you will safe the planet. Lucky Australia is also run by the States. And they are not happy. WA is threatening to break away by implementing its own mining royalties. How did they do that, they did, and Gillardia said ‘We’ll reduce your funding. Look at Tasmania, its lost industry because of their Green policies, and they rely on 60% of their money from the Federal Government. Unemployment is high in that State too. Lovely place to visit but no live in.

    Australia has environmental problems that threaten us. Floods, droughts, bush fires (especially ones lit by nut cases) feral animals, but why give the UNCCF $600 million a year, instead of spending it here. Update coal fire generators, it will cut emissions around 40%. Would cost less than investing in stupid wind mills and give 24/7 electricity supply. At least Victoria has woken up to this scam.Gillardia said, if we tax energy, (make it more expensive?) people will use less of it. What! And you go a long with this? What a strange attitude you have.

  129. G. Karst says:

    Blvr says:
    September 19, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Only if other countries join in and we keep increasing emissions reduction targets.

    So you admit that, the success, of these actions depend entirely on faith.

    If you build it, they will come

    Me thinks… you watch too much Hollywood GK

  130. Blvr says:

    @Bushbunny no need to stoop to insults. Almost without exception, AGW sceptical theories have been disproven. When published by mistake, they are quickly withdrawn or rebutted. Pro AGW theories, on the other hand, are rarely shown lacking in the published literature, which is only place for a scientific debate. On this basis alone it is clear that the skeptics participating on this page are the ones closest to a law suit for slander. How many times have I seen people on this page slandering the character of a wide range of people in the public spotlight? I’ve lost count And what have I said, other than to point out that sceptics have virtually no runs on the board? Not to mention your unkind words directed towards myself. Luckily it’s all sticks and stones to me, eh? Let’s not get personal my friend, rather stick to the topic, no?

  131. Blvr says:

    @GKarst not at all, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I’m saying that it requires cooperation and everyone has to play their part.

    Australia is actually taking the smartest route because a carbon tax or ETS is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, while direct regulation – as is being seen in other countries, as well as here to date – is relatively expensive.

    I disagree with a lot of govt programs including the FIT in all its permutations and almost all of the grant programs except those directed towards basic research.

    But I wholeheartedly agree with the carbon tax, even if I don’t necessarily agree with the details of its implementation.

    The fact is – and to extend the analogy that you helpfully started – everyone is building the same thing at the same time, they are all just building with different tools. At some point we may get to the stage where everyone has finally finished. That would make life a lot easier for everyone.

  132. bushbunny says:

    Blvr. I wasn’t insulting you I was telling the truth. So you reckon skeptical science is not accepted. You must live on another planet dear. It’s the other way around, AGW is a scam of con merchants trying to politically moderate our lifestyles, financial gain from spinning a lie, that only the most ignorant or politically trying to moderate the powers of America, now believe it. (mind you we could all, I suspect improve our lifestyle for the betterment of society, but when you next get your gas or electricity bill in, and say the extra price is worth it because it will cool the climate and make poorer countries richer too.

    Well wake up mate, taxing CO2 and carbon emissions will do nothing to change the climate. It is getting cooler by the year naturally. And if you don’t believe that maybe you can hang on to the words of Sen.Wong who said on election night the following. When asked if the dropping of the ETS was the reason that labor was losing support, she said in her sultry drawl ‘Nooo – because there is evidence the planet is cooling’. ”No carbon tax in a government I lead.’ until there was a hung parliament and she did a deal with the Greens to combine votes, and bribe the Independents to support her. And Gillardia also said ‘the planet is cooling too’. Garnaut said ‘farmers should farm kangaroos to save the climate. (To cut methane emissions, They are not ruminants you see) But they are not domesticated and are marsupials he forgot to add that, and so far efforts to milk and shear them have not been found commercially viable. (sarcastic tone).
    My dogs like the meat though, I don’t unless you marinate it and add herbs and garlic.(It’s like venison to me) Mind you poorer people or ones on a low fat diet could live on it well.

  133. PhilJourdan says:

    Blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 12:16 am

    @Bushbunny no need to stoop to insults. Almost without exception, AGW sceptical theories have been disproven. When published by mistake, they are quickly withdrawn or rebutted. Pro AGW theories, on the other hand, are rarely shown lacking in the published literature, which is only place for a scientific debate.

    Blvr, now I know you are just blowing smoke rings out of your nether regions. In the first place, there are no “skeptic theories’, and so far there are no ‘AGW theories”. so that is just a bald faced lie on your part.

    On the second part, the hypothesis (actually proto since has not reached hypothesis stage yet) of AGW had not been tested much less proven. indeed, the null hypothesis still stands and thus we are still at square one with regards to AGW. You have jumped over the chess board completely, with either your ignorance or lies (you choose). Once the null hypothesis has been disproven, then work can begin on finding a working hypothesis which can be advanced, through testing, to a theory. We have a long way to go before then.

