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.
Ross Brisbane says: – March 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm
“Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.”
“And Ross Brisbane is an Australian citizen who vehemently disagrees with Dr Carter. When we do not tax and place a price on things present the climate battles we face of our tomorrow will be much harder to overcome.”
Well hell Ross, I guess that Prof Carter is not allowed to be an Australian citizen like you.
For the record Ross, I am an Australian citizen to and when you use the word “We” (above) you assume to speak for me and the rest of the Australian people.
You would agree that, and even with your level of arrogance and to avoid any doubt, that a minority government such as the Gillard labor government would need to put *any* large proposition as proposed by the introduction of a Carbon Tax back to the people. This would, in turn, determine the exact number of people (after preferences) that “We” represents.
Suspension of democracy is not an option amigo.
“Ross Brisbane says:
March 14, 2011 at 7:03 pm
The only bit that you got right, Mr Brisbane was your No.2. You didn’t have one.
Your usual standard was maintained.
Stuart MacDonald says: March 14, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“Oh, and it’s “coprophagic”, from the Greek; phagein, I’ve never understood the eagerness of climate contrarians to demonstrate their ignorance.”
Stuart, I likewise find that it the right-on warmists who are the most pedantic. Next you’ll be telling me how to spell ‘color’ and ‘center’.
I figure I was spot on about ‘nonanists’…. 😉 Cheers.
Ross Brisbane: Firstly, carbon tax is actually a tax on carbon dioxide. I would appreciate you using the correct term for this tax. Any business that is taxed will pass those increased costs onto the consumers: we Australians….
Where is your evidence that we only have 200 to 300 years of coal left? I have not personally done much reading on the “peak coal”.
Knowing about ‘peak coal’ would not make this tax any less wrong.
We should definately find new and alternate sources of energy, but why believe the line that ‘coal is the cheapest form of energy’? Why not put the money into new ideas, research and development, and generate energy at a competitive price to coal? The vast majority of ideas fail, but the few that thrive will make it all worthwhile. The tax will only raise prices, for no benefit to consumers.
Ummm. Did Henry Ford build the automobile because horse and buggies were taxed? Did automatic typewriters come into existence because manual typewriters suddenly attracted a tax? Ross Brisbane can you provide one example of a thriving industry that came about because the Government taxed the life out of the previous suppliers? Just one?
Putting a price on carbon, if we accept the arguments of the AGW proponents will deliver a temperature decrease of .07 degrees Celcius. That is no gain for alot of financial pain.
Ross, the very idea that we can control the climate is akin to saying “I am going to stop the next windstorm” or “I, Penny Wong, will part the great Pacific Ocean”, or some other such rubbish. We cannot control nature. We do our best when we plan, and adapt to change.
Huh? On one hand you say we need a carbon tax which is based on a belief you hold, and on the other you say yes we can adapt. Pick a camp, friend. Pick one colour of jersey or another, mate.
Yes, climate changes. Just get over it will you?
Richard M says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Vince Causey, you are right on in your analysis. Stuart MacDonald is trying to put two items together that were not stated together and oppose each other. If they had been put together as one statement then he would be correct. But, they were stated as different reasons to promote the tax. Typical alarmist double-speak.
You are just babbling here and making no sense. I am not trying to conflate the two statememts and even if I was, eg; ”Australia must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions and should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.”, it would still contain the same ”different reasons to promote the tax”. What Australia must do and Australia should do. My point is, and always has been, that these different reasons, irrespective of if they were stated seperately or together (or, indeed, at all, Professor Carter doesn’t cite his sources and a Google search only returns this article or reposts of it), are not contradictory.
Well, looks like Ross Brisbane has decided he is the know-all of all things carbon???
He comes in like the big man of knowledge suggesting that he knows more than Professor Bob Carter whose work I have followed for some time.
Well, I know whose knowledge I would rather take as truth.
Dr. Carter has credibility as do many other scientists who actually tell the truth and do not fudge figures.
You know, I think modelling has been occurring for so many years (thirty I believe)that these poor people who are following the IPCC do not really undertand what the starting point was.
Anyway, when the media keeps showing funnels spewing steam and refer to it as greenhouse gases, what hope does the general public have of knowing the truth?
