by Professor Bob Carter
Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate
Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.
Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists. 
Despairing of ever hearing sense from such people, some of whom have already attributed the cause of the devastating Japanese earthquake to global warming, a writer from the well regarded American Thinker has badged them as “idiot global warming fanatics”.
Be that as it may, most of the statements below, self-evidently, were crafted as slogans, and all conform with the obnoxious and dishonest practice of political spin – in which, of course, the citizens of Australia have been awash for many years. The statements also depend heavily upon corrupt wordsmithing with propaganda intent, a technique that international Green lobbyists are both brilliant at and relentless in practising.
The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.
It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities.
1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.
The argument is not about carbon or a carbon tax, but rather about carbon dioxide emissions and a carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.
Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.
To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.
2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.
There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie. Global average temperature at the end of the 20th century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.
Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.
3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).
A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.
It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.
4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.
The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.
To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.
5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Economists know well that an increase in price of some essential things causes little reduction in usage. This is true for both energy (power) and petrol, two commodities that will be particularly hit by a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.
At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.
6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
They are not. All hope of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.
The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, chaos and deep corruption currently manifests the European exchange and some US states are withdrawing from anti-carbon dioxide schemes.
Playing “follow the leader” is not a good idea when the main leader (the EU) has a sclerotic economy characterised by lack of employment and the flight of manufacturers overseas.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
Self-delusion doesn’t come any stronger than this.
For Australia to introduce a carbon dioxide tax ahead of the large emitting nations is to render our whole economy to competitive and economic disadvantage for no gain whatsoever.
8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
The issue at hand is global warming, not the catch-all, deliberately ambiguous term climate change.
Trying to prevent hypothetical “dangerous” warming by taxing carbon dioxide emissions will be ineffectual, and is all pain for no gain.
9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
This statement is fraudulent. Implementing a carbon dioxide tax will carry large costs for workers and consumers, but bring no measurable cooling (or other change) for future climate.
For Australia, the total cost for a family of four of implanting a carbon dioxide tax will exceed $2,500/yr* – whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100.
10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
Indeed.
However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. Instead, Australia continues to face many self-evident problems of natural climate change and hazardous natural climate events. A national climate policy is clearly needed to address these issues.
The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term cooling or warming trends is the same.
It is to prepare carefully for, and efficaciously deal with and adapt to, all such events and trends whether natural or human-caused, as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide taxes serves only to reduce wealth and our capacity to address these only too real world problems.
Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.
Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Notes:
*Assuming a tax rate of $25/tonne of CO2, and Australia’s emissions being 550 million tonnes, indicates a total cost of $13.8 billion. Spread across a population of 22 million persons, that equates with $627/person/year.
This essay originally appeared in Quadrant online and was reposted here at the invitation of Dr. Carter
For more information:
Australian Climate Science Coalition
Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The bottom line in the scare tactics of global warming, climate change, climate chaos, etc, is not related to science, per se, it is the corrupt use of science imposed on a gullible public to further political purpose: taxes, the never ending blood of social engineering politics levied on life itself.
The saying that the government taxes everything but the air we breathe, may soon be restated as the government taxes everything.
We the People continue to believe that the government is the servant of We the People.
An academic from Australia suggests the ultimate tax:
Tax Parents for Children’s Carbon Emissions
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2007/12/10/tax-parents-for-childrens-carbon-emissions/
CNSnews | Patrick Goodenough | Dec. 10, 2007
Having babies is bad for the planet, and parents of more than two children should be charged a birth levy and annual tax to offset the “greenhouse gases” their child will be responsible for over his or her lifetime. At the same time, those who use and prescribe contraceptives and sterilization procedures should earn tax relief for such greenhouse friendly services” that help to keep the population size down.
Never trust a d-bag with a bad comb-over. Way to point fingers and not offer any real solution…
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 7:22 am
The dissonance in the warmists arguments never ceases to amaze me. A glaring example of this can be seen in points 6 and 7:
“6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”
So Australia is supposed to follow the rest of the world, but they have to lead as well. When your arguments are based on a faulty premise, rationalization and circular logic are your only rhetorical weapons.
Contradictions do not exist. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry, but it is your thinking that is faulty (hardly a surprise, how else would you arrive at anti-science beliefs), it is perfectly possible to take a lead even if you are playing catch up; see Apple and the iPhone. They came from nowhere to lead, first in innovation and latterly as a market leader.
Maybe you just need to loop this video over and over of a world leader being honest (for a change) about the effects of cap and trade on electricity rates.