    So please, when entering a science debate, come at least prepared to discuss science, not religion!

  134. bushbunny says:

    Well said Phil and don’t forget the citizens submission to the select committee, closing tomorrow,
    available on the ‘Barnaby is Right blog’. It suggests we take the government to high court to contest any carbon tax as a blight on our constitutional rights. Like the Malaysian solution was settled recently. A threat or a promise eh? Plenty of big spenders and also stakeholders can afford a high court solution. Including the States.

    Oh Blrv. No you can’t comment on this but you can go to Joanna Nova site, you might aid John
    Brookes and Adam Smith with your diatribe. And Penelope too, who reckons skeptics are all non toothed pensioners who aren’t in touch with the reality of their society. Humbug

    I have to retire I have a presentation tomorrow, about Organic Agriculture and Alpacas.

  135. Blvr says:

    Actually it’s true that skeptical science is not accepted, and the majority of scientists that carry out research in relevant disciplines agree with AGW, so you are both wrong.

    There is string evidence showing that the planet continues to warm. Why would you agree with politicians about warming or cooling trends but disagree with everything else they say? This is selective hearing, something skeptics are very good at. Listen to the scientists publishing in the peer reviewed literature.

    I promise you, the impact of the carbon tax will be minimal – it will be about 1 or 2 c/kWh on your current 20 c/kWh tariff and if you can’t afford that you will receive compensation. It’s weird that people are saying that it’s going to destroy the economy, everyone is spending too much time listening to the CEO’s of companies like Bluescope, who are conducting a public negotiation with the government in an attempt to protect their shareholders. These companies are a tiny fraction of GDP even with multipliers.

    BTW I have no preconceptions about skeptics except that they have chosen to listen to the wrong people for some reason.

  136. Blvr says:

    @PhilJourdan nice to talk to you. You can argue semantics if you like but the reality is that AGW is the best explanation we have for recent increases in the temperature of the planet.

  137. kim;) says:

    So…. A REAL Tax is needed to hypothetically solve a hypothetical problem?

    With the Government promise. Allow us to tax you first – and if you are poor – we will give you your money back?

    Then there is the …hmmmm…dairy farmer who finds himself now having to purchase Carbon Credits to stay in business….but he won’t raise his price to the poor that was taxed in the first place?

    Then there is the …hmmm truck driver that delivers the milk who now needs to buy Carbon Credits to stay in business….but he won’t raise his price to the poor that was taxed in the first place?

    Then there is the ……………….but he won’t raise his price to the poor that was taxed in the first place?

    And of course, that rise in price is considered “minimal” – but not refundable…by the people who brought you the REAL Tax for a hypothetical solution to a hypothetical problem?

    AND ALL the while no one has proven that even 1C in temperature [ either up or down ] can be changed?

    First and foremost – Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

  138. blvr says:

    @kim;) We can agree that AGW is a hypothetical problem. The tax is a response to a risk. It’s like an insurance policy. The risk is catastrophic climate change. It’s a high probability, high impact risk. From this point of view, the premium is small.

    There is also a probability associated with the response. Will it work? Nobody knows for sure. However, the body of evidence in the peer reviewed literature suggests that there is a high probability that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will reduce AGW – as long as everyone contributes. To date, all countries of consequence are moving in the right direction, albeit they are taking different paths (see my earlier comment).

    I don’t need to point out that the outcomes of all future events are hypothetical – but for the sake of the argument, I will. It’s therefore perfectly reasonable to change the way we do things today so as to avoid potentially negative outcomes that have an associated probability of occurrence tomorrow.

    The alternative response is to do nothing – to wait and see what happens. To me, that seems like the wrong approach. To wait for “proof” on climate – waiting for absolute certainty – is to wait forever. Vested interests are keenly aware of this, hence their desire to cast doubt on the theory of AGW, insisting that nobody should take action as long as there is any suggestion of uncertainty. This approach is understandable, but I don’t think we can regard these companies as unbiased. Energy intensive companies have a lot to lose. Pushing uncertainty produces the highest short-term investment return for the shareholders of vested interests – an outcome the shareholder’s CEOs are paid very well to achieve. Although many (particularly on this page I suspect) will suggest that scientists have a lot to gain from grants etc through dishonestly promoting AGW when they know that it’s untrue, I think it’s far more likely that a vested interest might dishonestly cast doubt on AGW when it knows better. Vested interests have orders of magnitude more to gain by pushing uncertainty. The potential for cognitive dissonance by a corporation is far more plausible.