I note the PR companies are sending their shills to work this Blog. Very common these days when there is so much access to other people’s money at stake. Shills are usually obvious because they wade in late-ish, regurgitate talking points, ridicule others a lot, and never have opinions on subjects that aren’t hot button to their customer.
Yeh and I’ll bet their all smokers to !! =/sarc
[non-sequitor ?]
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
[snip . . a long ad hom . . not helpful to the debate]
[snip . . try posting without profanity]
Kelly’s Eye:
Most of the governments are Socialist—or, as in the case of the UK, afraid not to appear Socialist—it’s not fashionable or politically correct these days not to appear Socialist.
For these Fabian Socialists, their domestic economy, and the sovereignty of their country and the autonomy of its citizens —-isn’t all that important.
What they aspire to is global governance by bureaucrats of the UN, or some other global body, which they expect to oversee the redistribution of wealth from the Western democracies to the so-called ‘developing’ nations.
Consequently , under the framework for the [thankfully abortive] Copenhagen Convention, Australia would have committed to payments of billions in taxpayers’ money every year straight to China, India, Brazil etc etc.
These payments would have been enforced by the COP, which would have oversight of our economy, in order to make sure we toed the line.
Global fingers will be in every national pie, if these people have their way.
The aim is that these ‘developing’ countries will be helped to leapfrog over the Western democracies by a certain time—the justification being that the democracies , who chose not to slaughter, enslave or cull their populations, but instead freed them up to innovate and produce, emitted CO2 in the process of free enterprise—- and must now pay for their sins—-must be hobbled until the Communist dictatorships and Socialists of various kinds overtake us.
It doesn’t worry Gillard et al that their carbon policies will impoverish us, because by that time they will have ‘moved on’—probably to some powerful position in one of the massive international bureaucracies that the new global governance , as foreshadowed in the Copenhagen framework , will require.
Sharan Burrows has done it—‘ moved on’ from Australian union boss to the head honcho at the International Trade Union Confederation, and an honorary chair at the World Justice Project, with Clinton, Kissinger , Jimmy Carter and others.
Julia will do it , and Rudd is already trying to get his foot in.
We are just the useful pawns in all this—but we have to stare them down.
Stuart MacDonald says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“As a general rule, I tend to dismiss anyone who tries to pass off (sic) the kind of junk thinking you used as logic and reason as anti-science.”
“Your argument is bunkum…”
and finally:
“Because I thought it obvious they were following anyone who produced a mobile phone before they did, I will be sure not to hold your comprehension in such high esteem in future.”
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Argument from intimidation is not an argument.
I’m not employing argument from intimidation or any other form of fallacy. I have shown your assertion that the two statements are contradictory to be false, it is a truism that follows from this that your thinking was junk and your argument bunkum; this is logically sound, not logically fallacious.
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
It is a tactic to avoid an argument or debate, and you are good at it. It is a piss-poor way to win a debate, however. Does it work OK on your high-school debate team? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) By the way, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling but I don’t believe you ever held my comprehension in high esteem. Patronization doesn’t work very well, either.
Again, because your reasoning is faulty (I’m not arguing from intimidation), your conclusion is wrong. I am not avoiding the debate, I have shown you where you were wrong by giving an example of someone playing catch up whilst looking to lead.
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
So then what exactly is the plan? Lead now and follow later, follow now and lead later?
I have no idea what the plan is, that is why I have never commented on one. Irrespective of what the Australian government chooses to do about carbon taxing in the future, it does not change the fact that the 2 statements in question, as they stand now, do not contradict each other.
t stone says:
March 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Either way you are right (and so was I); there is no contradiction.
Hokum! Either the statements contradict each other, as you assert, or they do not, as I do.
Old Macdonald says:
March 15, 2011 at 4:07 am
Yeh and I’ll bet their all smokers to !! =/sarc
[non-sequitor ?]
(A) – No. – Not when applied as (sarc) to the lack of evidence that suggests that “PR companies are sending their shills to work this Blog.”. Smacks of the same lack of evidence that suggests that ‘Skeptics’ deny any linkage between ‘Smoking’ and cancer and that the same are in the back pockets of big oil. I’m sorry that you did not pick my sarc along this line and the need to ask the ?
