Australia: No longer a carbon tax nation

I’m not (yet) fully convinced that the government in the lower house (House of Representatives) will accept the upper house (Senate) amendments. They might yet reject them and keep it as a double-dissolution election trigger. I’ll believe the Carbon Tax is gone when they pry it from the cold, dead hand of the Greens and Labor and my electricity bill falls.

If only we had spent the billions on roads, hospitals and proper stuff. What a waste! (of my money). Good on you Tony. Keep up the decent work and thanks to all the campaigners for their dedication, honest discussion and perseverance, and Anthony for this wonderful site..

On an entirely different matter. You should get your thyroid attended to before it causes you physical problems.
But in any case, keep up the good fight. We need science in this field, not religion and superstition that have combined into an escathological cargo cult of the CAGW.

Labor didn’t fight hard to put a price on CO/2 (carbon).
The labor government under Gillard deceitfully introduced it after explicitly denying they would on national television just days before the election.
That they had “purchased” both houses of our parliament with financial promises to key independants and its coalition partners, the greens.
Gauranted there would be no “fight”.
I really do hope this is a lesson to America and the rest of the world that the people will hit back at governments lies and deceit to the majority.
In America you really do have serious problems with Obama’s “scorched earth” policys in relation to global warming.
Like Gillard and her “purchased” government, he is introducing his policys against the will of the majority by way of his executive powers.
He will condem so many to abject poverty just by way of increased utility prices.
For what.
Look closely America at what your “leader” is doing.
WE DID!

Very fine day when parliament finally stopped defying the voters of Australia.Election after election they have voted against the tax only to be stymied by the Greens tail wagging Labor’s dog. Labor is controlled by unions and they see global warming as a means to fill their pockets with renewable energy contracts.
The Greens openly admitted they wanted a One World Government, where their “wisdom” would be dropped like gentle rain on the rest of us new cave dwellers.

Here’s a better idea for Australia and the U.S. and most nations to deal with the climate change problem in a way that minimizes government intrusion, maximizes mitigation response, maximizes personal liberty and choice, maximizes the marketplace. http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html
Whether it is recognized on some level or not, as skeptical science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ points out, scientific skepticism is good. Simply deciding that something is hooey, and so immediately seeking to discredit that argument with whatever argument can be grabbed (right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, misrepresented or incomplete or not, etc) in order to do so, and then with whatever argument can be grabbed (right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, misrepresented or incomplete or not, etc), seeking to support any argument or idea that discredits climate science, is not good; it may feel like science, but it’s the opposite of science, leads away from the truth, and towards misinformation and further misconception. That then in turn FURTHERS the same tendency toward wanting to simply discredit something to begin with, and reinforces the process.
Realized or not, this is what inadvertent man affected expected climate change denialism (denial of the fact that geologically massive amounts of long lived greenhouse gases have been pumped into the air, and of the basic science (and slowly, minor casual observation over time) that says this will lead to geologically significant change in the climate patter), or “refutation,” has become all about.
Many of the things that drive fear of climate change redress (as distinguished from climate change science itself), may be warranted or unwarranted. In both cases, those seeking to advocate for sensible climate change redress would be helping rather than hindering discussion and accuracy of information, to not just ignore the fears or concerns of others, simply because they believe them to be unwarranted or not a concern of their own. And to also not immediately assume and assert that those who have them (and thus perhaps leading to the promulgation of poor information or science assumptions, with this recent thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/what-an-engineer-finds-extraordinary-about-climate/ being a good example, as I’m sure are others), are only doing so to “deceive.” Following these tendencies in a world in which keeps telling me “everyone knows how huge a problem climate change is” (when everyone clearly does not, and most people, including many politicians, still don’t know the basics http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-climate-issue-in-nutshelll.html – and it’s done a lot – has only further entrenched the beliefs that climate change is half hooey, made advocates look less credible than they really are, and increased the zeal to simply discredit it and simultaneously simply credit anything which seems to so do, as described above.
That being said, the simple lowest cost highest freedom lowest government intrusion and probably by far most effective and efficient solution to our radical atmospheric additions (that are (as a matter of physics, “not climate change science,” or “models,” or arguments) increasing the net energy balance of the earth) and that is offered above (again, here http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html ) is offered for the reasons listed in support of it.
However, at the same time it also serves to address some of the perhaps more warranted fears of perhaps excessive government entanglement, individuals not being allowed to do this or that, possibly too much U.N. control, etc. And, again, while misplaced resistance to certain otherwise neutral tools, simply due to otherwise irrelevant but strong association, can sometimes get in the way of initially seeing this clearly, it is by far the most efficient. This – loss of efficiency (which is really what a big part of what economics is all about) – is another solvable, in fact (net) improvable, impediment to not only sensible redress, but sensible discussion.

I may well be reading far too much into this but is it intentional that the poster above shows the Antarctic landmass just as dry, dusty and ice-free as Australia?
Oh, and all cracked up as well if my eyes serve me…

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm
The propaganda site to which I was referring was “The Conversation”.
What a delightful name, too bad they only allow some to converse.