    This is important: I did not say that there will be zero cost impact from the carbon tax. I said the cost impact will be very small, and I continue to say that it will be very small – in fact, virtually undetectable for the vast majority of the population. This conclusion takes into account all of the pass-through costs that will affect the price of milk (BTW livestock emissions are exempt), bread, petrol, Barbie Dolls, newspapers, cars, water and anything else you can name. You will see, when this tax is implemented, that the price increase from the tax will be completely lost in the general price fluctuations that happen on a day to day basis for all of these goods and services. It will be a non-event.

    The poor – for whom you are rightly concerned – will be protected from price increases via compensation. The compensation takes into account all of these price increases. The poor will be no worse off.

  139. blvr says:

    @Bushbunny thanks I will head over to Joanna Nova as well. I had no idea the extent of misinformation that was floating around the blogosphere. Unbelievable!

  140. kim;) says:

    @ blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Can you please provide evidence that reducing the worlds CO2 will lower temperatures by even 1C.

    Here is the Maths [ IPCC's own numbers ]

    Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?

    Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…

    So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.

    So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

    Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

    2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln[(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.

    Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

    AS for an insurance policy, would the Maths prove out for say a one-two hundred-and eightieth chance?

    Why would a Government force you to buy insurance for the same actuaries as say getting hit by a rainbow colored meteor?

  141. blvr says:

    @kim I saw this post earlier and although the arithmetic may be right, it’s answering a question that wasn’t asked. That is, it’s a frivolous exercise because the carbon tax and ETS together with the 5% reduction is just a starting point to get people used to emissions trading and get other countries on board without damaging the economy – it’s not supposed to solve the problem on its own.

    So here’s the important point: I’m not going to argue with your calcs because we can both agree that implementing a $23 /t carbon tax in Australia will not reduce global temperatures without any further action, both within Australia and across the world.

    The only way we are going to see a counterfactual reduction in global temperatures in the long run is for all countries to implement programs that reliably and transparently reduce global emissions 80% by 2050 against a 2000 baseline.

    So redo your calculations with those numbers and let’s see what happens to GHG concentrations. In fact, don’t bother because it’s already been done countless times by Garnaut, Stern and many others.

    It’s called contract and converge. It will take a long time, so the only way to get to that situation by 2050 is for countries to start implementing programs as soon as possible.

    That’s why Australia has to implement a carbon tax now. Believe me when I say that this is a soft start – that’s why I keep saying that people don’t have to worry about the tax from an economic perspective right now.

    Over the next five years, we will need to review what is happening around the world – both in terms of science and politics – and decide if we are going to continue to the 80% target or rely on adaptation. That’s when things will get interesting.

  142. PhilJourdan says:

    Blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 8:31 am

    Actually it’s true that skeptical science is not accepted, and the majority of scientists that carry out research in relevant disciplines agree with AGW, so you are both wrong.

    Your ignoranance knows no bounds. Skepticism is the basis of science, not a branch of it. You do not “accept” it. You either live it, or accept on blind faith (such as religion). I stated nothing that you have disagreed with. I stated facts. You came back and spouted religion. Which is your choice. But do not pass off your religion for science. You only make a fool of yourself.

  143. PhilJourdan says:

    Blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 8:34 am

    @PhilJourdan nice to talk to you. You can argue semantics if you like but the reality is that AGW is the best explanation we have for recent increases in the temperature of the planet.

    Every theologian will agree with you. And every real scientist will disagree with you. Until you disprove the null hypothesis, there is no other “best explanation”. The null hypothesis IS the explanation. And no one has disproved it yet.

  144. kim;) says:

    Actually the Maths have been done Blver

    Here is what was done:

    I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate – a premise we know to be a lie.

    First and foremost – Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

    BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to ‘Mitigate” just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.

    And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million [ ppm ],

    Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

    Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.

    Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.

    In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
    CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.

    In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
    So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
    4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.

    In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.

    A number that is scientifically meaningless in climate temperatures.

    Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natiural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignore all other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.

    Now….Why would there be such a dramatic push for us to REDUCE THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a C…..UNLESS, someone was making a killing..AND using AGW trying to scare us ??

    You are welcome to test my math

    If you are trying to sell this TAX by using IPCC’s own Maths – it fails to provide what it promises.

    You trying to inject this as a “first step” fails – IF the “first step” ,itself fails. You can not expect it to get any better then the base.

  145. blvr says:

    @kim I’m not going to wade through your maths. Write it up and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. They have people far better qualified than I to do the wading.

    If it gets published then I will provisionally accept it as plausible. If it is not rebutted after about a year, then I’ll accept that it’s probably right for the time being.

    That’s how science moves forward.

    In the meantime, I will regard it as probably wrong.

  146. blvr says:

    @PhilJourdan We misunderstand one another – or perhaps you are intentionally trying to twist my words around. I am referring to the activities of AGW sceptics, not the practice of sceptical science itself. I think you know all this anyway and suspect you are simply splitting hairs.