Tragically, Australia’s government is setting the stage for greater challenges in the world markets. This type of thinking is along the same lines as the one declaring that fresh water from their coal bed methane wells needs to be handled as a “hazardous material” due to suspended coal fines and despite the pleadings from the local ranchers.
Stuart,
The statements – as stated (are you following me?) – are contradictory.
When you say: “Again, because your reasoning is faulty (I’m not arguing from intimidation), your conclusion is wrong.” – you are arguing from intimidation. You make the claim, the assertion, that my reasoning is faulty and my conclusion is wrong but fail to explain or back up your assertions with any facts. If you had an argument, I would think you’d use it. Instead what you’re left with is ad hominem attacks and claims that my reasoning is faulty without any proof. What you did was change the context in rationalizing that the statements are not contradictory. It’s unfortunate that the context wasn’t clear to begin with or we might not be having this argument. Context is crucial, and in that respect you can say that things are relative. But that does not mean there are no absolutes. So at face value, the two aforementioned statements (#6 and #7) are contradictory.
IMO, your arguments (or lack thereof) and methods are symptomatic of what is wrong with that side of the debate. I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks or used profanity (I’m sorry you weren’t so lucky, really). I think that context manipulation (and dropping) to fit a preconceived conclusion is a poor way to argue for higher taxes, more regulation and restrictions on freedom, especially in the absence of proof that the sky is falling and our current climate is unprecedented. If you can prove it, then maybe you have an argument (and maybe not). As far as I can tell, no one’s offered any proof yet.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
Stuart,
The statements – as stated (are you following me?) – are contradictory.
Yes they are, as my Apple analogy shows, it is perfectly possible to play catch up and, with good innovation still aim to take a lead.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
When you say: “Again, because your reasoning is faulty (I’m not arguing from intimidation), your conclusion is wrong.” – you are arguing from intimidation. You make the claim, the assertion, that my reasoning is faulty and my conclusion is wrong but fail to explain or back up your assertions with any facts.
Except the fact that Apple have shown that you can both play catch up whilst aiming to take the lead
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
If you had an argument, I would think you’d use it.
I do have an argument, I have used it, to date, despite many opportunities, you have failed to refute it.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
Instead what you’re left with is ad hominem attacks and claims that my reasoning is faulty without any proof.
They are not ad hominem attacks, your reasoning is faulty because your premise is flawed, as I have demonstrated with the Apple analogy.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
What you did was change the context in rationalizing that the statements are not contradictory.
I didn’t change the context, I introduced an explanatory analogy.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
It’s unfortunate that the context wasn’t clear to begin with or we might not be having this argument.
If the context isn’t clear the fault lies with you; it was you who introduced this particular digression.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
Context is crucial, and in that respect you can say that things are relative. But that does not mean there are no absolutes. So at face value, the two aforementioned statements (#6 and #7) are contradictory.
This is a non sequitur; context is indeed crucial and there are definitely absolutes, but it does not follow from either that the statements are contradictory.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
IMO, your arguments (or lack thereof) and methods are symptomatic of what is wrong with that side of the debate.
My argument is sound, you are the one who has failed to substantively engage with it, preferring instead to attack the straw man of my allegedly underhand debating methods rather than refuting the Apple analogy.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks or used profanity (I’m sorry you weren’t so lucky, really).
Presumably you have already forgotten your little ad hom aside at the top of this post (are you following me?), or your use of ”piss-poor” in an earlier one. You just haven’t been subjected to the uneven moderation policy.
I would also state, for the record, there was no profanity directed at you, I merely reiterated Snotrocket’s earlier ad hom.
Finally, again, my assessment of your reasoning is not an ad hominem attack, it is a truism that follows from the fact your premise has been shown to be flawed.
t stonesays:
March 15, 2011 at 9:21 am
I think that context manipulation (and dropping) to fit a preconceived conclusion is a poor way to argue for higher taxes, more regulation and restrictions on freedom, especially in the absence of proof that the sky is falling and our current climate is unprecedented. If you can prove it, then maybe you have an argument (and maybe not). As far as I can tell, no one’s offered any proof yet.