John Carter, Citing discredited sources does you no credit.
From the WUWT blogroll…
Unreliable*
Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

meanwhile great western hwy blocked by snow and we where told our children would never see snow again .carbon tax R.I.P . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qwK09P0soo#t=80

In original article above
Bob Carter, whose measured, eloquent and authoritative lectures all over Australia putting the minuscule global warming of the 20th century into the calming perspective of geological time”
Christopher, do you know this sentence is sort of meaningless? The issue isn’t the current temperatures, and the change over from a semi high approximation of the last 800,000 year CO2 levels, to a much higher level,not seen in over two million years, amplified by simultanous geologic spike in the othr two main long lived atsmospheric greenhouse gases, is very geologically relevant. Here’s why http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-climate-issue-in-nutshelll.html We also evolved under the conditions that existed under the last few million years and less (as did the specie, plants and waterways systems we rely on,)
The idea that addressing climate is some form of “spending” is mistaken
The idea that is is pointless spending, even more. But it seems it is this fear of lots of spending that drives a lot of the disbelief (and belief in any representation, accurate or otherwise, that advances this, and disbelief in and discrediting of any representation, accurate or otherwise, that goes agains it) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/what-an-engineer-finds-extraordinary-about-climate/#comment-1686136
The other photo, the burping camel, is hilarious. But it sort of reinforces the basic ignorance of the issue, doesn’t it? That is – let’s put even more methane into the air. This is a problem. Just because one can’t see it, feel, it, touch it, and it is largely in the future (though already in part caused in the past, and being heavily amplifed now) and involves ranges and uncertainties – and its thus, if one wants to, easy to find ways to seemingly pick apart – doesn’t change this fact.

JohnWho says:
July 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Now that folks in the Land of Oz have awoken,
will the rest of the world listen?
Jack says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Very fine day when parliament finally stopped defying the voters of Australia.
Yes, in one sense, but, speaking of the land of Oz, and whether the world should listen to Australia, what about the equally serious problem of the voters of Australia being incredibly misinformed on the issue of Climate Change?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2013/sep/26/climate-change-denial-ipcc-report-australia Here are the basics of the issue, http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-climate-issue-in-nutshelll.html unconnected to politics, which some knowledge of is needed to make any kind of assessment on the issue at all. And what is really the problem. http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-really-problem-and-how-bad-and.html
How many Australians know this? How many Americans?
dp says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm
I hope this becomes a trend. The global economy is sitting on a tipping point and needs a nudge away from the precipice the current policy of madness has brought us to.
The current madness of avoiding an extremely serious and compounding problem that is forfeiting enormous and compounding net world gains to not Australian Ostrich on (again, see bottom paragraph http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html ? Or the alleged madness of trying to solve climate change by ‘wrecking’ the economy?
Good solutions do not do the latter, or have almost anything to do with it. Changing the structure of our GDP *(Or the world’s) is not an economic harm, it is a change. So how do we do that, to a better structure with better growth (not radically atmospherically impacting) in a way that doesn’t cause real net economic harm or loss? The best solution, very concisely laid out in the link just provided, accomplishes this, and also, in terms of the economic issue, very specifically addresses why, at the end.

“Changing the structure of our GDP *(Or the world’s) is not an economic harm, it is a change”
You’re probably one of those people who say ‘Dying is not the end, it’s just a change’, aren’t you?

John Carter,
I went to your link.
Would you be so kind as to tell us what your solution actually is? I’m afraid all I see is a bunch of rambling words that seem to at least be spelled correctly.

A happy day here in Oz, but it should be seen in perspective. We’ve still got a superstitious Prime Minister who believes in scarey imponderables like anthropogenic global warming, greenhouse gases and carbon pollution – even when some of his backbenchers could put him right. Even worse, we’ve got many ‘green’ businesses that will lobby to keep their incentives in one form or another.

The scoreboard here is still 96 to 0 on Kyoto.

The Australian climate and weather is known to be highly variable: ‘land of droughts and flooding rains’.
The Australian left bureaucracy is known to be rigid, unimaginative, unchanging and slow moving.
Whenever these two interact it becomes a shambles.
By the time they ever get any policies in place to react to bushfires, or drought, or floods, or climate, it’s more than likely the weather or climate has already changed again. That’s why we have things like desalination plants left idle by too much water, and academics and politicians claiming accelerating temperatures well after they have flatlined. It’s also partly why we have a mining tax implemented after most of the boom has passed.
There is an approximate 5-15+ year time lag in Australia between climate and weather and when politicians and legislators try and make a useless attempt to change it. But on the bright side, seeing as the temperatures have now flatlined, it is likely there wont be any further carbon tax for at least 15 years.

Aussie Jack says
” The carbon tax has nothing to do with Australia’s economic situation.”
One would assume then that taxing heavy industry with the intention of making it locally and globally expensive and thus uncompetitive with subsidised green alternatives has nothing to do with Australia’s economic situation.

