South Korea announces delay the day after Australia’s carbon tax repeal
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
In a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum, South Korea has thrown doubt on its carbon plans. Significantly, the announcement was made the day after Australia abolished the carbon tax. According to the report;
“July 18 (Reuters) – South Korea’s finance minister has called its impending emissions trading market “flawed in many ways”, hinting that he would pressure other ministries to delay the planned 2015 launch, a local newspaper reported.
Choi Kyung-hwan, who is also deputy prime minister, said problems had been found with the scheme, which is due to start in January, and that the government would review them before deciding whether to delay it, modify it or implement it as planned, The Korea Times reported on Friday.”
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0PT3CZ20140718
(h/t to WUWT reader Pat)
South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2
John Carter–
I appreciate your politely stated and earnest concern. Certainly, CO2 will cause some warming, but the actual data, rather than the models, demonstrate that the magnitude of this warming is more on the order of academic trivia than catastrophic climate change. It is hard to support massive public action, akin to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.
“Is it possible that it’s madness, or at least extraordinarily counter productive, to characterize what is happening as a radical change to the long term long lived greenhouse heat trapping gas concentration of the atmosphere, that, still growing at geologically breakneck speed, has collectively changed – increased – the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years?
Bold mine.
Makes more sense now.
And, yes, it is possible that it is madness or at least extraordinarily counter productive, although I’m leaning toward a combination of both.
http://americanthinker.com/2014/07/australia_still_has_carbon_taxation.htm
l Seems we are celebrating something we shouldn’t be.
JohWho,
You are a most excellent editor.
Thanks!
Would someone please remotely disable “John Carter”‘s comma key? On the other hand, if we wait long enough it’ll likely wear out all by itself.
John Carter: Aren’t you even a little bit suspicious that every civilization-level crisis that comes along (over-population, resource depletion, AGW etc) ALWAYS results in the same solution being advanced: Higher taxes and more government control. If not, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn 97 percent of my friends say is for sale.
“In a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum, South Korea has thrown doubt on its carbon plans.”
That is the big take-away here:
another country is expressing doubt about the rationality of its “carbon plan”.
Even a little more sanity is comforting.
Sunshine +H2O +CO2 = Food(sugars) +O2
Just add some minerals(usually from the soil) and you get the irrefutable law we were all taught in elementary school…………….photosynthesis.
If any of those 3 key elements is deficient, photosynthetic output is reduced.
If we receive only 1/3 the ideal amount of rain needed, we call it a drought and its obviously a limiting factor.
If only 1/3 the ideal amount of sunshine is present, it’s also a limiting factor.
With CO2, we’ve gone from 280 ppm(which was less than 1/3 the ideal amount) to 400ppm, which is still far short of ideal. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently a limiting factor. It should be boosted by another 400 ppm to get close to ideal.
Give plants what they need to maximize photosynthesis!
All animals eat plants or something that ate plants.
So all I need to know following the eventual collapse of the greatest deception of the 20th century
re the miss selling of CO2 as a tax lie by Govt., is which firm of Lawyers will be first to represent us ‘plebs’, say for example reclaiming the substantial amount of yearly vehicle excise duty I’ve been wrongly forced to pay for quite a number of years now.
( I wont hold my CO2 in for too long on this one as I think I already know the answer)
Is it possible that John Carter is an Alarmist troll, attempting to appear to look objective, and asking agenda-driven comments based solely on his illogical and irrational Belief system, which he mistakenly bases on what he terms the “science of climate change”, which is itself an illogical argument known as circular reasoning?