Another straw man, I’m not arguing for higher taxes, more regulation, restrictions on freedom, that the sky is falling or that our current climate is unprecedented. Consequently, I don’t have to prove any of theses things. I am arguing that statements 6 and 7 in the opening post are not contradictory, and the Apple analogy shows that to be true.
Not sure how this debate got so dragged out, it is a simple matter of fact that, from the chasing pack, one cannot take the lead without first catching up; the former (#7) is utterly predicated on the latter (#6).
First of all, my apologies. I may have stumbled into the ad hom trap once or twice, though hopefully not egregiously. I have myself to blame for that. I also became distracted by defining arguments rather than making one, and for that I need to be more vigilant as well.
With that in mind, I leave you my final submission for this thread:
Stuart MacDonald says:
March 15, 2011 at 11:19 am
“Not sure how this debate got so dragged out, it is a simple matter of fact that, from the chasing pack, one cannot take the lead without first catching up;”
So it seems you would agree that you cannot lead and follow at the same time? I’m sure that was my original premise.
Another clear, concise article from Prof Bob Carter which has a few warmist true believers worried. Why else would “Ross Brisbane” post a comment longer than the original (or did it only seem that way because he used such illogical arguments as “Carbon dioxide only becomes a real issue when a doubling of it remains in our atmosphere over and ABOVE 400ppm – That is – it becomes dangerous at 500pmm and amplifies further beyond that. Any science presentation that is telling you it becomes saturated at 400ppm is an unprovable hypothesis. Not to worry – she’ll be right is not an option”.
Unless Ross can remember when CO2 was at 500ppm, I guess he is just relying on another alarmist modeller’s hypothesis. But if he, Wombat and the others who think CO2 really does drive dangerous global warming they could do their bit to save the planet (along with Prof Ross Garnaut, Julia Gillard and the Greens) by taking a deep breath and holding it in while the rest of us try to continue normal lives and the planet continues to go through natural cyclic climate change as it always has and always will.
Truth said:
“We will have stare them down”…………..implying all governments who all fight climate change are socialist.
I’ll do more more then stare you down. We the people of earth will change this around. We will not be stopped. Our dependence on coal and oil are going burn a hole in you Truth by using a mirror to magnify and reflect the hard truths back in your face.
Any proponent who seeks to claim some higher moral ground based on this straw man argument of the socialist bogey seriously negates the real dangers of climate change to the following generations.
Here’s another brief look at CO2 and its place in the atmosphere:
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/03/taxing-the-air-we-breathe.html#more
Ross Brisbane says:
“We the people of earth will change this around. We will not be stopped.”
Nice that the people of the earth have a spokesman here.☺
t stone says;
on March 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm
So it seems you would agree that you cannot lead and follow at the same time?
No, I don’t agree with this. If I can give another example; Betamax were leaders in video tape technology in the 80’s but lagged in pricing and marketing. VHS were leaders in pricing and marketing, but lagged in technology. Two companies in the same field, both leading and both following.
t stone says;
on March 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm
I’m sure that was my original premise.
It’s still a flawed premise, a straw man to be exact, nowhere in the list is it asserted these things should be done simultaneously, just that both should be done in the future.
Ross Brisbane says @ur momisugly March 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm
“We the people of earth will change this around. We will not be stopped.”
What happened overnight Ross, yesterday you were only speaking for the people of Australia, now it’s the whole world ? I didn’t know there was a vacancy for leader of the world, what did that anti-carbon dioxide twit Jim Hansen step down ? =sarc/
I’m very worried that some non-combustion form of energy generation, like fission or fusion, will become too successful. Since we benefit from maximizing atmospheric CO2, perhaps some arrangement can be make to subsidize use of coal, natural gas, etc., even when they’re uneconomic.
Ross Brisbane says @ur momisugly 15/03/201 @ur momisugly 3:54 pm
“Any proponent who seeks to claim some higher moral ground based on this straw man argument of the socialist bogey seriously negates the real dangers of climate change to the following generations.”
Ross – I have looked up the definition of ‘Socialist’ for you and in-which you may need to, as the world spokesperson on these things; remove the term ‘Straw Man’ from your ecclesiastical point of view.
Socialism – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism