Australia: No longer a carbon tax nation

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?