(subscription required)
18 July: WSJ: Australia’s Carbon Tax Message
Tony Abbott shows that climate absolutists have a problem: democracy
Tony Abbott scored a big win Thursday when the Senate repealed Australia’s carbon tax, fulfilling the Prime Minister’s most prominent promise from last year’s election. The global intelligentsia is now making Mr. Abbott public climate enemy number one, but he deserves applause for honoring his campaign pledge and removing a burden on the Australian economy. As the first developed nation to rebel against the cost of climate scare-mongering, Australia could start a trend that has greens worried….

Last try: http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/536981/wind-turbine-blaze-scandal

It is excellent news that the Australian Carbon Dioxide Tax has been canned.
If only there was a chance ours, here in the UK, would also be scrapped.
Living in hope…

Folks are missing J. Carter’s message: “It’s time to move the Goalposts, come up with another name for “the Problem”, introduce new language, etc.” Different “problem”, same solution(s).
The Beat must go on.

fascinating, and accurate:
17 July: Market Oracle: Andrew McKillop: Carbon No Longer Captures Australia
(Andrew McKillop, Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission.)
The previous Labour government moved in 2007 to set a “price on carbon” – that is a carbon tax – claiming the new tax would slash emissions by 160 million tons over 13 years, by 2020. It offered voters billions of dollars in compensation for higher energy prices. The “carbon tax offsets” ranged through every nook and cranny set by Keynesian-thinking, from tax breaks and aids to companies and corporations, to welfare payments even including aid for womens’ associations, gay couples, illegal immigrants and to be sure, Australia’s massive environment protection and green business sector. This spending program, as well as the internationally-trifling and tiny amount of CO2 emissions that would be saved (world emissions are around 30 billion tons per year) were openly derided all through his 2013 election campaign by today’s prime minister, the pugnacious “unreconstructed male” who likes sport, beer and nice looking females, Tony Abbott…
The World Bank in May 2014, in its “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing” report on carbon pricing in 40 countries, with an estimated US$30 billion annual value, singled out the Abbott government’s solid opposition to carbon pricing as one of the biggest international threats to “rolling out similar programs” in other developed countries, and much further down the line, in the emerging economies.
Tony Abbott made a campaign “pledge in blood” to voters and business to prioritize growth above climate laws, taxes and supposed “energy transition”, and has delivered on his promise – but the Senate vote also showed that independent senators, with deciding votes in the upper house, also sided with his Liberals. For Labour and the Greens, this was a massive and outright defeat…
While carbon finance and taxation have merely added one small additional brake on the European economy and a further small decline in living standards, the rejection of the Australian proposals by Labour and the Greens may have quite rapid economic effects. Australia’s troubled but massive potential LNG development program and its high-cost infrastructures was directly threatened by the proposed new carbon pricing mechanism. Unlike all other major LNG producers and exporters, the proposed additional energy taxation would have made Australian LNG exporters compete in global markets against suppliers who pay no such tax at all. Many huge spending plans in LNG were on hold, awaiting the result of the vote.
Australia’s coal sector, heavily affected by international trends for coal demand and imports, had also delayed or canceled investments and the mining sector in general – fingered as a “carbon pariah” by Labour and the Greens – was heavil apprehensive about the proposed measures…
Some other major energy users outside the power sector, like national airlines were seriously affected by existing and proposed carbon taxes – Virgin Airlines said in a statement that existing taxes had cost it $27 million in the first 6 months of 2014, pushing it into lossmaking. To be sure, losers will include several Australian power producers who were receiving tax aid and payments to offset increased electricity prices to final consumers, and aid to financing the previous “20% by 2020” Labor government plan – copied on the European model – for massively raising the role of renewable electricity in national power supply by 2020…
The major impact of the Australian decision will however be political. The US Brookings Institution, along with the IPCC, IEA, IBRD and other “climate friendlies” previously described Australia as an “important laboratory and learning opportunity” for “thinking about climate change and energy”. With Japan and Canada, it had been one of the first major countries outside Europe to adopt a carbon price, and Australia was also comparable – in some ways – with the US concerning its energy-intensive lifestyles, industries and commerce, and its CO2 emissions. Australia’s Labour and Greens had however taken “Mother Country” England as a role model, especially when in 2008 the UK Labour party made its rash commitment to “slashing” UK emissions by at least 80% (from a 2005 base) in the 42 years to 2050.
Tony Abbott, who shares the present Canadian government’s antipathy to carbon finance, and always identifies himself as a “climate sceptic” said during a recent visit to Ottawa and Washington that climate change was “not the only or most important problem that the world faces”. This is sure and certain.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article46484.html

Lord Monckton,
I bet that your debates and speeches “down under” helped a lot with this result. I hope you plan to keep up that work because the war is far from over. Kudos to JoNova as well of course.

mr carter says refer to sks,rotflmfao

After 9/11, Tony Blair stood up and made an incredibly eloquent speech, one that galvanized the planet and made us all proud that someone, somewhere was feeling the pain of the US. It certainly wasn’t Canada’s PM at the time, who was likely hiding under his bed the whole time. Later I had many people point out to me the many ways that Tony Blair was completely opposite me politically, but it didn’t matter. He said the right words, at the right time, and earned my respect.
From above:

Tony Abbott, who shares the present Canadian government’s antipathy to carbon finance, and always identifies himself as a “climate sceptic” said during a recent visit to Ottawa and Washington that climate change was “not the only or most important problem that the world faces”. This is sure and certain.