    Let’s call these people contrarians so as not to confuse the issue. So I rephrase that the contrarians are generally wrong.

    The majority of scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature – which is the only place that matters – support the AGW hypothesis, which attempts to explain recent temperature rises by positing that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.

    A fringe group of scientists have attempted to explain the temperature increase with alternative theories and have generally failed. Hence AGW continues as the best explanation we have.

    True scepticism is good – all science should be tested. I have a problem when contrarians continue to represent alternative theories as correct after they have been rebutted or refused publication in the peer-reviewed literature, or represent alternative theories as conceptually correct before the scientific community has had a chance to review them in the peer-reviewed literature. This is not true scepticism.

    Your statement that every real scientist will disagree with me when I say that AGW is the best explanation for the planetary warming that we are experiencing is just nonsense.

  147. kim;) says:

    @ blvr says:

    If it gets published then I will provisionally accept it as plausible. If it is not rebutted after about a year, then I’ll accept that it’s probably right for the time being.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    LOL
    Actually, It has been published and peer-reviewed….The Math comes from IPCC’s AR4 as I stated. “I will use IPCC’s own numbers.”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    @ blvr says:
    In the meantime, I will regard it as probably wrong.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    Take it up with the IPCC :)

  148. kim;) says:

    Or you can offer resourced evidence that the IPCC numbers are false?

  149. blvr says:

    @kim Picking a few numbers from an IPCC report and putting them into your own equation does not equate with “published and peer-reviewed”. The numbers are the IPCC’s, the (frivolous) maths is yours (I assume). It means nothing.

  150. kim;) says:

    Is it the multiplication or division that you seem to have trouble with?

    There is no advanced Maths higher than simple multiplication and division.

    If you won’t do the simple maths – how can you tell people the cost of this TAX will have a minimal effect on them?.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 11:35 am
    “I said the cost impact will be very small, and I continue to say that it will be very small – in fact, virtually undetectable for the vast majority of the population.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I invite you to do the Maths

  151. blvr says:

    @Kim your maths has nothing to do with the economic impact of the carbon tax, it seems to be trying to ascertain the impact of an emissions reduction trajectory on global temperatures – unless I am misunderstanding something?

    In any case, I didn’t say it was too hard, I said it was frivolous (= waste of time) and you’re yet to convince me otherwise.

    The economic impact of the tax has been modelled by a few different economists and even a simple calculation can back up these results, which suggest that the economic impact will be very small for the average person and the economy as a whole.

    Anyway, as I said earlier, if you have managed to rebut the AGW theory using multiplication and division only, then you should submit your calculations to a peer-reviewed journal. The professors there can handle multiplication and division I think.

    You will be famous – and it only took you five minutes to show those dim-witted PhDs that they have wasted the last ten years of their lives!

  152. kim;) says:

    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm
    “Anyway, as I said earlier, if you have managed to rebut the AGW theory using multiplication and division only, then you should submit your calculations to a peer-reviewed journal. The professors there can handle multiplication and division I think.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    Like many AGW’ers I’ve debated with, you can’t seem to understand.

    The Maths presented addresses Cap and Trade schemes – These are separate from the hypothesis of AGW.

    I am sorry that you can’t understand that. However, that is what politicized climate science and IPCC has done.

    The maths used are not new. I for one am confused by the people who try to sell Cap and Trade Taxes – that haven’t investigated – OR don’t wish to admit it.

    EVERY Politician, selling Cap and Trade Taxes, knows this math….BUT hopes the average person won’t ask.

    I gave you a link to the first bit of Maths…here it is again http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/11145/The-Answer-Flannery-Refused-To-Give-MAYBE-Just-0-00005-C-In

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm
    “The economic impact of the tax has been modelled by a few different economists and even a simple calculation can back up these results, which suggest that the economic impact will be very small for the average person and the economy as a whole”.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==

    Give your references for your above statement – your words aren’t giving evidence.

    Personally, I have a bit of a problem accepting your word – when you think the Maths I provided were a “rebut” of the AGW hypothesis [ The correct terminology for AGW - It has a long way to go before being a theory ].

  153. blvr says:

    @Kim you seriously aren’t going to drag me down this path. I have no doubt that your arithmetic is correct and in fact I’ve already stated that Australia’s 5% reduction by 2020 will have no discernible effect on global temperatures. We agree about that, so what’s your point? I’m clearly a bit stupid – as has been pointed out a number of times by various different people in various different ways. You need to dumb it down a bit for me.

    I’m not clear why I should be required to provide references for my assertions when pretty much everyone on this page (and for that matter the remainder of the AGW sceptic “community”) seems happy to make statements without any attribution. It’s easy to find though, just Google it.