@Wombat:
First of all, a little courtesy, even from a warmist, would not go amiss. I think you will find that becoming a Professor requires quite a lot more skill, energy and dedication than you applied to your idiot comment.
Secondly, have you ever been to Norway? Do you know what the cost of living is like there? The price of simple things that Aussies understand, the price of a beer?
I think you will find that Professor Carter was arguing that the price of goods would increase with a ‘carbon’ tax. From my experience there, I figure he’s right.
Stuart MacDonald,
“Sorry, but it is your thinking that is faulty (hardly a surprise, how else would you arrive at anti-science beliefs), it is perfectly possible to take a lead even if you are playing catch up; see Apple and the iPhone. They came from nowhere to lead, first in innovation and latterly as a market leader.”
Let me see if I understand you. Apple, who manufactures products that the world needs, for which there is consumer demand, and which enables society to function at a higher level of efficiency, is the same as Australia’s ETS – an uneconomical, attempt to replace cheap reliable fossil fuels that everyone wants, with an expensive renewable energy that nobody wants and that will increase the costs to society. Have I got that about right?
Australia is major coal exporter. Surely to avoid being hypocritical the Aussie government should close down their coal industry for the benefit of mankind. (or perhaps they will just live with the hypocrisy?).
Wombat says:
March 13, 2011 at 10:35 pm
{“There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie.”
While Mr Carter is a geologist, and may not understand that the massive drop in biodiversity currently being observed is an emergency.
However there are few ecologists that would agree with him.}
______________________________
I would point out that biodiversity is highest at low latitudes (warmer climate) and lowest at high latitudes (colder climate). A warming world should increase diversity. Diversity loss due to habitat destruction is in no way linked to atmospheric CO2 or temperature change. Try blaming deforestation, pollution, over harvest, overgrazing. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a nutrient.
Vince Causey says:
March 14, 2011 at 9:30 am
Let me see if I understand you.
Yes, let’s.
Vince Causey says:
March 14, 2011 at 9:30 am
Apple, who manufactures products that the world needs, for which there is consumer demand, and which enables society to function at a higher level of efficiency, is the same as Australia’s ETS – an uneconomical, attempt to replace cheap reliable fossil fuels that everyone wants, with an expensive renewable energy that nobody wants and that will increase the costs to society. Have I got that about right?
No, no, you haven’t. You have completely failed to grasp my very simple point, that aiming to lead in a field from the chasing pack is not contradictory, unheard of, or impossible, and instead created a spurious straw man fallacy composed of unsupported assertions about the efficacy of technologies in two specific fields.
Stuart MacDonald says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:27 am
“Sorry, but it is your thinking that is faulty (hardly a surprise, how else would you arrive at anti-science beliefs), it is perfectly possible to take a lead even if you are playing catch up; see Apple and the iPhone. They came from nowhere to lead, first in innovation and latterly as a market leader.”
Smarmy and cute, but hardly an argument. I’m not sure what I said to make you think I have “anti-science beliefs,” unless you refer to everyone who is skeptical that way, but I don’t know, nor do I pretend to. My argument is this: you either lead or you follow, you can’t lead the same people you are following. You are either leading the lemmings over the cliff, or you are following them to the same demise. The reason Apple is so successful is because they refuse to follow. Consequently, the rest of the world is playing catch-up to them. Their success and leadership is undeniable, but you don’t mention anyone they’ve ever followed.
It is this “relativism” that warmists use to muddy the waters and fog the air, making any answer correct. That is the ideology and rationalization that makes it OK to say that the good old-fashioned hard winter we had here in the U.S. is caused by global warming. Up is down, black is white, science is consensus, etc., etc., blah blah blah. Any assertion is correct in this fantasy world, so your ad-hominem remarks might be believable, but it doesn’t make them correct. I try to restrict my arguments to ideas, and I don’t really like the terms “warmist” and “skeptic”, but, as they say, “when in Rome…”
Professor Carter is guilty of making foolish statements even as he condemns what he considers nonsense. Clearly he is avoiding the real underlying issues in favor of empty rhetorical points.
Professor Carter says:
To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.
I agree that is CO2 not normally considered a pollutant. However, the addition large quantities of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will over time modify the environment in a deleterious fashion, even though people don’t get sick directly from CO2. There is no single word for this kind of substance, so pollution is used as the closest one which describes what is happening.
The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the Environmental Protection Administration of the US can institute controls over CO2. Here is how this is justified.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
Professor Carter Says:
Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.