I don’t know much about Tony Abbot, and to be honest the politics of Australia and New Zealand appear nothing but convoluted, backward, and plain weird. But to me this position (which is a brave position in today’s world, unfortunately) earns my respect.
In the future, people WILL look back on these pushbacks against the “climate establishment” as brave, principled, the RIGHT THING TO DO, although maybe a little late to stop most of the damage. History will not be kind to those who, deluded by charlatans and convinced of an imminent climate disaster, literally gave away our future and our children’s futures. And worse: they gave the future away to transparently stupid people like al-Gore and his followers.

Fan-freakin-tastic.

“God tends not to take political sides, but when it comes to the carbon tax, She does seem to be trying to tell us something via celestial signs.” Amazing ! Now God is a ‘SHE’. The problem with that comment that anyone that has any idea what ‘God’ is about would already know that he is neither a he or a she but only God. That comment would only be promoted by either a cretonic feminist or someone who has absolutely no idea what the scriptures teach. Either way, it is a truly offensive piece of propaganda that demonstrates the unworthiness of the person even making mention of it.

Shame, Australia, shame on you. You missed the opportunity to save something like 0.000463933% of the world’s CO2 output.

“…the fact that geologically massive amounts of long lived greenhouse gases have been pumped into the air, and of the basic science (and slowly, minor casual observation over time) that says this will lead to geologically significant change in the climate patter)” – John Carter
——————————————————————-
I hope that this doesn’t seem rude because you seem like a fairly reasonable guy by warmist standards.
1. Should we be more worried because you consider anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be “geologically massive” ?
2. Even your climate gurus state CO2 warming isn’t significant enough. That’s why the rube goldberg scheme of positive feedbacks was invented. You seem to gloss over this.
3. You seem to be upset that Australia ditched the carbon tax. You being the logical guy that you are surely realize that Oz’s carbon tax couldn’t have any impact on global climate whatsover?

Congrats to the clear thinking Australians. Don’t worry, someone will think up some other way to save the calculated 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-question-is-what-earthly-difference-can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html#ixzz37pkU67e8

Go Australia!!!!

@John Carter – are you paid by the word? In which case you must be pretty well off.
What a load of verbose, unfounded waffle and arm waving.
To everyone else – don’t feed the (wealthy) troll

Okay, here’s more:

Members of the Opposition, the Greens and crossbenchers combined to preserve many of the spending initiatives associated with the tax.

and

The amended bill now returns to the Lower House, but Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has indicated the Government will not accept the changes.

and

He says if Senators insist on the amendments, the mining tax will stay in place.

Senate passes Government’s mining tax repeal legislation with several amendments, bill returns to Lower House
Was that the opposition plan all along? In the US we call it a “poison pill” – a change added to make a legislative bill unacceptable to the bill’s backers. Maybe Al Gore was in on it and wasn’t so stupid to be standing next to Clive Palmer a week or two ago, on the occasion when Palmer announced his support of the carbon tax repeal repeal.

Unfortunately not all climate spending has stopped. We still have the Renewable Energy Target and the Climate Commission and other groups that are spending taxpayer money. Hopefully they go soon.

John Carter says (July 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm): “Which means conclusions drawn are not objective, but tailored to fit a goal. That may be good politics, but it leads to and then reinforces mistaken notions on science. Which is what is happening here.”
Wow! A very apt description of climate alarmism! This guy has definitely been to the SkS site!

