Letter to the editor: Carbon Lies

Image Source: The Australian

Letter to the Editor
Watts Up With That?
11th March 2012

The Australian government’s plan to sell their un-saleable carbon tax has hit a snag – their pollsters have discovered that the word ”carbon” provokes anger in the electorate.

This is no surprise. Most decent people hate liars and the carbon tax campaign has been mired in lies from the start.

The first big lie was from Penny Wong who described carbon dioxide as a “pollutant”. But people soon learned that this colourless, non-toxic, natural atmospheric gas is the essential source of food for all life on earth.

The second big lie was graphic – government propaganda pictured a “dirty” coal power station belching black pollution. Three lies in one here – the power station pictured is closed, it is in England, and all carbon dioxide it ever released was invisible.

Their next mistake was to use paid academics to spread scare forecasts of searing heat and never ending drought, all caused by the demon carbon dioxide. The reality has been no global warming for twelve years, heavy snows in the Northern Hemisphere and heavy rains in Australia.

The fourth big lie was from the leader of the government, Julia Gillard: “There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”.

No amount of weasel words from government propagandists and apologists will erase our memory of these four big lies about carbon.

Their negative image problem is profound: Whenever the Australian people hear “Carbon” they think “Lies.”

Viv Forbes,

Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com

I am happy for my email address to be published.

==========================================================

Video:

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

113 Responses to Letter to the editor: Carbon Lies

  1. Bill H says:

    well they are batting 1000…. five lies in a row….

    and they wonder how the public can see right through their fecal excrement..

  2. Kev-in-UK says:

    It’s worse than just that word ‘carbon’ – it’s also:
    government – aka procrastinating bunch of narcissistic muppets
    politician – aka a procrastinating welcher stealing for himself and his own ilk
    tax – aka a thievery mechanism that provides procrastinating bar stewards with all their rations
    Green – aka a colour that enables justification of all tax and statutory law!
    CAGW – an elaborate procrastinating smokescreen to avoid public awareness of the thievery and dismissal of the democratic process!

  3. kim2ooo says:

    SNAPPED or SWARMED

  4. Gary Hladik says:

    She should have said, “Read my lips: no carbon taxes!” Then she’d never dare approve a carbon tax!

    Oh, wait…

  5. Camburn says:

    Will this letter make it past the Austraian Censors?

  6. Kasuha says:

    ” Whenever the Australian people hear “Carbon” they think “Lies.” ”
    I sense a wish taking over reality here. Or are there statistics available of how many people are actually aware the aforementioned facts being lies?

  7. clipe says:

    In Canada it was to be called “Green Shift”.

    http://www.thesudburystar.com/Blogs/ViewCommunityPage.aspx?BlogID=1859

    Been known as “Green Shaft” ever since.

    The Great White sceptical North.

  8. There is also the lie about 97% of scientists supporting AGW, The survey was carried out on a limited number who were mainly believers, the majority had no scientific or engineering qualifications, the questions were framed to give answers they wanted. To the farmers and older people who have experienced cycles of weather, statements about the beliefs of scientists on AGW just destroys the reputation of all science.

  9. Very sad.
    But thanks for the read Viv.

  10. Anything is possible says:

    I can’t help wondering how much less of a political issue climate change would suddenly become were the Gillard government to be completely decimated at the next election.

    Come on, Australia. Satisfy my curiosity…….

  11. kbray in california says:

    Is Gillard marsupial ?
    I see a roo coming out of her blouse…
    or is it a jackass…

    I need stronger glasses and/or
    a stronger glass…

    what is that?

  12. Richard Day says:

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.
    I think of the youtube video with that lovely woman asking the liar, “Why did you lie to us?” and the liar trying her best to slither away. And then the woman slaps down the liar’s sycophant when he tries to poke his nose in there. lmao.

  13. See Lord Monckton’s evaluation:

    Australia accounts for only 1.2% of global CO2 emissions, and the government’s policy was to reduce this percentage by 5% over the ten-year life of the tax. On the generous assumption that the entire reduction would be achieved from year 1 onward, the fraction of global emissions abated would be just 0.06%. Because this fraction was so small, the projected CO2 concentration of 412 ppmv that would otherwise obtain in the atmosphere by 2020 would fall to 411.987 ppmv. Because this reduction in CO2 concentration was so small, the warming abated over the 10-year period of the tax would be just 0.000085 C°, at a discounted cost of $130 billion over the ten-year term.

    Therefore, the cost of abating all of the 0.15 C° of warming that the IPCC predicted would occur between 2011 and 2020 by using measures as cost-effective as Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would be $309 trillion, 57.4% of global GDP to 2020, or $44,000 per head of the world’s population. On this basis, the cost of abating 1 C° of global warming would be $1.5 quadrillion. That, said Lord Monckton, is not cheap. In fact, it is 110 times more costly than doing nothing and paying the eventual cost of any damage that might arise from warmer weather this century.

    Australia’s carbon dioxide tax is typical of the climate-mitigation measures now being proposed or implemented. All such measures are extravagantly cost-ineffective.

  14. Goldie says:

    What you have to understand is that its not a carbon tax but a wealth redistribution tax. Any family that earns over $150,000 will be penalised and the rest compensated. Sounds like a lot? A truck driver on a mine earns approximately $120k. In fact, with less than 3% unemployment in Western Australia, anyone who wants to get off their rear end and travel a bit can get a well paid job so long as they are fit and healthy. But still the marxists insist on compensating those who can’t be bothered. Hence they have no incentive to do anything else.

  15. Ian W says:

    From climate ‘scientists’ “hiding the decline” – when tree rings were failed to show rising temperature; to Gliek’s lying about a forged document; and, to Julia Gillard “There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”: all these have in common total lack of ethics and integrity. These untrustworthy individuals are willingly being used by financiers and politicians interested in furtherance of their own power and wealth through such schemes as Agenda 21 and the ‘Rio declaration’.

    And meanwhile children are actually dying right now at the rate of once every 5 seconds from starvation, tainted water, and malaria; and just a dollar a day could save a life.

    This gives a really good indication of the priorities of all the people involved in this climate fraud

  16. u.k.(us) says:

    “Decimate”, originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions.

  17. Evan Thomas says:

    Camburn must be under the impression that we have government censors in Australia. Government censorship ended circa 1946. However there is a form of censorship exercised by major media organisations who apparently continue to believe that ‘the science is settled’. Cheers from soggy Downunder.

  18. I love Australia and the Australian people but this story might give illustrate the mountain we skeptics have to climb here.
    A few weeks back I was repairing a fridge in a shop. I was in the middle of purging the system before charging it when I noticed one of the Assistants eyeing me and the gas cylinder beside me. There was a loud hissing as I released the gas from the system and the Assistant scuttled off returning a minute later with her Manager (By the way I have no issues whatsoever with her actions…safety in the workplace is crucial and should be encouraged!)
    Is it alright for us to be here when you’re working? She asked politely.
    Absolutely safe I assured her, and explained what I was doing in some detail.
    What’s in the cylinder? She asked again.
    Nitrogen. I repeated.
    Is that ‘toxic’? she asked.
    I grinned and said
    I certainly hope not…it’s eighty percent of the earth’s atmosphere!
    Reassured they went back to work and as I finished I mused on what had just happened. I decided to conduct a little experiment of my own.
    So before I left the shop I asked the Manager (a charming and intelligent person) if she believed in man made Global Warming, ie that CO2 emissions were changing the earth’s climate?
    I’m sure you can guess what here answer was!
    Oh yes…I’m afraid we skeptics have a long long haul ahead of us.

  19. Steve from Rockwood says:

    I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.

  20. You have to listen to what Juliar actually says: “There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead”. Since there is now a carbon tax voted through in Australia by the government it is clear that what Juliar is actually saying is that she does NOT lead that government. It is actually lead and run by the UN, Club of Rome, Sierra Club etc. Juliar is just the poor fall-gal they put in front of the TV cameras. Any other possible interpretation of Juliar’s statement would mean that a politician was a bare-faced liar, and that cannot possibly be right, surely.