This does not prove that there is no need to limit CO2 emissions as soon as possible. Cyclical factors such as ENSO cause a warming and cooling cycle that is larger in amplitude than the steady warming that occurs as a result of the GHG driven radiational imbalance. The fact that climate change is not a rapid process doesn’t mean we don’t need to stop the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as quickly as possible.
Professor Carter says:
It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.
This is true. Nobody argues that the increase in GHG’s is going to be paid for only by stockholders of companies that do the work. However in an industrialized societies, it is only the creation of financial incentives for the corporations that run our economy, that will create changes in technology which will reduce GHG emissions. Those companies that do the best job at this will survive and the public will benefit. This should spur private companies to do some of the research that will combat climate change. The costs will be borne by consumers and life styles will be modified. Everyone knows this. We don’t need the great “wisdom” of Professor Carter to point this out.
Professor Carter says:
At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.
There is no way to know for sure what will happen and projections vary, but Professor Carter’s statment is obviously wrong. The laws of economics say that a reduction in emissions will occur.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~kortum/papers/AERpp_final.pdf
Various estimates put the reduction at carbon price of $20/ton in the range of 5 to 15% and at $50 /ton at 8 to 22%.
I am watching, in awestruck disbelief, like millions of people round the world, the pictures coming in from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. This human mind just cannot take in the cataclysmic destruction that has befallen so many entire communities in that benighted country and which is being broadcast to us in HD and full colour.
And then I read, through a link on WUWT, an editorial from the Melbourne Herald/Sun:
And then, and THEN, I read the excresencies that pass for comment from the likes of Wombat and his ‘ecologist’ friends. These people make me sick! They talk about a ficticious climate emergency yet they are looking at an EARTH emergency that is nothing to do with CAGW: and they have the unashamed gall, the unremitting arrogance and the know-nothing ignorance to make a claim that the ‘pollutant’, CO2, is likely to cause an emergency of similar – or worse – proportions.
These ugly, filthy sores, these coprofagic, onanistic trolls, festering on the backside of humanity will not be happy until they have taken western civilisation – for all its faults – back to the dark ages of their totalitarian wet dreams. They shall not win. The strength of the people of Japan, as they dig themselves out of their own personal abyss will be my strength now as I fight the ‘useful idiots’ like Wombat and his pals.
@eadler says: March 14, 2011 at 11:03 am
eadler: Wanna vouchsafe to us poor deluded mortals what the “large quantities of CO2” would be? Wanna let us in on the secret of how long ‘over time’ is gonna be?
Did you know that what you’re doing will inevitably make you blind – over time, of course.
Wombat says:
March 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm
“Mr Carter fails to Notice that the GDP of Norway has tripled since 1990. That CO2 emissions have only increased 15% strongly suggests that the carbon tax is both effective and no great burden to economic growth.”
Oh come on!!! Thats BS and you know it.
I live in Norway and absolutely no one cares. It is just another tax piled upon all the other taxes. No one except the poorest care.
No one drives any less around in their cars because of this tax. You do the driving you have to do. Right? Bring children to kinder-garden. Get to work. It’s cold in winter here you know.
So how many degrees has this tax reduced? 0.000000000000000000001 degree?
It is all just political bullshit. From start to end. The norwegian state has turned completely insane and grown into a huge monster. And monsters needs funding.
And funding means tax.
Whilst it could easily be argued that all politicians are just plain stupid I feel this must be wrong (no one can be THAT devoid of intelligence) – if ‘all’ politicians are trying to implement a carbon-based tax worldwide, who benefits? Where would any taxation raised be spent? They *must* know the effect it will have on their respective economic outputs, so WHY are they seemingly hellbent on ruining what are perfectly good economies?
What is it that they are hoping to achieve but are keeping from the public?
eadler says:
March 14, 2011 at 11:03 am
“Cyclical factors such as ENSO cause a warming and cooling cycle that is larger in amplitude than the steady warming that occurs as a result of the GHG driven radiational imbalance.”
I see you’re guilty of making foolish statements. The “radiational imbalance” is at best a hypothesis – it has not been measured. Hansen & Schmidt allege they found it through model runs – so it has been found in models but not in reality. Do the words travesty and Trenberth ring a bell?
You should at least pepper your allegations with several bucketloads of “mights” and “coulds” and “likely”‘s.