Ed, Mr. Jones says:
July 17, 2014 at 11:02 pm
Folks are missing J. Carter’s message: “It’s time to move the Goalposts, come up with another name for “the Problem”, introduce new language, etc.” Different “problem”, same solution(s).
The Beat must go on.
This is an interesting comment. It’s posted July 17, 11:02 pm (PST?)
Here is what I wrote, 19:44 Australian Time (I don’t know what that is, but was very early A.M. July 17, half a day before Ed, Mr. Jones’ post.
I also strongly think that calling this issue climate change – regardless of possibly setting up fuel for more far right gimmickery that “the AGW crowd” is “changing the name because the facts aren’t working” http://www.skepticalscience.com/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics.html#105467
Not a bad call, huh? A little different framing – maybe Jones’ is better – but same essence.
Remainder of the sentence is kinda key: – [CC moniker] “has really added to major confusion on and misunderstanding of the issue. (Remember, most of America  for example, and Australia does not have the knowledge of a lot of readers of this site.)  It causes people to conflate what is observable right now as climate with the actual problem, when it’s not remotely.”
Phlogiston
Thanks for the added symbol issues on the camels, Didn’t know that, it makes the pic even better (Real methane issues aside)
Patrick says:
July 17, 2014 at 6:01 pm
“John Carter says:
July 17, 2014 at 5:59 pm”
NASA states CH4 is dropping. So “we’re” adding nothing.
Methane’s half life is (~7?)years. So its concentration can vary, quickly. (It also breaks down into CO2, so stays a gg gas, just far less potent.)
Over the past 800,000 years methane has never gone above 700 or so ppb. (Go here http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html click on chart right below that says methane.) In 1950 it was around 1100 In 2012 Methane levels reached a new high of 1819, and a 260% rise over pre industrial levels http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_980_en.html
In the early 2000s it was flat (meaning we’re still adding large net amounts, but not enough net to cause it to go up even more) – and maybe if something minorly changes (or camels and cows stop chewin’ tobacca – er, I mean their cud, how most CH4 leaves ruminants), it decreases slightly in 2013. Dunno.
Also, bigger methane problem is in the northern permafrost. That layer is mostly thin. Right now it is helping keep earth’s albedo way up. ( So as it warms, and snow softens – which has a lower albedo – and fully opens – as tundra has a far lower albedo still – that would cause the earth to absorb a lot more heat.)
Point made in above comment to Lord Monckton and in answer to other questions about what the problem is, that atmospheric temperatures are not the main issue, it’s the increased heat retention, or warming, of the earth itself. Oceans, http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/heat-around-and-below.html major ice sheets, land,etc. Permafrost is an example, where the ground is heating up also, and faster than the arctic air temperatures http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130610.html#.U8mhG_ldUpo
There’s a huge amount of carbon stored in it – more than twice the amount in the entire atmosphere http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/183.abstract ) , a good portion of which would not come out as CO2, but methane. If it comes out in huge amounts, even though it won’t stay as methane for too long, the additions would trap a huge additional amount of radiated heat in the atmosphere during that time it was methane (and it is likely to be emitted in ongoing increasing amounts, which would hasten short term acceleration of the same permafrost, and other things.

davidmhoffer says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:41 amJohn Carter;
I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you simply parroted the conclusion that was reported and didn’t read the paper for yourself. If you’re relying on CNN to tell you what the paper says, you’re in trouble from the get go. Start reading these papers for yourself, you’ll soon find that what they actually say is rather different than what is reported in the media.
This is ridiculous. It’s tactic number 7 in the arsenal to discredit. (Your last air physics post, I’ll get to it later, combined tactics numbers 5 and 6. And you also still didn’t answer the main question. And you should be able to write on science so that people can follow you. Yet you didn’t. Why?)
Tactic no. 7: Find peripheral stuff and make it seen like that somehow undermines the substance of the point made, or mislead on peripheral stuff and make it seem like it is all less credible.
Now, you seem like a smart enough guy to be able to read, so, no more b.s. First off, it was a CSM link. It was only cited for the point that a study suggested the earth has warmed more quickly recently than in a really long time (in fact, I very specifically used the word “probably.” You can quibble, originally I had “probably or possibly”; made for awkward reading, and my sentences are long enough. I did not assert it as fact.) I re-posted in response, found the CNN link, better explanation. And yes, as I noted, it seemed like they simply went back up to 11,000 years, but I wasn’t delivering a report on the article, and it really didn’t matter. And yes I usually read studies (and agree media often botches), but I can also cite news sources as can you and everybody on here for the point it makes. And it was cited correctly for the context, and was sufficiently relevant, and certainly interesting. Problem was, it didn’t help discredit the bulk of professional climate science, so, hence, tactic no 7. .
So, before I write anything more, and this is being asked in rather stronger form, to try and emphasize this: Here is the original comment in response to Lord Monckton’s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130 Now please read it carefully and you tell me, in light of how it was first used and the specific point I was clearly addressing, what is really the point of your comment above (unless you just got distracted and sort of mistook things – I know that happens) if not to just find ways that look nice, to discredit.
Maybe I’m not leaving you an “out” here (other than maybe to just repeat tactic no. 7, or, go with no. 9 maybe), and, if so, sorry for that. I’m exhausted. But your comment above seems picayune, and misplaced. Let’s save that for the physics. where’ I’m going to read up when I can, and we can really have it out in layman’s terms (mine) and terms no one can follow (yours) so that your arguments appear more authoritative. And you can show me if you are just leaving stuff out on purpose, or are just kidding yourself and using fancy teeter totters to do it, and ultimately just arguing that the earth is not gaining in net energy, or that simply because the radiating layer shifts, GG gas concentration levels really aren’t that relevant to climate (another huge coincidence given the clear 100 year plus and fairly strong warming trend, and increasing ocean heat). And thus hence why all the, sorry, but, “mumbo jumbo.” Because it’s an asinine proposition. And if it’s not, you can explain it in a way someone as dumb as me can understand,right? And then you can explain it to most of the world’s atmospheric physicists, who apparently don’t know it either. Or you can come on over to the dark side (or, really, leave the dark side, grin) and not have to do this delicate physics contortion dance you are doing.

@John Carter – wrote
” the earth right now is warming faster than at any point in at least the last 11,000 years.
[…]
where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years?”
John – as I understand you have a data about global temperatures extending as far back as 15k years ago, that are presented with a resolution precise enough to catch every possible 10-years spike? Where is that data?