  21. Paul R says:

    Ian W says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    And meanwhile children are actually dying right now at the rate of once every 5 seconds from
    starvation, tainted water, and malaria; and just a dollar a day could save a life.
    This gives a really good indication of the priorities of all the people involved in this climate fraud

    I agree and this is one of the things I have so much trouble reconciling. We are going to have to live with the disastrous results of these lies in the years ahead, we’re going to have to watch it unfold and live with the perpetrators.

  22. Jer0me says:

    Evan Thomas says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Camburn must be under the impression that we have government censors in Australia. Government censorship ended circa 1946. However there is a form of censorship exercised by major media organisations who apparently continue to believe that ‘the science is settled’. Cheers from soggy Downunder.

    When Camburn referred to the ‘Australian censors’ (spelling corrected), I am sure he (gender assumed) was referring to the publication ‘The Australian’ rather than our fair country.

  23. Ric Werme says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    “Decimate”, originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions.

    I think that during the coverage of Hurricane Katerina’s impact on New Orleans (rather, the foolishness of building below sea-level in an area with weak dikes) is when reporters started misusing “decimate” instead of old reliable “devastate.”

    Or maybe some cub reporter heard President Bush use it and thought Bush was right.

    Perhaps we can start an annual cull by decimating the group of reporters who misuse it.

    While decimate may have been used as a punishment, I think the practitioners would be quick to point out that the intent was motivational. After a battle that was not fought with adequate agressiveness, decimating the squad provided “encouragement” to fight better next time.

  24. Steamboat Jon says:

    “kbray in california says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm
    Is Gillard marsupial ?
    I see a roo coming out of her blouse…or is it a jackass…
    I need stronger glasses and/or a stronger glass…
    what is that?”

    I see it has that look until you follow the link and a larger picture shows it is a scarf (or is that cravat?).

  25. Paul Martin says:

    When people say “the science is settled” they think they have the solution, but what they actually have is the precipitate.

  26. jonathan frodsham says:

    “There will be no Carbon tax on the government I lead” J.Gillard

    This disgusting woman could not lay straight in bed, she is an embarrassment to the Australian people. She enjoys telling lies. She is a nasty piece of work. She (He) will be gone soon.

  27. ianl8888 says:

    @ Steve from Rockwood

    “I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.”

    Outright lie

    She won exactly the same number of seats as the Opposition.

    Several Independents double-crossed their electorates to support her forming a Govt – note that the electorates of these two Independents voted the ALP/Greens a very emphatic *last*

  28. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    “”I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.””

    She was put into power by a stupid preference system engineered before the stupid greens got 10% of the vote.

  29. Terry Warren says:

    Evan Thomas obviously hasn’t heard of the recently concluded Finkelstein Enquiry into Australia’s media.
    Steve from Rockwood; she wasn’t voted into power. She sold her soul (and the rest of the Country it seems) to the Greens, and three very dodgy ‘independants’.

  30. William Astley says:

    There appears to be a global conspiracy against the molecule carbon dioxide, CO2. It appears irrationality and madness is contagious.

    Plants eat CO2. Plants die when CO2 levels fall below 150 ppm. Optimum CO2 levels for plants based on yield, maximum growth, and effective use of water is 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm. Commercial greenhouses purchase and run CO2 generators to increase yield and reduce growing times increase CO2 levels in the greenhouse to 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm.

    When atmospheric CO2 increases plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces the amount of water that they lose to evaporation. The reduced number of stomata results in more water left at the plant’s roots which results in increased nitrogen capture by synergistic bacteria.

    Experiments which allege to show increases in CO2 result in a reduction in plant yield do so by reduction the amount of water and increasing temperature. Warming due to CO2 increases has primarily been in higher latitude regions where the growing seasons is restricted due to frost free days and night time temperature. The warming has resulted in increase yield and shrubs moving into tundra regions.

    Increases in CO2 unequivocally results in the biosphere expanding. CO2 is not a poison. CO2 is essential for life on this planet. That is a fact.

    http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-038/004-038a.html

    EFFECTS OF CO2 ENRICHMENT
    Effects on photosynthesis
    If increases in atmospheric CO2 were occurring without the possibility of associated changes in climate then, overall, the consequences for agriculture would probably be beneficial. CO2 is vital for photosynthesis, and the evidence is that increases in CO2 concentration would increase the rate of plant growth. Photosynthesis is the net accumulation of carbohydrates formed by the uptake of CO2, so it increases with increasing CO2. A doubling of CO2 may increase the photosynthetic rate by 30 to 100%, depending on other environmental conditions such as temperature and available moisture.[1] More CO2 enters the leaves of plants due to the increased gradient of CO2 between the external atmosphere and the air space inside the leaves. This leads to an increase in the CO2 available to the plant for conversion into carbohydrate.[2] The difference between photosynthetic gain and loss of carbohydrate by respiration is the resultant growth.

    Effects on water use by plants
    Just as important may be the effect that increased CO2 has on the closure of stomata, small openings in leaf surfaces through which CO2 is absorbed and through which water vapour is released by transpiration. This tends to reduce the water requirements of plants by reducing transpiration (per unit leaf area) thus improving what is termed water use efficiency (the ratio of crop-biomass accumulation to the water used in evapotranspiration). A doubling of ambient CO2 concentration causes about a 40 per cent decrease in stomatal aperture in both C3 and C4 plants[8] which may reduce transpiration by 23-46 per cent.[9] This might well help plants in environments where moisture currently limits growth, such as in semi-arid regions, but there remain many uncertainties, such as how much the greater leaf area of plants due to increased CO2 will balance the reduced transpiration per unit leaf area.[10]

    In summary, we can expect a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 330 to 660 ppmv to cause a 10 to 50 per cent increase in growth and yield of C3 crops (such as wheat, soybean and rice) and a 0 to 10 per cent increase for C4 crops (such as maize and sugarcane).[7] Much depends, however, on the prevailing growing conditions. Our present knowledge is based on a few experiments mainly in glass-houses and has not yet included extensive study of response in the field under subtropical conditions. Thus, although there are indications that, overall, the effects of increased CO2 could be distinctly beneficial and could partly compensate for some of the negative effects of CO2-induced changes of climate, we cannot at present be sure that this will be so.

    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

    For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

    Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

    Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

  31. AndyG55 says:

    Jerome, the government are certainly looking at bring a Governemnet censor back in, to censor anything that the goernment doesn’t like.. Do a search for Finklestein Report.

  32. AndyG55 says:

    ps, if it was bought in, they could even try to censor blogs such as WUWT.
    it is a truly insidious piece of left wing totalitarian agenda.

  33. Dr Burns says:

    Don’t forget the law passed by Gillard to make it illegal, with a $1,100,000 fine, for stating the cost of the carbon tax adds to goods and services. Who cares about freedom of speech, human rights and lies ? This is Labor, the workers’ party.

  34. ROM says:

    A few nights ago and after some serious arm twisting i became the only real skeptic on an eight member panel on climate change at one of our local private colleges in a western Victorian [ Australia ] rural city.
    The crowd was pretty dismal as in about only fifty or so despite considerable publicity.
    The initial presentation by a former CRU / IPCC lead climate scientist was quite unbelievable.
    But of course this was a presentation to some ignorant rural rednecks which i must agree turned out to be the case when the well represented local branch of the green cult got up to full cry.
    The presentation was at the level of about circa mid 2009 and before Climate Gate One and Copenhagen when the warmistas were riding high and the world they thought, was at their feet and at their bidding. Words such as “unequivocal” were sprayed across the slides.
    Incredibly Steig’s lurid Antarctic warming pic from Nature’s cover was displayed as an example of the Antarctic warming. Greenland had a small patch of ice in the center and the rest was dark red to give an impression of the Greenland Ice cap was melting away.
    The well known graph including the medieval warm period, the Maunder and Dalton minimums were displayed and dubbed as the type of graph that the skeptics display but the real situation which he had drawn himself from the data was a long flat graph with a number of wriggly lines all ending in a very big uptick which looked, astonishingly, just like a hockey stick. I could even see details on one of those wriggly lines which was nearly completely hidden actually ended with a big downtick on it before it even stated that big climb.! And he drew this himself from the data.