    And hypothesis vs theory? Give me a break – are we having a discussion or writing a college dissertation? Let’s drop the semantics. For the sake of this discussion, they are close enough to be the same thing. Or would you rather have a nit-picking discussion like @GKarst instead of getting to the heart of the issue?

  154. blvr says:

    Actually it was @PhilJourdan that was the real nitpicker, now that I look back.

    Why do contrarians – I won’t use the term “sceptic” as that seems to ring all sorts of alarm bells in terms of comprehension – always seem to retreat to semantics the longer a discussion lasts?

  155. kim;) says:

    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    @Kim you seriously aren’t going to drag me down this path. I have no doubt that your arithmetic is correct and in fact I’ve already stated that Australia’s 5% reduction by 2020 will have no discernible effect on global temperatures. We agree about that, so what’s your point? I’m clearly a bit stupid – as has been pointed out a number of times by various different people in various different ways. You need to dumb it down a bit for me.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I had thought that you Invited me to take the original set of Maths I presented out to an 80% reduction – Oh wait you did.

    As evidenced here:

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    The only way we are going to see a counterfactual reduction in global temperatures in the long run is for all countries to implement programs that reliably and transparently reduce global emissions 80% by 2050 against a 2000 baseline.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I gave you the maths, using IPCC’s own numbers, proving your above statement wrong.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The point is:
    Cap and Trade TAXES have nothing to do with “mitigating” reduction of CO2 – Or at least a scientific meaningless amount [ in climate science ] of reduction CO2.

    If it isn’t about “mitigation” of CO2 – What are these TAXES about?

    Could they be the basis for setting up Carbon Credit Trader schemes? Without this TAX… there is no base for Carbon Traders.

    http://www.australiamatters.com/david_rothschild.html

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    I’m not clear why I should be required to provide references for my assertions when pretty much everyone on this page (and for that matter the remainder of the AGW sceptic “community”) seems happy to make statements without any attribution. It’s easy to find though, just Google it.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Actually, it was you that required me to produce references first – was it not?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    @ blvr says:

    If it gets published then I will provisionally accept it as plausible. If it is not rebutted after about a year, then I’ll accept that it’s probably right for the time being.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I believe, I would have the same right to request it of you?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    And hypothesis vs theory? Give me a break – are we having a discussion or writing a college dissertation?

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Because, you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory – but seem to try to add weight to your by using the latter?

  156. G. Karst says:

    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Actually it was @PhilJourdan that was the real nitpicker, now that I look back.

    Why do contrarians – I won’t use the term “sceptic” as that seems to ring all sorts of alarm bells in terms of comprehension – always seem to retreat to semantics the longer a discussion lasts?

    .
    Kim graciously took time out of her day, in order to instruct you, in regards to elemental, peer reviewed math. You can ignore it because you don’t “like” it, but either correct it or acknowledge it. It certainly isn’t semantics, however, all of your replies were. You are apparently unable to discern: who or what is nitpicking. All fingers seem to point to yourself. Try harder. GK

  157. blvr says:

    @Kim OK let’s get into it. I guess I’m a sucker for punishment after all.

    The 125ppm number looks about right based on a climate sensitivity of 3degC for a doubling of CO2 concentration. Can you refer me to the source of the 14,138 figure? it would take me a long time to sift through all of the stuff the IPCC has put out to date without some help, and this is a critical number.

  158. PhilJourdan says:

    blvr says:
    September 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    @PhilJourdan We misunderstand one another – or perhaps you are intentionally trying to twist my words around. I am referring to the activities of AGW sceptics, not the practice of sceptical science itself. I think you know all this anyway and suspect you are simply splitting hairs.

    I am not splitting hairs, nor am I misconstruing what you said. You claim that the “theories” of the “skeptics” have all been debunked, when anyone, including Mann, Jones, Trenberth, etc. will tell you that the “skeptics” are not advancing theories, but merely questioning the works of AGW proponents. So you clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    in addition, you stated that the “theories” of the AGW proponents have been mostly proven to be correct, when in fact, in the field of Climate Science, nothing has been proven yet. In fact, a theory has not even been devised yet. An alternate hypothesis has been proposed, yet the null hypothesis remains in effect since it has not been disproven. You therefore do not understand science or what you are talking about.

    I very much understand you. But understanding what you are saying is not agreeing with your or splittting hairs. It is calling into question your competence on the subject, which you have demonstrated to be non-existent.

  159. Blvr says:

    @PhilJourdan I said that the theory of AGW is the best theory we currently have to explain recent increases in temperature.

    Semantics aside, how is that statement incorrect?

    Please explain, without commenting on my intelligence, competence, understanding of science, level of clueiness, ignorance or foolhardiness. Also please try to do it without suggesting that I am lying or religious.