Thank you Lord Monckton, especially for the giggle over the Gore effect. Yes. It is true. It happened just like it happened in Copenhagen. We had extreme cold weather because Al Gore was in town… and of course it is winter. Up until Gore arrived in our country we were having a mild winter.
Yes, we did it. The carbon tax is gone…. may it always be R.I.P… and I say NO to an ETS. This is just another money-making scam that will make the rich get richer and the rest of us will suffer.

DavidMHoffer
I’m not trying to make you look like an idiot.You’re clearly not, and even if, so what. I’m an idiot for even trying to help show some of the many other facts on the climate issue
What I am trying to show is that you are incorrect on Climate Change.
Not incorrect in the sense that Climate Change is absolutely certain to create what we would consider a wildly problematic to devastating net rise in average ambient temperatures over time (and or an attendant and sufficiently detrimental change in general precipitation patterns, intensity, and volatility). But in the assertion of near the exact opposite.
Namely, that with a radical, multi million year change in the concentration of the molecules responsible for “trapping” (excuse me) radiated heat, to levels not seen for several million years, for very precise, super rapid, and “external” reasons, and that thus absorb and re radiate far more thermal radiation — the very process that keeps the earth from being a ball of ice — are nevertheless absolutely not going to have a major affect now, or the chances are so low it doesn’t warrant being much concerned over.
There seems to be a LOT of confusion over this basic idea. Sure, temperatures have changed a lot over earth’s history. And that’s why they are not “bad.” (Nor is what we are doing “bad.”) But we didn’t evolve under them or with the precipitation patterns that accompanied them. A couple of million year climactic shift, more or less, in ambient temperatures, and much of Florida,U.S.A. and a large amount of the rest of our globe’s exposed land, will be under water.
This isn’t conjecture. It’s more plausible than not. If anything, the argument is stronger for a slightly more powerful affect than than a slightly weaker one, due the large stabilizing capacity of all our (the earth’s) current snow fields and ice sheets, which are showing increasing signs of melting, and are melting, on net, and almost every major affect is almost unavoidable reinforcing (at least until a new stases is reached) other than possibly water vapor, which to the extent it is a negative reinforcement, will probably mean an even more extreme (or at least, extreme in the dry direction, which is bad) precipitation shift.
What’s not plausible is to assume the earth just fine tunes, as if it was some giant GAIA only looking out for mankind’s interests, to keep things within some ridiculously narrow geologic range, and regardless of the incredible magnitude of the breathtakingly rapid (in geologic terms) external forcing indisputably being occasioned.
Note, what is kind of critical to realize, and many people, regardless of Climate Change perspective, etc, don’t seem to (Former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson does, however http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html ) Harm here equal various ranges of outcome times their chances, added together. Assessing this on the reasonable and objective – not ideologically driven scale – indicates that strategically, not redressing the issue, as I (and most of the world’s leading scientists on the matter) have suggested, is extremely counter productive, and against our interest.
Nor, I want to emphasize again, does addressing it have to be so burdensome, nor in the long term is it a meaningful cost.
Or, ultimately, a real one. Shifting to a far better production and energy system is a benefit. Not a cost. It’s just a challenge to do. A good challenge. One that is in line with why we have to grow our economies in the first place. Namely, produce, thrive, always grow, always build, have nobs available (here, building new energy production and utilization capabilities,among other things) always be “moving forward.” Not a bad challenge, such as dealing with this (climate) issue after the fact, when due to the lag there will be no catch up.

davidmhoffer says:
July 18, 2014 at 5:29 pm
John Carter;
Here, being the clear warming trend, and one that has been very rapid in terms of recent geologic time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Are you quite certain
Your link purports to show the amount of warming relative to longer periods of time in the past. I guess my question is, interesting as the link is, why you failed to see that it’s irrelevant to my statement you recited above – namely, that there is a clear warming trend, and one that has been very rapid in terms of recent geologic time.
By a guy, no less, who is later “logical and smart” enough to conclude I’m not science smart enough to be able to talk physics with,
Sudden selective breakdown in logical capacities suddenly? Or just an extreme bias driving interpretation.
Or a way around both, from your perspective anyway, and continue belief: i.e, undermine the person making the point here, or find another way to angle around it, as is repeatedly done, following the same pattern over and over and over. Then convince yourself that your point above somehow is relevant (let alone relevant enough for the “”are you quite certain?” added after the link provided to discredit the two stated points – clear warming trend, and one that is very rapid in terms of recent geologic time – that is in fact irrelevant to both. That is, even if there is a greater century of warming over the last few thousand years — which, according to the recent study cited by CNN, etc. major sources, there isn’t — it does not mean the current one is not also very rapid.
See what I mean by the pattern yet? It is what is happening, I can assure you.
Also, the data set that little otherwise irrelevant concoction relies upon, relies upon a large mistake (or again, confusion of facts produced by a fealty to the pre-determined underlying idea), and is incredibly misleading, if not ultimately, manipulative.
As one of the more well reputed climate sites in the world points out:
Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core…[and] defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. …. a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