    [ At a pre presentation dinner I was informed that the current rising global temperatures were running in the middle of the IPCC's six scenarios for the future and I was completely wrong to say that they were running below the error bars of the IPCC's lowest predicted temperatures, the B1 scenario.
    When pointed out that after 20 odd years, some hundreds of millions of dollar and the output from at least 23 models, the IPCC should by now have the future predicted 100 year temps down to a degree or so and if they hadn't got there after some 20 years of research and were still only with a range of predicted temperatures between 1.1 C to 6.4C , a performance which in private industry they would have all been down to sweeping a floor somewhere by now .
    I was told that the scenarios were all correct and were for various CO2 levels and that the IPCC was quite correct in it's predictions
    And etc and etc. ]

    So when my turn came on the panel I just stated that some of those slides presented were to put it politely, “misleading”!
    That got the green brigade up and running but strangely I was not asked which slides they might be which was most of them.
    I was then given a lecture by various panel and audience members on “trusting” the “scientists”.
    After the whole useless but totally eye opening exercise as to the duplicity of some of these IPCC warmist scientists was over, I was approached by a couple of self admitted warmers and quietly complimented in that I was prepared to stand up and state my case even though i didn’t get much of a say on that subject.

    And the climate scientist! Professor David Griggs, Former director of the Hadley Center for Climate change, IPCC lead author, adviser to the White House who got Al Gore onto global warming and with a complimentary remark on The Inconvenient Truth, now head of Melbourne’s Monash University’s Sustainability Institute, plus, plus, and of course a Nobel Prize winner.

  35. michael hart says:

    Australia is, I believe, the world’s largest exporter of coal. So does the Australian carbon tax also apply to the coal that they sell to other nations?

  36. Wayne Delbeke says:

    clipe says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    In Canada it was to be called “Green Shift”.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yeah, and with that and its sister the “National Energy Policy” from the 80’s, the Liberals can’t figure out why people in Western Canada can’t vote for them – ever. The Liberals have lost our trust as they keep telling big lies that only work on the urban unknowing masses, Those of us that live in the country or work in the oil patch know that they are blowing smoke ….

  37. Paul80 says:

    This letter has been addressed to “the Editor” WUWT? — Does Viv intend sending to all or most of the Australian newspapers?

  38. kbray in california says:

    kbray in california says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm
    I see a roo coming out of her blouse…or is it a jackass…

    Steamboat Jon says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:37 pm
    I see it has that look until you follow the link and a larger picture shows it is a scarf (or is that cravat?).
    ——————————————————————

    I thought that “cravat” might be a kangaroo hide gifted from one of the “environmental friendly” animal cullings…

    http://the-riotact.com/skippy-slaughter-kicks-off-tomorrow/46956

    …no, it’s just another illusion like the rest of it…
    but only an illusion until they take your money.
    Amazing how some cash fixes it.

  39. uppsalaumea says:

    Here in the north we’ve learned to adapt to the seasons. It’s kind of funny to see what’s going on in Australia, seems like the country is set on going against itself for some weird reason. Perhaps you need the changing seasons to understand that fighting nature is a no win situation and that using what you have available is the way forward, ie. Be pragmatic or be stupid.

  40. bushbunny says:

    The problem here in Australia, they are storming ahead introducing clean energy, and the Libs
    (the present opposition) suggest they are dedicated to cutting down greenhouse gases. The blind leading the blind. I wonder which greenhouse gas they intend cutting down. Water vapor?

  41. Julian Braggins says:

    Paul80 says:
    March 10, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    This letter has been addressed to “the Editor” WUWT? — Does Viv intend sending to all or most of the Australian newspapers?
    ——————————————
    I hope he does, but don’t hold your breath waiting to see it published. Active censorship may not be practised but selective bias seems to be alive and well. :(

  42. Richard Hill says:

    Commenters on WUWT consistently miss the point. WUWT commenters seem to think that politicians should ignore the advice of the peak scientific bodies and drop action against CO2. It is a brave politician who goes against the AGU, the AMS, the APS, the NAS , the Royal Society,,,, and, in Australia, the CSIRO. Instead of talking to each other, the commenters on WUWT should be trying to get at least one world recognised peak scientific body to go on record as saying that action against CO2 is a mistake. AFAIK, there is not one, repeat, not one, recognised scientific body that has. Our politicians rely on advice from these trusted senior scientific groups. Most people would agree that politicians should rely on this source of advice. If the advice from the trusted sources provides a platform on which the government can launch a nice new tax, who can blame the politicians.

  43. uppsalaumea says:

    CARBON TAX is as bad as CARBON CREDITS… no rational person buys it and any politician proposing it deserves our contempt.

  44. Patrick Davis says:

    “Charles Gerard Nelson says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    Oh yes…I’m afraid we skeptics have a long long haul ahead of us.”

    Indeed you are correct. I was in debate with an alarmist a few weeks back. We were discussing the physical properties of CO2, then we moved on to CH4. The response I received from this particular alarmist was…”Interesting. CH4 has 4 carbons!”. Another alarmist claimed CO2 absorbs and re-radiats UV. I kid you not! The level of scientific ignorance in Australia is simply staggering.

  45. Patrick Davis says:

    “michael hart says:
    March 10, 2012 at 6:20 pm”

    No, what it does in effect is subsidise emissions by those countries who burn Australian coal.

  46. uppsalaumea says:

    Bushbunny,

    Well said, they will try and go after H2O because it’s just as vital to life as CO2.

  47. Smokey says:

    Richard Hill,

    There are plenty of skeptical scientists. There are skeptical organizations like CATO and Heartland. But in far too many cases the eco-fascists have insinuated their members into formerly reputable organizations. Here are some relevant links so you can see what’s going on:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society.pdf

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

  48. Rob MW says:

    Steve from Rockwood says @ March 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    “I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.”

    Where’s the “fact” ? She was not voted into “power” at all, she formed a “Minority” government where deals were made with others “After” the election.

  49. pat says:

    we know the EU never abides by its own Charter…it just carries on regardless even after Poland uses its veto:

    11 March: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: EU Commissioner Says Polish Veto Won’t Stop EU Carbon-Reduction Measures
    The European Union will propose further measures to cut greenhouse gases after Poland vetoed a declaration on emissions-reduction policies, EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-10/eu-commissioner-says-polish-veto-won-t-stop-eu-carbon-reduction-measures.html

    Australia is not independent:

    5 Sept 2011: PM Gillard’s Press Office: Joint statement with the President of the European Commission
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso emphasised the new phase of closer cooperation between Australia and the European Union (EU), during bilateral talks in Canberra on 5 September 2011…
    They affirmed the commitment of Australia and the EU to work together on major global challenges and to cooperate in international forums such as the UN, the G20 and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
    They pledged to strengthen and position the Australia-EU partnership for the long term. To that end, they looked forward to starting negotiations in the very near future on a broad-ranging, treaty-level bilateral agreement, noting this would provide an overarching framework for joint action in areas such as foreign and security policy, development cooperation, trade and investment, climate change and environment, research, science, innovation and education.
    http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/joint-statement-president-european-commission

  50. Truthseeker says:

    Richard Hill says:
    March 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Richard, the problem is that it is a closed circle. The said “scientific” bodies rely on the government for money. The government use these bodies as justification for their political ends including revenue raising. Any such scientific body that breaks ranks, breaks its ties to their main income source.

    It just is not going to happen without a change of government.

  51. Reg Nelson says:

    Richard Hill says:

    Commenters on WUWT consistently miss the point. WUWT commenters seem to think that politicians should ignore the advice of the peak scientific bodies and drop action against CO2.

    ****

    Hi, Richard, do you know who Phil Jones is? He’s a “peak scientist” at the UEA and the CRU.

    Here’s a recent quote from him, “There has been no (statistically significant) global warming since 1995.”

    CO2 has increased in the the last 15 years, no?

    Where’s the correlation?

    What point am I missing?

  52. KevinK says:

    Richard Hill wrote (in part);

    “It is a brave politician who goes against the AGU, the AMS, the APS, the NAS , the Royal Society,,,, and, in Australia, the CSIRO.”