    I understand that you are highly ntelligent, very competent, an eminent scientist, very cluey, informed and sensible. I also know that you are honest and agnostic. I bet you’re good looking as well and great fun to hang out with.

  160. kim;) says:

    Blvr

    That figure comes from dividing annual total emissions of CO2 into atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

    This is the source used by IPCC http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

    Here is the Scientist who taught the average person how to do it
    Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
    http://www.masterresource.org/about/#chip

    And here he shows the steps
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/#more-376

  161. kim;) says:

    Actually, Blvr…I don’t see being religious as a hindrance. I think most religious would question a Minister who becomes authoritarian but lacks credibility? But that is OT….And prolly against WUWT policies.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Thank you G. Karst says:
    September 21, 2011 at 9:27 am :)

  162. bushbunny says:

    For Kim, G.K., Phil J, ROLFL! ‘U tell ‘em luv’.! Oh for non Aussies, there was a famous TV
    ad that kept interjecting with the cry – ‘You tell them luv!’ When I went on my puter this morning
    I hadn’t used it on Weds as I was at my course for organic agricultural production, I found over 200 unread mail. Most were those who were signing the petition to take to the high court this government who wants to impose this unnecessary carbon tax on us. Just like the high court
    slung out the Malaysian solution. This submission has closed now, but this government has imposed amendments to the carbon tax legislation, and gave the Opposition 1 days notice of the changes. They complained and the meeting was abandoned. The opposition MPs who rightly complained about the shortness of the time they had been given but the chairwoman shut down the meeting accusing them of being ‘disruptive’. These amendments included a tax of fuel. They are desperate to get it passed, but typically like they did with this select committee submissions, gave people a week or so to prepare for it. It appears that there are some very big
    industrial private heavies who have the money to fund such a court case. Let’s go for it! Through the high courts and see how their carbon tax stands up to real scrutiny, and the skeptical so called deniers, can give evidence that the IPCC science and The Critical Decade
    report were undeniably faulty. That’s how the cookie crumbles, Blvr.

  163. bushbunny says:

    Although the governments ‘critical decade’ report, had a disclaimer on it. See if the likes of Flannery and Garnaut will be so outspoken when they are relied on to take an oath. At least it will hold up things until the next election.

  164. Brian H says:

    kim;
    The Knappenberger post is delicious. For rough purposes, I’ve internalized his number as 1¾ million. The ratio of the effect, per AGW models, of CO2 emissions reduction on temp in °C.

    Can be used for personal, national, or global CO2 changes.

    Thanks muchly.

  165. Brian H says:

    The CO2 units, of course, are “mmt”, millions of metric tons. Multiply by 2 billion if you want lbs.
    ;)

  166. bushbunny says:

    Who suggested blvr went to Joanne Nova’s site? Well he has and getting a sound licking there too.

  167. blvr says:

    @kim OK I have looked over the paper. Since this is a long term problem and global in nature, I would like to use the same basic approach and numbers for an 80% reduction in global emissions between 2011 and 2100 to see if there is any impact. The only difference is that I will do it in two parts – the business as usual scenario and the “with measures” scenario. It produces exactly the same outcome, but I found it a bit clearer – even though it takes a bit longer.

    Simple calcs for simple people like me. Here are the numbers:
    Temperature change rate: 125 ppm/degC (per World Carbon Report)
    Qty of CO2 required to raise by 1 degC: 1.767 x 10^12 tCO2/degC (per WCR)
    This is Pielke’s magic 1,767,000 mmtCO2/degC, i.e. 1.767 million x million.

    Even though I thought the 1.767 number (above) was a bit dodgy (see end notes), I used it anyway. It’s probably close enough for the purposes of this exercise, given all the other simplifications.

    Global emissions, 2011: 2.9 x 10^10 tCO2/yr (fossil fuel & cement) (source: cdiac) (this is 29,000 mmtCO2/yr)
    Business as usual global emissions forecast, 2100: 1.10 x 10^11 tCO2/yr

    The 2100 figure is an estimate of annual CO2 emissions in 2100 if we took no action to slow them (because they are harmless, apparently). It could be a little on the high side. Who knows? Maybe it is on the low side? Anyway, we are dealing with such infinitesimally small temperature changes (thousandths of a degree as I recall) that it really shouldn’t matter how big we make it, right?

    Assume a linear increase in emissions between 2011 and 2100.
    Average global emissions rate between 2011 and 2100 is then 6.95 x 10^10 tCO2/yr (69,500 mmtCO2/yr). This is just the halfway point between 2011 and 2100.

    So between 2011 and 2100, total additions to the atmospheric stock would be 89 x 6.95 x 10^10 or 6.19 x 10^12 tCO2, which is 6,190,000 mmtCO2. Note: this is not an annual amount, it’s the total for the period.