John Carter~ It is possible, and completely obvious, that there is a desire to address economic harm, but you have it the wrong way around. The economic harm is being caused by the flattening of energy production rates. AGW is the political vehicle being utilized to scare, ideologically inspire, and eventually legally mandate that the general population use less energy, or in some cases to entirely prevent some people from developing fossil fuel energy infrastructure. AGW is the chosen method for the mitigation of what some call ‘peak oil’. It is the sort of mitigation method one should expect from the oligarchs that pull the strings. Some of those oligarchs represent Big Oil, and they know better than anyone else what happens when extraction rates go flat while population increases~ energy per capita must go down. They cannot simply inform the general populace of the true problem. That would throw markets into chaos. They don’t want chaos~ they want to stay on top while the ship inevitably goes down. That is why Big Oil funds climate alarmism (RD Shell gives money to the University of East Anglia as one example). Currently, coal is the chosen victim of AGW alarmism, which makes perfect sense, because coal is an energy competitor with oil/natural gas. We are moving into a zero-sum game with energy market share. Politically, collectivist neo-feudalism is the best way forward for them. They will fail, and the AGW nonsense will fail (due in no small part to the true scientists and bloggers that fight falsehood). Unfortunately, we will still be left with the reality of diminishing fossil fuel energy. The ship is indeed going down, and nothing can prevent it, but WE will be the ones who decide the path foreword, not THEM.
NikFromNYC says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:47 am
John Carter, the issue is that a monstrous scam has been simply revealed over time
I don’t think it’s a scam at all. And I think (In the rest of your comment) your assertion that it is a fraud, and that I know it is a fraud, borders on …….
To accuse someone of that for having ideas, let alone ideas and opinions that are grounded in science (but even when they aren’t, people, including everyone on here, have the right to be wrong) is moving toward this: http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/fascism.html In other words, the angrily expressed sentiment that someone else is not entitled to their opinions or their advocacy of what they believe to be right, just as you and others have that right (wrong or right, though I believe here wrong, though you maybe), is one step removed from what that piece,in part, talks about.
As for the issue, it may be a mistake. but I certainly don’t think so. This comment back to Lord Monckton I think helps somewhat to illustrate why
I could be wrong. (Actually I’m just saying that to be diplomatic. The basics, the same thing you are calling a fraud, is incontrovertible. And while the basics don’t guarantee a radical level of ultimate change, they do guarantee ranges that strongly suggest that ignoring the issue is extremely counter productive, and unfair to our kids theirs.)
hunter says:
July 19, 2014 at 5:21 am
John Carter,
And when those proposing the self-injury are increasingly seen clearly as less than credible, it is even less likely that this will willingly happen.
Which sheds some light on the frequent calls by the climate obsessed to abandon civil society and democratic means to facilitate imposition of the climate obsessed agenda.
Is there any connection between the “increasing non credibility” of climate scientists and the very points I made in my first post above? That is, is powerfully driving a predetermined resistance to the basic science of climate change, and shaping it into a fealty toward any argument or study or idea, regardless of its logical application, that discredits the idea of climate change, as well as climate scientists along with their credibility? I mean it’s an advertising and repetition and exposure world, so the constant often unwarranted public attacks on climate scientists, and the constant pattern of clinging to and then constantly and publicly re asserting any argument or study or claim that finds ways to dismiss attack or discredit climate scientists, their credibility, or any points that support the great bulk of climate science, would seem to likely result in a lower public perception of climate science credibility than is perhaps warranted.
You mention Pielke. I had one question for Pielke, as even he applies a vastly different (higher) standard to climate scientists,than he does to climate scientist detractors. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mistake-to-lie.html?showComment=1405497774336#c2474801445524985291 No answer yet.
Regarding civil society, I think the first half of this first comment here, from NikinNY who said advancing climate change concern was a fraud, and that I “damn well know” it (see original comment, i didnt reprint it) speaks directly to this. And that the lack of civility only seems to be recognized when a “side” one doesn’t agree with, engages in it. (Though note that while I think climate change is a huge problem, and that there has been excessive misinformation and in particular industry backed “iffy” information campaigns, yesterday printed a piece saying that a professor who in a notable magazine op ed was frustratingly calling for criminalization of industry misinformation on climate change, was ultimately suggesting something akin to a key part of Fascism.) But I see absolutely outrageous and near constant calls for climate scientists to be jailed, for really just doing what they are supposed to do or mistakes therein, by a standard that would have most of the scientists supporting climate change denialism,by their level of mistakes (never seemingly recognized by the climate denialists who instead tend to support them) hanged 10x hanged over. It is remarkable. It’s not just a double standard. There is no standard.