    Yes indeed, and back around 1902 all of those AUGUST scientific bodies (or the equivalent at that time) were quite certain that powered flight through the air was IMPOSSIBLE. A certain pair of brothers (Orville and Wilbur, if I remember correctly) seemed to ignore those AUGUST scientific bodies, and made it happen anyway. Good thing too, since without their discovery how the H—L would all the climate scientists FLY to Cancun and discuss how to limit everybody else’s energy consumption ???

    Cheers, Kevin.

  53. uppsalaumea says:

    When things get too hot in Australia, as when you’re knee deep in CARBON tax, take a look and venture up here to the northern latitudes, hard working folks are welcome any time.

  54. Patrick Davis says:

    “Richard Hill says:
    March 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm”

    And in Australia, Gillards climate change adviser is Ross “Gold Mine” Garnout. He’s an economist. He not only does he not understand economics too well, he understand science even less.

  55. uppsalaumea says:

    People of the north are practical for a reason and it’s not because they’re out to win a popularity contest. The changing seasons have a way of making important things clear.

  56. dp says:

    Decimate [verb transitive]:
    To kill one in ten of a population as encouragement to perform better. See more at “The torture will continue until morale improves”.

    I don’t know if this is good or bad, but Julia Gillard has replaced Mick Dundee as the face of Oz. Bad hair and all.

  57. David Joss of Downunder says:

    @Steve from Rockwood
    “I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.”
    Several commentators have pointed out that she did not get enough votes to form government without a cobbled-together alliance but what they have not pointed out was that she was elected AFTER making the no-tax promise.
    We will never know how many were duped by that promise but the rest of us will never let them forget how they were fooled.

  58. Jeff L says:

    cementafriend says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    “To the farmers and older people who have experienced cycles of weather, statements about the beliefs of scientists on AGW just destroys the reputation of all science.”

    I’ll second that. See Moncton’s closing comment at Union College – the CAGWers are doing more than just damage to climate science – they are doing damage to the credibility of science in general, which is a pillar of western society. As soon as scientists thought it was OK to also be activists, the game was lost & the credibility of science has been in decline ever since.

  59. Gail Combs says:

    dp says:
    March 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Decimate [verb transitive]:
    To kill one in ten of a population as encouragement to perform better. See more at “The torture will continue until morale improves”….

    ________________________________________

    Is that a recommendation of how we should bring our politicians back under control???

  60. King of Cool says:

    michael hart says:
    March 10, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    “Australia is, I believe, the world’s largest exporter of coal. So does the Australian carbon tax also apply to the coal that they sell to other nations?”

    No it doesn’t and that is the rub isn’t it? – and makes it even more nonsensical especially when China proposes to introduce a token carbon tax of about $A1.55 per tonne by 2015, USA has zero and India has 50 rupees (less than $1 per tonne on coal only – including imported I think).

    There is no doubt that Greg Combet, the Minister of Climate Change has jumped the gun by a mile and made a major misjudgement at introducing a tax of $A23/ tonne starting 01 July 2012 and looked the image of Neville Chamberlain when he arrived back from Durban waving a piece of white paper above his head saying “Carbon tax in our time.”

    With Carbon prices plummeting in Europe and European leaders more concerned about whether countries like Greece, Italy and Spain will be able to trade ANYTHING let alone carbon credits I suspect if Gillard goes to an election with $23/tonne she will be slaughtered unless she has not decimated Australia’s manufacturing industry first.

    Problem is she has already made promises of big compensation packages to low income earners in a gigantic money go around which in itself is crazy logic if she is trying to change public behaviour so this would now be hard to abandon. She has also stated the government will return a surplus budget by 2013 and this will rely on all the taxes she can hit big business with.

    So, it will be interesting as to what way she jumps. My guess is that she will have no alternative but to lower the carbon price and she will dream up some reasons as to why it was so. Problem for her is people stopped believing anything she says a long time ago.

  61. AndyG55 says:

    “Problem for her is people stopped believing anything she says a long time ago.”

    Yep, If Gillard is talking, there is a pretty darn good chance that she is lying, or totally off the question she was asked. And I HATE being lied to !!!!!!
    An evil, despiteful, deceitful woman.. and all those in the Labor party who have backed her are no better.
    I for one will never vote Labor again while any one of the current members are in the party.

  62. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Steve from Rockwood,

    That’s just it. She wasn’t voted in, she didn’t get a majority. She is doing the CO2 tax because the Green Party requires it for their vote of support.

  63. waza says:

    Take a look at the information document sent to householders her in Australia

    http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/What_a_carbon_price_means_to_you.pdf

    See page 5
    It tries to confuse people – Nowhere does it actually link fossil fuels to CO2 to the global temperature rise.
    It also interchanges CO2 with Pollution (Of course we all want to reduce pollution)
    It also states the Australia emitts the most CO2 per population (Not true)
    It even states that “Australia generates more pollution per person than any other developed country”
    This is all BS to make Joe Public feel guilty.

    WRT coal production and export. Some Green Groups like to make us feel even more guilty by somehow including the energy (coal) we export into our CO2 emmissions calculations. This is double counting. Say if Australia exports coal to China and Cihna use it to generate electricity, you can only count the emmissions to China or Australia NOT both.

  64. Reblogged this on contrary2belief and commented:
    Not much to add, other than theses are just the lip of the lie-berg.

  65. Stomata says:

    Australia is a Dictatorship run by a clique labor party. The government controls everything there There are police everywhere watching you, signs telling what you can’t do everywhere. Police can arrest you for any reason on the street. You can’t even light a barbeque in your own house by law because the smoke may bother neighbors.The statement above “The level of scientific ignorance in Australia is simply staggering.” is also very true. The level of education especially in maths and science in primary schools is third world status that is why the people are quite ignorant about basic sciences.

  66. DD More says:

    Anthony Watts says – Article

    The second big lie was graphic – government propaganda pictured a “dirty” coal power station belching black pollution. Three lies in one here – the power station pictured is closed, it is in England, and all carbon dioxide it ever released was invisible.

    Make that Four – at least 3 and probably 4 of those supposed belchers are Natural Draft cooling towers. Yes they are emitting GHG’s, but it is condensed water vapor, you know the most dominant one. See –
    http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/the-nuclear-cooling-tower.html for a very good description.

    As stated there – “Print and TV journalists maintained that there was nothing remarkable-looking about a nuclear power plant, except for the cooling tower. Thus, they would continue to use the image for all their reports. As for the belief that the reactor was inside the tower, nearly all media bosses said it was not their job to tell the public they are wrong about something. Their job was to transmit information, not educate.”

  67. Ian of Fremantle says:

    Steve from Rockwood. Others have noted that your belief “she was voted into power” isn’t entirely accurate. Her party got 50.1% of the vote while the main opposition party got 49.9%. Ms Gillard had to combine with the Greens and get the support of two Independent members of parliament to form government. It was before voting occurred that Ms Gillard said “there will be no carbon tax in a government I lead” but after stitching up deals to get the necessary numbers to form government she said there will be a carbon tax. It is a reasonable question, asked repeatedly by the opposition, if she had said before voting occurred “there will be a carbon tax in a government I lead” the result would have been the same

  68. Nigel McDougall says:

    To Robert of Ottawa. The greenies have only one member in the Government chamber which is the House of Representatives. Gillard was actually blackmailed by the greenies in the senate. That is the ONLY reason she changed her mind on the CO2 tax AFTER the 2010 election. One can only guess what those greenies threatened. Did they threaten to paralyze the Government by blocking ALL legislation in the Senate? A stronger Prime Minister would have called their bluff and stuck to his/her guns. It is Gillard’s fundamental weakness of character that has put Australia in its present mess. The independents who supported Gillard in her quest to remain PM didn’t instigate the CO2 policy; they just jumped on the green band wagon when they were big-noting themselves after the election. They hate the conservative parties, (that actually nurtured their political careers), so much that they would have sided with Gillard regardless of the CO2 tax. Anyway, from what I recall the independents sided with Gillard mainly because of her policy to build the National Broadband Network, which, incidentally, is progressing at snail’s pace in marginal electorates, and which will cost much more than we were lead to believe. The upshot of all that is that the gutless, spineless, mendacious PM of Australia ALLOWS a small cabal of green senators to dictate government policy in Australia. She took the easy way out by giving us the C02 tax and she, and sadly, the party I used to vote for, will pay dearly next year.