    OK, using the magic number, if we add 6,190,000 mmtCO2 to the atmosphere over 89 years, we will increase global atmospheric temperatures by 6.19/1.767 = 3.5 degC.

    Right, now the same thing with an 80% reduction in emissions.

    I’ll short cut a bit because it’s the same process, so:
    Emissions rate is 6.95 x 10^10 x 0.2 = 1.39 x 10^10 tCO2/yr
    Total emissions over 89 years = 89 x 1.39 x 10^10 = 1.24 x 10^12 tCO2
    Temperature increase is 1.24 / 1.767 = 0.7 degC

    So for our efforts, we have reduced global temperatures by 3.5 – 0.7 = 2.8 degC and we have even avoided the “dangerous” two degree temperature increase (shudder). Actually turned out OK then, didn’t it?

    This is obviously all extremely rough, hence why it didn’t appear in the IPCC reports I guess. For example:
    1. The calculations only take into account CO2. They ignore methane, N2O, HFCs and SF6 emissions
    2. Everything is linear. No account is taken of potential changes in climate sensitivity etc as concentration increases due to increased activity of sinks, clouds, etc. I would think it overstates the temperature increase somewhat.
    3. The coefficient of determination (R2) on correlating annual emissions and CO2 concentration was only about 0.2, which indicates that changes in concentration are not fully explained by changes in GHG release rates. Although the average was about 14.5 GtCO2/ppm , you could easily have chosen anything between 9 and 30 and still been within a couple of standard deviations of the mean (although I have no idea if it was a normal distribution). So assuming that atmospheric concentration – and therefore temperature – will change at a rate of the “magic” 1,767 mmtCO2/degC is not exactly accurate. It could easily be out by a factor of two.

    Anyway, happy for others to look through and pick up any errors that I may have made.

  168. kim;) says:

    Hiyas bushbunny,

    We [ here in the states ] had a similar circumvention attempt. Congress would not pass a Cap and Trade …so our EPA [ an administrative authority ] implemented laws. The Good news is that Mr Obama dearly seeks reelection. His performance in office, is hmmm… shaky…so he put those EPA laws on “indefinite hold”. [ I suspect, if he gets reelected, he will allow EPA to have their way :( ]. Of course, these EPA laws will [ have ] been challenged in our courts.

    IMO…the most important thing you can teach kids is that: Good stewardship – is completely independent of the hypothesis of AGW. This will be a hard concept to sell… because IPCC – Mr Gore etc has throughly allowed “Greens” ., energy and “Traders” to politicize / infiltrate the hypothesis / science.

    The next is the Maths of Cap and Trade [ as outlined here ]. It is simple Maths – yet, hidden from kids and the public.

    The next is a critical mind and knowing how to research claims made.

    Kids are taught to take the Scientist of AGW at their word because it’s a complex issue. While I agree Climate is a complex issue, It is not hard for kids to find the “Missing Science” behind claims. When Science becomes “authoritarian” [ as IPCC - Mr Gore etc have chosen to do ], they are held to a much higher standard. Hold them to it! They [ AGW scientist ] seem to demand a higher standard of accountability of anyone who questions their hypothesis – Yet, excuse their accountability. When this attitude is prevalent – start questioning.

  169. kim;) says:

    Hiyas Brian H says:
    September 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    kim;
    The Knappenberger post is delicious. For rough purposes, I’ve internalized his number as 1¾ million. The ratio of the effect, per AGW models, of CO2 emissions reduction on temp in °C.

    Can be used for personal, national, or global CO2 changes.

    Thanks muchly.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    You are very welcome. :)

  170. PhilJourdan says:

    Blvr says:
    September 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    @PhilJourdan I said that the theory of AGW is the best theory we currently have to explain recent increases in temperature.

    Semantics aside, how is that statement incorrect?

    #1 – It is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
    #2 – It is not the best. The null hypothesis is the best. Until disproven, the scientific method tells us the null hypothesis is the best.
    #3 – Semantics is the difference between too, two, and to. The scientific method is not semantics.

    Please explain, without commenting on my intelligence, competence, understanding of science, level of clueiness, ignorance or foolhardiness. Also please try to do it without suggesting that I am lying or religious.

    Sorry, you brought all of that into the discussion. If you did not mean what you said, then we have nothing further to discuss since I am not clairvoyant. Clearly if you cannot remember what you wrote, that does not mean you are lying – but again it does not lend itself to any type of discussion when you cannot even read what you said in previous posts.

    When discussing religion, talk about souls and saviors is normal and acceptable. When talking about science, discussing scientific principals, constructs, and methods is acceptable. You may choose the subject of your discourse, but you may not dictate the responses of the individuals.

  171. kim;) says:

    Hiyas Blvr.

    I have a confession to make.
    I baited you…kinda :)
    I had hoped you would try to use the Maths out to 2100.

    To take it out to 2100 large assumptions need to be made. Much larger than on an annual basis.

    For the purpose of my Maths…I used the IPCC AGW assumptions. Those assumptions are based on “sensitivity values” assigned by IPCC. Those are 3.4 – 5.7 ( Mr Hansen wants them at 7.0+ ).

    Since IPCC’s AR4…. numerous papers have seriously questioned those values. Including Solar variance and Cloud variance.

    IPCC’s figures for 2100 are dependent on those values..

    This is why this appears in the first set of Maths I gave.
    “Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.”

    To use the IPCC 2100 assumptions – one must also assume the world, man, science, nature is at a standstill. What inventions / knowledge have happened in the last 100 years? We NEVER do business as usual.

    It also assumes that todays temperature is the optimum temperature. Does history [ Observational evidence ] agree?

    AND the finale, IPCC AGW makes the biggest assumption. That is by changing CO2 we change temperatures.

    First and foremost – Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

  172. kim;) says:

    blvr says:
    September 22, 2011 at 12:43 am

    1. The calculations only take into account CO2. They ignore methane, N2O, HFCs and SF6 emissions
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    CO2 is taken into account because IPCC has dismissed all other gases [ including water vapor ] And labeled CO2 as being the main driver of climate change.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    blvr says:
    September 22, 2011 at 12:43 am
    This is obviously all extremely rough, hence why it didn’t appear in the IPCC reports I guess. For example:

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Do you really think someone / agency that promotes AGW and it’s schemes, would include this Math?

    Do you have so much faith in IPCC – that you can’t question motives / actions taken by them? If you stick around…I think, you’ll find many reasons to question their actions / motivations etc.

    There is plenty of evidence as to their political involvement.

    HERE is a good start:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/

  173. kim;) says:

    @ blvr

    Just a question in an attempt to better understand what you believe.
    Say we believe the hypothesis of AGW and the world cut CO2 emissions by 80% overnight with Cap and Trade TAXES – when do you believe we will see the temperature / climatic changes because of those reductions?

    READ what politicians say.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/

  174. Blvr says:

    @Kim well thanks, because it allowed me to publicly show the deceit in Pielke’s article.

    Now I could go on to debunk every other challenge that you have brought up (e.g. CO2 doesn’t change temperatures) but where would that get us? Every time I did that, you would automatically say that you tricked me into doing it, then go on to bring up the next already debunked challenge. I’d be happy to do it in some ways, unfortunately I just don’t have the time.

    But more importantly, it just tells me that you are only here for the process of arguing, because you see it as an end in itself, not a means to an end.

    And you have that trait in common with every other contrarian I have ever met.

  175. kim;) says:

    @Blvr says:
    September 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
    @Kim well thanks, because it allowed me to publicly show the deceit in Pielke’s article.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    What article are you referencing, please? I didn’t send you to any of Dr Pielke’s articles.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    @Blvr says:
    September 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
    Now I could go on to debunk every other challenge that you have brought up (e.g. CO2 doesn’t change temperatures)

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Would you please provide evidence that I ever said the above?

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    @Blvr says:
    September 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
    But more importantly, it just tells me that you are only here for the process of arguing, because you see it as an end in itself, not a means to an end.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    If I were in it for the process of arguing – I would do like you – and not provide you with links.

    I am debating – using logic and references for support.

    You have made statements and I have challenged those.

    That is the nature of logical debate.

  176. G. Karst says:

    Blvr:

    You have clearly established your credentials as a Troll, of the worst kind. I will use the scroll wheel to pass your comments in future. Well done, it only took one thread! GK

  177. just my two cents worth says:

    Very few of the so called “climate scientists” we hear so much about are not even qualified in this field and the ones that are appear to be on the governments payroll or getting massive taxpayer funding they don’t want to lose (I’m not only talking Australia here) Most “qualified ” independent scientists either dispute global warming (yes it was called this until cooling started setting in) or are dubious as to whether either warming or cooling are man made. To me this is just another ponzi scheme to further enrich international bankers who have created enough misery worldwide already. IF there is any truth at all in man made climate change why does this pathetic bunch of bankers lackeys refuse to hold a royal commission into the science this crap is based on.

  178. just my two cents worth says:

    Very few of the so called “climate scientists” we hear so much about are even qualified in this field and the ones that are appear to be on the governments payroll or getting massive taxpayer funding they don’t want to lose (I’m not only talking Australia here) Most “qualified ” independent scientists either dispute global warming (yes it was called this until cooling started setting in) or are dubious as to whether either warming or cooling are man made. To me this is just another ponzi scheme to further enrich international bankers who have created enough misery worldwide already. IF there is any truth at all in man made climate change why does this pathetic bunch of bankers lackeys refuse to hold a royal commission into the science this crap is based on.

Comments are closed.