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,
forbes@carbon-sense.com
I am happy for my email address to be published.
==========================================================
Video:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
@ur momisugly 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*
“”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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ….
This letter has been addressed to “the Editor” WUWT? — Does Viv intend sending to all or most of the Australian newspapers?
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.
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.
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?
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. 🙁
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.
CARBON TAX is as bad as CARBON CREDITS… no rational person buys it and any politician proposing it deserves our contempt.
“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.
“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.
Bushbunny,
Well said, they will try and go after H2O because it’s just as vital to life as CO2.
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
Steve from Rockwood says @ur momisugly 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.
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
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.