  69. John M says:

    Bravo! Kev-in-UK

    I’m all for forcing serious change to the political system to stop these thieves.

    Any suggestions?

  70. Joe Prins says:

    “Pour encourages les autres” the French were pretty good at that too during the first world war.
    Thank Voltaire for part of the phrase in Candide. In fact, almost all combatants, including the Canadians, shot their own soldiers, after a proper trial, of course.

  71. wayne Job says:

    I being an Australian of advanced years have suffered two governments of this ilk. Idealogicaly driven fools, that believe that what ever it takes to achieve their goals is OK. Lying cheating fraud and black mail apparently works for them, almost all in government are union apparachiks that have never had a real job.

    The last mob that was almost this bad was in the 70ties and they were sacked by our governor general, the Queens representative, some what like having an ombudsman overlooking the government and signing off on legislation.

    This time we are in a pickle, the governor general was appointed by this government and is a mother in law of one of the prominent politicians, thus we have an incestuos relationship with the government and no matter how crazy it gets we have no redress.

    Thus we wait for an election that will not be a decimation, it will be close to an elimination.

  72. Rosco says:

    I predict the current government will lose the next election so badly it will be an embarassment.

    The carbon tax will cause a significant of labor supporters to vote against it.

    Australia could be free of this monstrosity in a few short years – August 2103 is not that far away and the hatred of this broken pledge will not fade.

  73. Jabba the Cat says:


    I prefer this Gillard video…

  74. bushbunny says:

    And do their mates a favor. One Independent is great pals with a solar company. Great mates.
    Penny Wong said ‘the planet is cooling’ during the last election night. She also said without carbon tax, the budget will not get into surplus. I reckon she is the only honest one in the government.

  75. Peter Miller says:

    There is an argument which states we should preserve Cuba the way it is now to remind future generations why communism/socialiasm doesn’t work.

    Likewise, we should perhaps preserve Australia’s carbon tax to remind future generations why punitive carbon taxes don’t work.

    Economic misery, censorship, deceit and political ineptitude are the common factors here, so Australia think of your imminent carbon tax as being for the global good in showing the rest of us what not to do, likewise thank you Fidel Castro.

  76. Hysteria says:

    it’s worse than you think….. “greenery” pervades every level of Australian government infrastructure and propaganda. The locals seem to have swallowed the Kool-Aid….

  77. keith says:

    Oh I really really really hope the up coming election will be the circuit breaker for this whole political circus that plunges the politicians behind the tax into the political oblivion that they deserve.

    The tax is pointless, ineffective, expensive and utterly destructive. For people who claim they are acting to protect the environment – I find it hard to think of anything so harmful in unforeseen effects – apart from wind turbines… and don’t start me on those…

  78. gnomish says:

    you get what you settle for.
    and pay for.
    good luck with that power dive.

  79. pat says:

    what upsets Australians most is we have so much coal, and we are the largest exporter of coal in the world, most of it going to Asia, including Japan and China.

    yet while China builds new coal-fired power stations by the week, we are NOT ALLOWED to build a single one!!!

    Wikipedia: Coal in Australia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia

    China benefits on the CDM/CER front as well, while Aussies are supposed to cop a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme (the latter still with bipartisan support) to satisfy the banksters. go figure:

    5 March: RTCC (Responding to Climate Change): Press Release: CDM applications soar in February
    Over 872 million CERs have been issued since the CDM’s birth with projects in China accounting for nearly 60% of the total number of credits handed out to date…
    http://www.rtcc.org/business/cdm-applications-soar-in-february/

  80. FrankK says:

    DD More says:
    March 10, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Anthony Watts says – Article

    The second big lie was graphic – government propaganda pictured a “dirty” coal power station belching black pollution. Three lies in one here – the power station pictured is closed, it is in England, and all carbon dioxide it ever released was invisible.

    Make that Four – at least 3 and probably 4 of those supposed belchers are Natural Draft cooling towers. Yes they are emitting GHG’s, but it is condensed water vapor, you know the most dominant one. See –
    http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/the-nuclear-cooling-tower.html for a very good description.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————
    The quote is from the letter by Viv Forbes not Anthony Watts DD More.

    Actually the ad shown on Oz TV as part of the Carbon Tax Sell (propaganda) was the Battersea Power Station in the UK belching black soot smoke using probably paintshop.

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

    The station was closed in 1983 and is the one referred to by Viv Forbes.

    The stacks shown in the graphic above are not the ones in the UK but probably in the Hunter Valley of NSW in Oz also enhanced probably with paintshop

  81. LazyTeenager says:

    Goldie says
    to get off their rear end and travel a bit can get a well paid job so long as they are fit and healthy. But still the marxists insist on compensating those who can’t be bothered.
    ————-
    The rest of Australia is on something like 6.5% unemployment. But thanks to the mining industry the rest of the economy is heading towards recession so its going to go higher.

    Because the mining industry pays half the tax rate of most industries it’s distorting the tax take, so government expenditure will have to be reduced to keep budgets in surplus.

    At the same time the exchange rate inflated by mining exports is making a mess on other export industries.

    So the place to be is western Australia. But don’t count on getting $120000 or $150000 jobs if you go there. They are few, specialized and closed to outsiders and limited to mining industries or to industries which compete with the mining industry.

  82. ozspeaksup says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.
    =========================
    SHE WAS NOT!!!!!! Voted into power at all
    there was a even number split with the greens and labour/Lib Nat coalition.
    the ONLY way this *^^%$## piece of lying crap got in was sweetheart deals with the three Independents who held the deciding votes.
    and their assent was due to self interest ie pensions and deals etc more than what their OWN electorates wanted.
    all 3 will probaly never get their bums into a canberra seat again OR their own electorates. BTW nor should they.
    andrew wilkie went with them after juLIAR agreed to the restricted pokie scenario.
    she just completely backed out of that and hes now left looking a fool like everyone else who trusted this…**&^%^$# excuse for human.

    AND WE HAVE SOME SAYING SHES HASSLED COS ITS A FEMALE PM?
    no, actually i do NOT know a single woman who would put her out if she was on fire! we are disgusted with her. a more inept lying two faced useless piece of shite has yet to be elected. male or female!
    and weve had some pretty bad one prior. she takes first prize!

  83. The chickens are coming home to roost.

    Hospitals and schools are already looking down the barrel of substantial increases in electricity costs. Of course, those costs are to be borne by the State governments because the federal government has no legislative power in those areas of service provision. State governments will have to find the money elsewhere to pay the bills imposed via the federal government’s tax.

    Western Australia, which produces a large proportion of actual wealth by primary industry is already slugged by unequal distribution of the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST), getting back only about 66% of the GST revenue paid in the State. That is set to reduce to 44% after July 1st; when the world’s biggest carbon tax is to commence.

    July 2nd could be when Western Australians start cutting the trench at 129° East.

    The ALP has pretended that only the “big polluders” will be paying the tax. A massive lie by diversion and omission. The “big polluders” are producers of energy (and therefore large consumers of coal, etc) but they produce that energy to sell to other companies and to ordinary people. They can pass on the costs of tax compliance by increasing the rates that they charge.

    Energy users are already paying dearly for the energy providers having to accommodate the idiotic policies of the federal and state governments. They have to upgrade substations and electricity distribution networks to cope with substantial cogeneration; which can exceed the power consumed within a subdistributiion area. That makes e.g. the secondary side of transformers the primary; whereas transformers have been optimised to operate the other way. The control of power at substations also needs upgrading. Control devices have been designed on the basis of current flowing in one direction; now there is the potential for power to have to flow (intermittently) from in the other.