[Yet] the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. . emphasis in bold added here http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
So the person whose data Easterbrook actually took to make his chart even pointed out that Easterbrook had it wrong, yet he continued to insist otherwise.
The above is pretty straight forward. It is not fraud, it is that someone who doesn’t understand the issue concocted something. Then never fixed it. Why would that be? Because fixing it would undermine the purpose it was first designed for?
I’ll add another one. Even using what Easterbrook (mistakenly but then stubbornly? Deceitfully?) postulates as the present, appears to skew the graph he makes, as it cuts off most of the hottest years on record since modern recording began, including the hottest decade, and a followup decade of a few more new top ten global ambient temperature years. (And the trend continues. 2013, depending on what data sets are used, is actually between the top 2 and top 6 on record while also continuing the seeming appearance of a lot of volatility and intense precipitation events http://time.com/1358/snowpocalypse-or-not-2013-was-one-of-the-warmest-years-on-record/).
I noticed several comments dismissing skepticalscience.com out of hand. Why? Is it possibles skeptical science sometimes get things right? Possible that the drive to find whatever negative can be found (or manufactured) about skeptical science comes from the same pattern I’ve been referencing, namely, if unwittingly, to find ways to discredit, undermine or attack anything that supports the bulk of professional climate science, and adhere to anything that does so discredit, or that seems to so do?
Could it be possible, while I’m sure everyone and every site makes mistakes (skeptical science included I imagine), that there a lot of climate myths out there? And that skepticalscience is specifically writing about trying to correct those myths, and correcting those myths sort of undermines much of the case adhered to in order to “rationally” dismiss the climate change issue?
Which, I suggest is not rational to do once there is an (often lacking) fuller understanding of the issue. Which, in turn, is something constant misinformation not only prevents, but continually self reinforces; while then only further strengthening the near automatic tendency to dismiss anything that might not be misinformation, but that serves to support the general bulk of professional climate science.
Skepticalscience also seems to use this very widely known site (named after my own favorite expression), as the source for a lot of its myths. So isn’t it then just easier and more natural to instead believe that skepticalscience is therefore so unreliable as to not even be worth considering, based upon whatever arguments can be gotten? And thus, skeptical science, and its large body of often accurate data and information – though of course as a result it is now not “viewed” as such – voila, is dismissed.
It’s also an interesting article to check out, for the last main paragraph, which is a long quote by the scientist whose work Easterbrook used. http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
“

Hello everyone, late to the party.
I see in one post John Carter touting that CNN report on…..Marcott? That piece of garbage!
JC, you need to upgrade your research skills.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=marcott
http://climateaudit.org/?s=marcott
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/
“The latter was an apparent discovery that 20th-century warming was a wild departure from anything seen in over 11,000 years. News of this finding flew around the world and the authors suddenly became the latest in a long line of celebrity climate scientists.
The trouble is, as they quietly admitted over the weekend, their new and stunning claim is groundless. The real story is only just emerging, and it isn’t pretty.”
——–