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am
Smarmy and cute, but hardly an argument. I’m not sure what I said to make you think I have “anti-science beliefs,” unless you refer to everyone who is skeptical that way, but I don’t know, nor do I pretend to.
As a general rule, I tend to dismiss anyone who tries to pass of the kind of junk thinking you used as logic and reason as anti-science.
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am
My argument is this: you either lead or you follow, you can’t lead the same people you are following. You are either leading the lemmings over the cliff, or you are following them to the same demise.
Your argument is bunkum, the Australian government are saying they are trailing where they should be leading, to rectify that they must, by definition, catch up; there is no contradiction, these are future goals, they do not have to be performed simultaneously, but one can be achieved as a consequence of the other.
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am
The reason Apple is so successful is because they refuse to follow. Consequently, the rest of the world is playing catch-up to them. Their success and leadership is undeniable, but you don’t mention anyone they’ve ever followed.
Because I thought it obvious they were following anyone who produced a mobile phone before they did, I will be sure not to hold your comprehension in such high esteem in future.. The iPhone created a paradigm shift in the mobile market, there is no reason to suppose the same could not happen in carbon pricing/taxing.
I agree with you Bob but:
I find with some people I know (including my wife) is that they confuse toxic pollutants generated by cars and other exhausts such as carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, sulphur dioxide and other “nasties” are responsible for the “global warming”. They also know and have experienced many obvious polluted cities around the globe. Hence they feel very strongly that these undesirable pollutants should be reduced, and yes I admit I can’t disagree with the reduction issue.
Its something that the sceptics (including me) tend to skip over and keep on repeating that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Many because of the confusion discussed above therefore find this conclusion difficult to comprehend.
The word “carbon” that has now come into common usage by many does not necessarily mean to them just CO2 but encompasses all of the “nasties” as well. Putting aside the “global warming” issue, perhaps the discussion should start to indicate the volumes of each that we are dealing with. At the moment it seems to me skeptics and a number of alarmists, and concerned individuals are talking about different “carbon” and other gases etc.
In Europe they are. And might well increase their commitment to reduce emissions from 20% to 30%.
It is true that America is behind the ball, but the American economy is failing, in the face of which, ones ethics take a back seat. And there are exceptions. California is still a world leader in environmental including greenhouse legislation. And Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington partake in the same emissions trading scheme.
China’s economy allows it to move by state planned rather than market forces, albeit clumsily. As the world’s largest car manufacturer, their commitment to 1% electric vehicles will place them as a clear market leader in the new technologies. Their argument that the crisis was not caused by them doesn’t work for western economies, the worst per capita emitter of which is Australia.
by Professor Bob Carter
Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate
Then it could be you’re losing ground:
Snotrocket says:
March 14, 2011 at 11:45 am
These ugly, filthy sores, these coprofagic, onanistic trolls, festering on the backside of humanity
Oh, and it’s “coprophagic”, from the Greek; phagein, I’ve never understood the eagerness of climate contrarians to demonstrate their ignorance.
The Australian economy is built on mining, who’s activities would be profitable if they paid 60 Billion dollars towards a CO2 tax, and made no changes to their business methods; Education, which is not CO2 heavy; and Agriculture which is exposed to CO2 price, but is also seeing the highest prices ever (globally). Due in some part to climate change.
The gains are also clear. A position in industries of the coming decades, less exposure to the continually increasing price of oil (and the disasters that comes with deeper drilling, such as last year’s months long spill from the sunrise oil field), and a better ethical position.
As an Australian, you will be aware of the damage to agriculture and life from the increasingly intense floods, fires, droughts and storms in the last few years. “Dangerous” is fair.
It is not your field so you may not be aware of the devastation of desert and freshwater ecosystems that climate change has brought to the country. Nor the reduction in growth of the great barrier reef, nor the increase in incidence of bleaching events. But these too can be seen to be dangerous if you take the time to understand why biodiversity is important.
Great points, and I totally agree, but there’s a typo here:
Stuart MacDonald,
“The iPhone created a paradigm shift in the mobile market, there is no reason to suppose the same could not happen in carbon pricing/taxing.”
There is no reason to suppose it could happen, either. Yet it is this blind, ignorant faith that is so dangerous.
The statement refers to a global effort. Australia is part of that.
And it’s not close. The cost is five times cheaper, using the economics of Professor Sir Stern, Baron of Brentford, and very conservative estimates of the cost of inaction.
For Australia, the mean cost for a family of four is nil, because a carbon tax goes to the government, so the average family of four will need to pay less GST or income tax to the same value.