  84. Steve B says:

    Richard Hill says:

    March 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    “Commenters on WUWT consistently miss the point. WUWT commenters seem to think that politicians should ignore the advice of the peak scientific bodies and drop action against CO2. It is a brave politician who goes against the AGU, the AMS, the APS, the NAS , the Royal Society,,,, and, in Australia, the CSIRO. Instead of talking to each other, the commenters on WUWT should be trying to get at least one world recognised peak scientific body to go on record as saying that action against CO2 is a mistake. AFAIK, there is not one, repeat, not one, recognised scientific body that has. Our politicians rely on advice from these trusted senior scientific groups. Most people would agree that politicians should rely on this source of advice. If the advice from the trusted sources provides a platform on which the government can launch a nice new tax, who can blame the politicians.”

    Senator Fields is a smart cookie – maybe he even reads WUWT. He has mades speeches in parliment railing against global warming and the carbon tax but unfortunately is not listened to.

  85. Steve from Rockwood says:

    ianl8888 says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    @ Steve from Rockwood

    “I suppose pointing out the fact that she was voted into power doesn’t help.”

    Outright lie

    She won exactly the same number of seats as the Opposition.

    Several Independents double-crossed their electorates to support her forming a Govt – note that the electorates of these two Independents voted the ALP/Greens a very emphatic *last*

    Come on Australians, take your medicine and acknowledge you voted her in. First you gave her party half the popular vote and enough votes to get exactly the same number of seats as the Opposition. Second you voted heavily enough for the green party that they had a say in the forming of a new government (that is your voting problem right there). Finally you voted for enough double-crossers so that when Gillard tried to form a government she had the support. Voted, voted, voted.

    This is your electoral system in progress. If instead of giving 10% of the vote to the green party you instead gave it to the “rational” party you would be happily exporting your coal to China and building clean coal fired energy plants and laughing at all the solar and wind power companies now going bankrupt. But instead you are preparing to eat a carbon tax.

    I’m not here to make Australians feel bad, but come on. You voted her in. Now vote her out.

  86. Mervyn says:

    I cannot recall a past situation in Australian politics as has been experienced in the last four years. First the government panicked over the 2008 GFC and gave away Treasury savings. Then there was a ‘coup’ against Prime Minister Rudd by his own inner circle. The new Prime Minister Gillard then proves herself to be the most deceitful Prime MInister ever. Her senior ministers publicly savaged Rudd in contradiction to what they used to say about him 18 months ago. Strange… you see, the recently appointed Foreign Secretary praised Rudd saying he would seek Rudd’s advice. Then there is the Defence MInister who wrongly trashed the Commodore in charge of Defence officer training, and the Minister now refuses to apologise to the Commodore, thus undermining the officer’s ability to function. The lies over climate change is all too sickening… appointing a biased climate change commissioner notorious for getting his climate predictions totally wrong… relying on an economist’s report as the basis for the carbon tax, even though the economist has relied on wrong science and wrong assumptions. In four years, the Australian Labor Party has produced policy debacle after policy debacle, causing a loss of many lives as a consequence. It’s a government that is going ruin the Australian economy with its global warming policies. It’s Treasurer publicly now sees fit to attack certain wealthy business people largely in the mining industry. It is a government gone mad!

  87. David Jones says:

    Murray Grainger says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    “You have to listen to what Juliar actually says: “There will be no carbon tax under the government that I lead”.Since there is now a carbon tax voted through in Australia by the government it is clear that what Juliar is actually saying is that she does NOT lead that government. It is actually lead and run by the UN, Club of Rome, Sierra Club etc. Juliar is just the poor fall-gal they put in front of the TV cameras. Any other possible interpretation of Juliar’s statement would mean that a politician was a bare-faced liar, and that cannot possibly be right, surely.”

    We had one of those in the UK.
    His name was A. (call me Tony) B liar.

  88. Edi Tior?

    I know her brother – Goodyear.

  89. Jay says:

    I think the Australian people should help their PM keep her promise – by NOT paying any carbon tax.

  90. KenB says:

    The cards are very heavily stacked against the moderate conservatives in Australia. For years the educational institutions have been the target of green environmentalists, to infiltrate the universities, to set up the structure of social engineering, within those sanctuaries of learning and promoting a form of intellectual elitism and snobbery, all under the guise of saving the world and the endangered environment.

    Most Australians love their country, they love the bush (outback) and the illusion of fresh clean air, bright blue skies, and the idea of healthy sports and recreation. Most though are city based couch potatoes, pompous in their quasi intellectual status, and give at least lip service to environmental concerns and embrace the idea of saving an evil western world from its carbon addiction. A very trendy noble thing to speak about, over a glass or two of wine, while comfortable under the intellectual cloak. They don;t have to think, they know!

    The labor party worked hard to cultivate this middle ground of voters and used the teaching unions and Labor lawyers who were busily working behind the scenes on the wonderful green agenda and social adjustment. Since the labor government got into power originally under Rudd who was ousted by Julia G, vast sums of money have been wasted on riding the wave of saving the world from disaster. So many academics and scientists are dependent on government employment, they won’t dare speak out and take the risk of losing their comfortable well paid jobs.

    Meanwhile the Government and the unions are funding left wing lobby groups including a shadowy group that calls itself “Getup”, a well funded, very green but run a hard left agenda from within a small dedicated unit, using every deceptive trick in manipulating public opinion to serve their purposes. They are determined to undermine any newspaper, and use economic blackmail against private organisations that might potentially fund or support the opposition to the Labor governments carbon agenda, or sceptical scientists who oppose the tax.

    So while the anger is there, stand by for the dirty tricks, as they have no morality and indirect but solid government backing.

  91. Kev-in-Uk says:

    [snip . . indeed but it probably crosses the line. . . kbmod]

  92. Allan MacRae says:

    Wayne Delbeke says: March 10, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    clipe says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    In Canada it was to be called “Green Shift”.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wayne says:
    Yeah, and with that and its sister the “National Energy Policy” from the 80′s, the Liberals can’t figure out why people in Western Canada can’t vote for them – ever. The Liberals have lost our trust as they keep telling big lies that only work on the urban unknowing masses, Those of us that live in the country or work in the oil patch know that they are blowing smoke ….
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    To understand the Chretien Liberals, you have to follow the money. Chretien’s government was a Liberal Party of Canada Kleptocracy. Any big Liberal government program, such as Chretien’s adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, was an opportunity to hand out high-paying jobs to party insiders and skim cash into Liberal pockets. Anyone who remembers the NEP, the Sponsorship Scandal, AdScam, Shawiningate, etc. etc. will start to notice a pattern. Just follow the money – Chretien cared no more for global warming than he did for the welfare of Western Canada – it was all about creating a big program as a vehicle to enable the big skim.

  93. The Black Adder says:

    God, I wish I was Canada, or Japan, or USA or Russia or…..
    anyone but Julia`s Country… sigh…

  94. William Astley says:

    It is curious that Australia is initiating a “carbon tax”. The government notes the carbon tax will not adversely affect Australian mining. The government notes it is time to bury the hatchet. People are worried about climate change and it is time to do something about it. The world’s largest exporter of coal is instigating a carbon tax.

    This appears to group mania. Public policy removed from logic and reason.

    There is public push back as the public learns CO2 is not a poison. Plants eat CO2 and hence thrive when CO2 levels are increased. (Cereal crop yield, for example increases by 30% to 40% if atmospheric CO2 doubles.)

    What has CO2 ever done for us?