Sorry about bold all over last comment. Unintentional.
dbstealey says:
July 20, 2014 at 5:15 am 
When Lord Monckton pointed out that other warming episodes have happened in the recent past, Carter ignored it, and stated just the opposite. Carter shows all the signs of being a religious fanatic. He is scientifically illiterate, but he posts his cut ‘n’ pasted comments to try and look educated. He is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Didn’t ignore anything. Also didn’t state the opposite, or anything like it. More importantly, am not debating what warmings occurred, haven’t occurred, or how to define them. It sidesteps the real issue, which raises questions why you and Monckton keep trying to turn it into the issue. I was responding to his claim that there hasn’t been any “global warming” the last couple decades. Global warming, though I agree it is often misconstrued as our current temperature trend by people who don’t know a lot about the issue (and sometimes the media), is not about that.
As for just pure “warming” as in temperatures, NASA states that nine of the ten warmest years in modern times have occurred in the 21st century. That is, since 2000. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 (I’m sure others state a little different. Again, doesn’t matter, so don’t go – as has been the pattern – turning that into yet another false litmus of whether “CC” – meaning the significant threat of a marked shift in response to a marked geologic forcing – exists. )
I posted a chart of temperatures showing the clear trend up, also a link re’ a study that tried to put the current (most relevantly “current,” not last ten or forty years) warming trend into some sort of recent context. (Iffy conclusion without a time frame, with the longer the time frame – up to matching the current warming frame – the more relevant the conclusion. But now as you and Hoffer do you are going to take the word “iffy” out of context, misrepresent on that, and once again try to denounce the idea of a significant threat of a geologically significant shift over time in response to the current geologically powerful external forcing, with something that isn’t the issue, and or simply castigate or discredit anyone trying to advocate any such consideration. As, I have repeatedly pointed out, and you keep actually doing in response, has been the consistent pattern.)
That study concluded that the earth has warmed faster than at any point in the last 11,000 years or more. Whether or not that’s technically wrong or right I don’t really care. (That comment’s not now going to be also taken out of context or misrepresented also, right?) It was just pointing out that not only has the earth warmed the last 100 years, but that it’s a relatively strong amount in comparison to most (if not all, according to that study at least) 100 year periods. If Monckton has better data than the CNN and Christian Science Monitor referenced study, great, it doesn’t matter. “One of the faster warming 100 year periods” in the last 10,000 years is still significant. Anyway, was also, and more importantly, peripheral. (That bold intended.)
That is, and was only (and very clearly) responding to the claim that there’s been no warming the last couple decades. I don’t know what charts you’re getting your information from, or why, or from where (re charts, see my above(?) posted comment to Davidmhoffer that references Don Easterbrook’s, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690348 it’s pretty enlightening and raises the question why Easterbrook would blatantly misrepresent data to get a far different impact, and keep doing it), but the 90s were the hottest decade on record since we began global temperature record keeping in the late 1800s. (Gonna also pick issue with the phrase global temperature record keeping now, too, or something else such, as if that is relevant to the issue of CC, sort of like the pattern of everything else?)
Then, many of the hottest years since 1880 record keeping began, have occurred since then, in the 2000s. So overall, yes, the last couple of decades have “warmed.” And the longer term trend illustrates that more consistently. But again, I don’t care. (Another phrase to cherry pick and misconstrue on and once again turn the issue into something it’s not.) Don’t try to turn minutiae of small proportions in 2000-2010 average ambient temperatures – several years of which happened to still be among the top 10 warmest years since modern record keeping began – into the Climate Change issue. (Which you first did with a chart that halved to quartered the overall period, and then was bifurcated again, then misleadingly – or manipulatively – castigated that observation as “denigration,” then did with a Wash’ Post blog chart of only several years.)
Somehow, no matter what I do or say, you have turned that 11,000 warmest period secondary, and peripheral, point into “THE” debate on whether on not Climate Change is a significant threat or not. Which means you are either not being entirely honest, or are misconstruing what the real issue actually is. The issue not as defined by you, but why the climate scientists who are concerned are concerned; and, in commenting in response to me, why I am concerned.
Regarding the projection of religious fanaticism – it’s yet another way to dismiss climate science. And the fact that some people who think CC is a problem may say silly things or not have a lot of knowledge, is an extremely poor reason to then castigate strong concern as anything other than what it is, let alone for what it has been repeatedly castigated as. And which you ultimately resorted to as well. Ironically, any zealotry here, let alone fanaticism, has been exhibited in some of the comments in response to mine. Maybe yours, I dunno. That’s for you to consider in light of the evidence.

John Carter says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:24 am
Including last year, which was somewhere between the 2nd and 6th warmest year on record
RSS came in 10th and Hacrut4 came in 8th.
RSS
1 {1998, 0.550},
2 {2010, 0.472},
3 {2005, 0.33},
4 {2003, 0.32},
5 {2002, 0.315},
6 {2007, 0.256},
7 {2001, 0.246},
8 {2006, 0.231},
9 {2009, 0.222},
10 2013 0.218
11 {2004, 0.202},
12 2012: 0.187
Hadcrut4
1 {2010, 0.547},
2 {2005, 0.539},
3 {1998, 0.531},
4 {2003, 0.503},
5 {2006, 0.495},
6 {2009, 0.494},
7 {2002, 0.492},
8 2013 0.486
9 {2007, 0.483}
10 2012 0.448,

philjourdan says:
July 21, 2014 at 8:48 am
@John Carter – Did you read dbStealey’s response at all? Did you even bother with a link or 2? Your rebuttal indicates you either did not, or could not understand what he wrote. He cites raw data, you cite opinion pieces at news sites.
Try reading what he wrote the next time – and following the links. You made a fool of yourself by ignoring them this time.
A fool of myself to who? The world for thinking that any main commenter on this site might actually reasonably consider any of the many centrally relevant and often pretty reasonable points I’ve made? Agreed
To those who don’t want to believe anything other than CC does not pose a significant threat, and so therefore will find any way to view me as a fool and what I write, or the concerns I raise thus nonsense? Agreed?
I did read what he wrote, did follow the links. Didn’t ignore a thing, and responded to them, peripheral as they were, when I did see them. But this tactic (unrecognized as such) is common, constantly turning the CC issue into something it is not. Which your comment here above only continues as well as another tactic, find any way possible to take issue with someone making substantive points you obviously don’t want to consider, since I have not seen any substantive consideration of them, or any reasoned, substantive response back that either goes to a peripheral issue, or gets things mistaken.
Stealey cites raw data which is selected from amongst a lot, most of it is peripheral, to chart a particular view, and I’ve cited plenty of data, you just ignore it.
Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.

Sorry, Anthony. Could I at least say that Monckton has no right to call Al Gore ‘Al Baby’? In many minds, that kind of disrespect has nothing to do with the science. If this is an impartial forum for climate debate, then why is one side allowed to disrespect, and the other side is ad-hom?
[try using your argument on why climate sceptics should not be called “deniers” without cause -mod]

Reblogged this on OCCUPYMELBOURNE.NET and commented:
Today was one of the coldest days in recorded history for several Melbourne suburbs, hrmm where is all this global warming?