    It is time to take action against CO2. Business as usual (BAU) is completely unacceptable.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/letter-to-the-editior-carbon-lies/#comment-919022

    Planetary clouds in the tropics increase which reflect more sunlight into space which resists global warming. (negative feedback). The IPCC predicted extreme warming requires amplification of the CO2 warming (positive feedback). As there is negative feedback the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes where the growing season is restricted due number of frost free days and night time temperature, such as the Canadian prairies or Russia wheat growing region. The biosphere is and will expand due to atmospheric CO2 increases.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/only-tiny-carbon-tax-effect-on-mining-jobs-20110605-1fnj5.html

    ‘Only tiny’ carbon tax effect on mining jobs
    THE impact of the carbon tax on the mining industry will be “trivial” – so small that for practical purposes it will be “invisible,” according to one of Australia’s leading labour market economists.
    Professor Bruce Chapman is president of the Economics Society of Australia and director of policy at the Australian National University’s Crawford school of government.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia
    Coal in Australia
    Production and Reserves
    Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world, with most of that going to Japan. Total production of raw black coal in Australia in financial year 2010-11 was 405 million tonnes (Mt.), down from 471 Mt. in 2009-10. This drop was largely as a result of the Queensland floods of January 2011 where production in that State fell by some 30% [16]

    Coal in Australia is mined primarily in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It is used to generate electricity and 54% of the coal mined in Australia is exported, mostly to eastern Asia. In 2000/01, 258.5 million tonnes of coal was mined, and 193.6 million tonnes exported. Coal also provides about 85% of Australia’s electricity production.[1] In fiscal year 2008/09, 487 million tonnes of coal was mined, and 261 million tonnes exported.[2] Australia is the world’s leading coal exporter.[3]

    Coal mining in Australia has been the subject of criticism from members of the environmental movement,[4][5] because burning coal releases carbon dioxide, which is generally understood to contribute to climate change, global warming, sea level rise and the effects of global warming on Australia.[6] [7] The burning of coal produces 42.1% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, not counting export coal, based on 2004 GHG inventory. [8]

    Both Greenpeace Australia Pacific (Energy [R]evolution [9] and Beyond Zero Emissions (Zero Carbon Australia 2020 [10] have produced reports claiming a transition can be made to renewable energy and Greenpeace has called for a just transition for coal based communities, [11] but others argue at present there is no strong evidence of a viable alternative for the vast majority of Australia’s electricity generation, or for the significant economic and social benefits coal mining delivers to regional communities.[1][12] Coal Seam Gas, methane-based gas associated with deposits of coal has historically been flared, however over the past 10 years has been recovered and used to generate further electricity.[13][14][15]

    The proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which followed the draft report of the Garnaut Climate Change Review would put a price on carbon through a reducing cap and trade emissions trading scheme and this would be likely to impact most heavily on brown coal usage within Australia (particularly in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria) for power generation.

    http://economics.com.au/?p=7780
    I set readers of this blog a challenge – tell me the objective of the Gillard government’s carbon tax. From the many responses I think that there are seven broadly claimed objectives:
    1. The carbon tax is driven by the politics of minority government (the objective is political);
    2. We need to carbon tax because it is morally the right thing to do (the objective is moral);
    3. We need the carbon tax to reduce domestic carbon emissions (the objective is domestic emissions reduction);
    4. We need the carbon tax to prepare us for when the rest of the world acts on carbon emissions (the objective is to ease transition in the future);
    5. The carbon tax is a solution (or part of a solution) to global climate change and its terrible consequences (the objective is reducing global emissions);
    6. We need the carbon tax to be an example to other developed nations or to avoid claims of hypocrisy by developing countries when global solutions to carbon pollution are being mooted (the objective is reducing global emissions by setting a global example); and
    7. We need a carbon tax to help maintain a (Pareto superior) solution to the repeated n-player international prisoners’ dilemma of carbon pollution (the objective is reducing global emissions through strategic behaviour).

  95. TC says:

    clipe says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    In Canada it was to be called “Green Shift”.
    _____________________________________________

    Is this a typo? Is “shift” misspelt?

  96. AdolfoGiurfa says:

    The solution is easy for Australian companies: Just emigrate to South America and forget troubles. Let them enjoy their carbon free paradise!. As time passes they will learn how to survive taught by the australian aborigines.

  97. Berényi Péter says:

    Evan Thomas says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:12 pm
    Camburn must be under the impression that we have government censors in Australia. Government censorship ended circa 1946.

    There is absolutely no need to do it in the old fashioned, fairly transparent way any more. All gov’t officials have to do is to let CEOs of large corporations know (conceivably on the golf course, where chance of being bugged is low), if they happen to place too many ads in non-compliant media outlets, they may experience inexplicable difficulties gaining government contracts and/or bank guarantees. From that point on it is the job of marketing dept’s to inform editors in no uncertain terms about political preferences of their customer base, that’s all.

    But even that may be unnecessary, as business leaders (and editors) already know that much.

  98. Robertvdl says:

    Luckily there are countries like Poland that know that carbon-intensive coal is life and wealth.

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/

    Poland blocks EU’s climate policy nightmare
    Out of 27 countries, only Poland has the common sense and foresight to oppose the EU’s suicidal, and ultimately utterly pointless, emissions reduction policy, guaranteed to send the bloc back to the Dark Ages.

    Poland rightly considers that allowing its population access to cheap and affordable energy is more important than politically-correct environmental posturing which will achieve nothing for the climate. Reuters is shocked:

    Of course we also could live like the people in this German town.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,820369,00.html

    German Village Becomes Model for Renewable Energy

    Feldheim town of 150 inhabitants where 43 giant wind turbines loom over the village’s 37 houses. Feldheim is the only town in Germany that started its own energy grid and gets all of its electricity and heating through local renewable sources, primarily wind and biogas.

    just one little problem

    Even Frohwitter of the Energiequelle company admits that “Feldheim is not a blueprint; it cannot be copied one to one.” He estimates that it could be another 10 years before the entire Treuenbrietzen municipality can achieve what Feldheim has so far, due to a lack of FUNDS and the right specialists.

    Maybe I am stupid but how can 150 people pay 43 x 1.500.000 Euro(minimal) = 64.500.000 Euro = 430.000 pp claim they have cheap energy.

  99. Smokey says:

    Berényi Péter is exactly right. Is there any doubt? If there is, allow me to give a few examples out of many:

    The Obama Administration has been handed $trillions with apparently carte blanche over its spending. Congress need not get involved; the Administration will hand out the money to whomever it wants. And if the taxpayer loot goes only to his political cronies, every business in America will sit up straight and pay attention to the new rules of the game.

    Give $400 million in taxpayers’ GM bailout funds to a foreign automaker? A-OK. Give $20 million to ACORN to generate fraudulent election votes? A-OK. Select crony capitalists like Solyndra, GE, and many similar crony capitalists to receive hundreds of millions to $billions, with no accountability or oversight? A-OK . Give a “Get Out Of Jail Card Free” to fellow Democrat John Corzine, who preposterously claims that $1.2 billion in peoples’ savings suddenly “vaporized” and can’t be located or traced? A-OK. Claim there are too many GM dealers to be competitive — then arbitrarily shut down only those dealerships across the country owned by Republican car dealers, and allowing them no legal recourse? A-OK.

    This government has decided that it knows better than the free market how to allocate resources. And no one in Congress demands any accountability. Congress authorized the spending, and the Administration spends the money any way it likes. And now Obama wants yet another $trillion to hand out to his favored special interest groups, in order to buy the next election.

    The definition of Fascism is state control of business. Is that not exactly what has happened under the Obama Administration? What other American govenment has ever shut down businesses across the country based on those owned by Republicans? And by what criteria is that A-OK?

    April 15th is fast approaching. Don’t forget to pay your taxes, folks, because the little people will never get Corzine’s or Holder’s free Get Out Of Jail Card.

  100. Joe V says:

    But it’s a coalition Government. They can always claim it’s The Greens that made us do it. as the side kick tried to to that dear Lady in Brisbane.

    ”though she was having none of it.
    I guess she was speaking for all of us, when pointing out these home truths, about the electorate not being as stupid as pollies take them for and what sticks in their craw…

  101. Brian H says:

    Ric Werme says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    While decimate may have been used as a punishment, I think the practitioners would be quick to point out that the intent was motivational. After a battle that was not fought with adequate agressiveness, decimating the squad provided “encouragement” to fight better next time.

    Heh. Brings to mind the following:
    Pour encourager les autres.”

    ‘Pour encourager les autres’ is a quote from Voltaire’s ‘Candide’, often used in the context of political punishment and persecution. The full quote is “dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres” (‘in england, it is good, from time to time, to kill an admiral, to encourage the others’), and refers indirectly to the unfortunate fate of Admiral John Byng, who was executed in 1756 at the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War.

    Also, the Russian Army’s “Vertical Stroke”:

    But the Army had an unbelievably stupid policy about revelations of problems which became known as the “vertical stroke”. If a problem in any unit came to light, not only would the officer immediately in charge of that unit get blamed and punished and removed from command, but so would every officer above him right up to very high level (i.e. corps or army). Which, quite naturally, gave every officer in the Army at all levels a damned good reason to cover up problems below them, in hopes that they could be kept hidden until that officer could transfer away to a better post and stick someone else with it.

    The Vertical Stroke wasn’t just Army; it applied to the whole military. When a German flew an unarmed light plane into the USSR and landed it in Red Square, a hell of a lot of officers in the National Air Defense force paid with their careers.

  102. Gail Combs says:

    Berényi Péter says:
    March 11, 2012 at 9:31 am

    There is absolutely no need to do it in the old fashioned, fairly transparent way any more. All gov’t officials have to do is to let CEOs of large corporations know (conceivably on the golf course, where chance of being bugged is low), if they happen to place too many ads in non-compliant media outlets, they may experience inexplicable difficulties gaining government contracts and/or bank guarantees. From that point on it is the job of marketing dept’s to inform editors in no uncertain terms about political preferences of their customer base, that’s all.

    But even that may be unnecessary, as business leaders (and editors) already know that much.
    __________________________________

    I think you have that backwards. The CEOs of large international corporations tell the politicians what they want done not the other way around. They liked the way the European Union experiment evolved. That is a totalitarian state masked as a democracy that they are in control of. (see http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865) So the new plan is to spread that worldwide via the World Trade Organization the UN aiming for “Global Governance” To do this they have to cripple nations and that is what we see being done. Pascal Lamy, director of the World Trade Organization, former European Commissioner for Trade, states it rather bluntly
    “…”What we need is an international monetary system which facilitates international trade, cross border investment and a better allocation of capital across nations. What we need is a global monetary system which inspires confidence and offers stability. One which provides the means by which global imbalances that risk endangering stability can be addressed. Differently put, we need to do for international monetary relations what we already did for trade: move from the world of Hobbes towards the world of Kant.”…”

    You are not going to get people to give up their sovereignty without making them uncomfortable so Environmentalism, Global Warming and more recently the economic crisis are used to “herd the sheeple”

    Checkout
    The National Intelligence Council is pleased to release Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture….. http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_home.html
    http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
    http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2009/11/wto-director-general-global-governance-based-on-the-eu-model/
    http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl194_e.htm
    http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl47_e.htm

  103. hunter says:

    My first impression when seeing the photograph of the PM at the start of the blog thread was that a baby kangaroo was sticking out of her blouse- iow some sort of photo-shopped parody.
    When I clicked through to see it, it appears to be some sort of hideous scarf.
    This is not significant except that the PM is not controlling her image very effectively.

  104. Erny72 says:

    Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy)
    A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

  105. ROM says:

    Joe died and eventually fronted up to St Peter at the Pearly Gates. St Peter checks his list and Yep, you’re right Joe. Go right on in.
    Joe wanders through the Pearly Gates and there’s Heaven as far as he can see.
    Hey St Peter, am I allowed to look around.
    Youv’e got eternity son. So go for it!

    Joe wanders back to St Peter after a few aeons have passed and asks St Peter, what’s with all those clocks on that big wall you’ve got down there?
    Ah,ha, says St Peter, everybody who has ever lived has their own clock and every time they tell a lie their clock ticks over one second.
    Everybody? questions Joe.
    Everybody,! says St Peter.

    Joe wanders off for a few more aeons before he’s back pestering St Peter. Had a look at those clocks St Pete, says Joe and boy some of them are really ticking over.
    There sure are some liars out there.
    And then triumphantly. There’s a clock missing!
    Impossible, say St Peter, we’re perfect up here. We don’t make mistakes around here.
    You must have miscounted. Go back and have another look.

    Joe wanders off for a few more aeons before he is back. I counted them again St Peter, says Joe. and there’s one definitely missing.
    St Peter looks perplexed, Ok, well whose clock is missing?

    Julia Gillard’s, the prime minister of Australia, says Joe.

    St Peter slaps his forehead, Darn! I clean forgot about that one!

    They’re using that Gillard clock in the kitchen as an exhaust fan.

  106. clipe says:

    TC says:
    March 11, 2012 at 7:25 am

    clipe says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    In Canada it was to be called “Green Shift”.
    _____________________________________________

    “Is this a typo? Is “shift” misspelt?”

    Maybe, but really I don’t give a shift. ☺

  107. LC Kirk, Perth says:

    Oh, it’s a scarf is it? I had assumed it was ectoplasm..

  108. bushbunny says:

    CARBON POLLUTION?

    Just a bit of humor, but I remember years ago, a truck stopped at some traffic lights in South Hurstville (Sydney) near where I worked. Our real estate agency was set back from the road, with a small parking lot in front of it. Not parallel with the road like other shops. The truck was carrying carbon black, you remember the stuff they put on carbon paper to get copies of your typing? Well two sacks fell off, Whoosh! Anyone walking by turned black instantly, (They looked like the black ministrals show?) shops were inundated if they had their doors open. One person had an episode of breathing difficulties. One shop a butcher’s had to throw all the meat away, and a drapery shop’s material was ruined. Cars parked or travelling behind the truck changed color so did their drivers and passengers. That’s carbon pollution! And they worry about CO2 or Greenhouse gases. They had to bring in a fire truck to hose down the street and shop fronts, and thousands of dollars paid in compensation for those shops that lost goods and had to close to clean out their establishments. It was worse that when we have red dust storms or dust is wind carried from the interior and our cars and inside our houses are covered in a thin layer of red dust. “..It happens”.

  109. Kevin says:

    Julia Gillard: “There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”.

    Well considering EVERYONE down here knows that in reality the Greens and the Independents are running the country, in a twisted way she isn’t lieing. (sarc)

  110. Doug Cotton says:

    And Lie Number 0 (Zero) is that carbon dioxide has any effect on climate.

    The models will never be “right” because they wrongly assume radiation from the atmosphere transfers thermal energy to a warmer surface. All it can do is slow the radiative cooling rate, but not the rate of cooling due to evaporation, diffusion and other processes. These processes then tend to increase their transfer rates to compensate.

    Nor do we see in the modles any mention of the upwelling backradiation of incident solar IR radiation captured by water vapour, carbon dioxide etc..

    I have spent some 1,000 hours or more researching this and writing a comprehensive summary of a wide range of reasons why carbon dioxide has no warming effect and probably a slight net cooling effect.

    At least six scientists have now read the 6,600 word paper, including three official reviewers. All are, frankly, somewhat excited about it I gather, and plan to translate it to German as well. It will be available within 30 hours at http://principia-scientific.org/

    I am more than willing to discuss any matter raised therein, provided people discuss the physics, rather the personalities or whatever they may think or wish to imply in any effort to discredit the material on such grounds.

    REPLY: This paper coming out is just repackaged “Slaying the Sky Dragon” rubbish. Cotton asked me to carry it and I’ve flat out refused. They created a “journal” to try to legitimze papers published there, which to me speaks of desperation.

    Readers might want to revisit this story where Dr. Fred Singer talks about the issue:

    “Climate Deniers” Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name

    -Anthony

  111. Jim Fletcher says:

    One would think that if one was responsible for spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, the least you would do is inform yourself whether proceeding with such measures would rectify or improve any perceived problem.
    Not all politicians in Australia are charlatans, and I know that a number on both sides of the political fence are aware of where the ‘science’ is at. Their voices are silenced on the basis of perceived acceptance by the hood winked masses that “you don’t care for your children/grandchildren, etc” that has been trotted out by individuals, who are either in ignorance of the facts, or pathological liars.
    Sadly both sides of politics in this country are prepared to squander billions in pursuit of the ‘alarmed’ voter.
    We deserve better.

  112. Joe Rossi of RPData says:

    “There will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead” —– unless I need to do a backroom deal and then I will change my mind.

    “I haven’t spoken to Bob Carr about the senate” —— unless I do a backroom deal and change my mind.

    I feel embarassed that I am Australian – the rest of the world must think we are all liars.

  113. stu says:

    Our bent PM! Update & re-cap but to a great beat – turn it up!

Comments are closed.