I’ve love to see that exact same lack of any standard applied to much of the incorrect information and mistakes (not that are realized here, perhaps, but I can tell you it’s otherwise pretty visible) on the part of scientists and affiliated groups who provide similar incorrect or misleading information or assertions in favor of discrediting the bulk of climate science. It’s be wild. (Such as the standard that was applied, and still is today, toward some private emails that refercened trying to get a chart properly aligned between data sets in a pretty normal routine, and said that they needed to keep misinformation out of scientific journals (since misinformation is leading to a lot of misunderstanding on this issue) being turned into the “science scandal of the decade or century,” when the real scandal was the lack of objective judgment on it, and that it was one more thing, and a big one, to cling a hold of and use to discredit climate scientists, and climate science.
Hence why – this pattern – such credibility is seen as low. A campaign of misinformation and attack, as another way to discredit climate science.
Mike McMillan says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:47 am
I wonder, 120,000 years from now, when the apes drill down the ice cores
You think it will be apes? Same pattern all over again?
To answer your question for me, no, I don’t think they will find something that different than what the current levels are. Unless they are really bad at ice core sampling. Yes, I acknowledge stuff from the past is hard to accurately fathom. But it seems to me finding ways to now discredit ice core sampling is another way,another angle, by which to attack and discredit the bulk of climate science. I think the current levels are pretty high, because it took hundreds of millions of years to get a lot of carbon out of the air through plant matter buildup, radically dropping the levels from times way past (in general,I know it’s fluctuated). And we’re taking a lot of that stuff and re releasing it back into the atmosphere.
dbstealey says:
July 19, 2014 at 2:21 am
John Carter,
CO2 does not ‘trap heat’. It slows it down via re-radiation, like an insulating blanket.
Obviously. Trapping heat is a simple term to use to reflect that it keeps some heat from escaping the earth/atmosphere system that otherwise would. See my comment in response to the first educator also pointing this out. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/another-carbon-tax-domino-falls-south-korea-goes-cold-on-ets/#comment-1689515 You posting it is fine, but out of the blue trying to immediately undermine the credibility of someone who posts something that is not in line with discrediting the bulk of professional climate science, is consistent with original point. Plus, more importantly, you at least gave info, so makes it a helpful comment to others.
richard verney says:
July 19, 2014 at 3:14 am
John Carter says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
////////////////
John
There are some who consider that rising levles of CO2 is a cause for concern.
There are others who consider (and in my opinion correctly) that “…CO2 has such a minuscule effect at current concentrations that it cannot even be measured. The proof: there are no empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2.
Richard, that’s an illogical conclusion you just drew. The absence of empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2 does not have anything to do with the issue of the role that gg gases play. We cant do it I(If we can’t) because we don’t otherwise know exactly what the climate would be in the absence of any external radiative forcing (i.e, what we’ve added) That is the nature of climate. It doesn’t mean that on the other hand, we know nothing, or can’t draw general conclusions. Otherwise this is just a tautology and means that because we can’t know some specific knowledge, we can’t know anything else. It also is irrelevant. Climate normally is pretty stable in so far as our recent evolution goes. The issue is the likely radical change to whatever it was going to be. Not the exact “base,” whatever that was. A) we can’t change that B) it is, probability wise, going to have been pretty stable (maybe even get a little colder slowly, irony of ironies. Depends where we draw the line at additive changes though> Pre European deforestation? Pre industrial? Pre mid-industrial? Etc.)
Re the “minuscule effect” presumption, in another comment (here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689618 ), I suggested: There is nothing to support that idea. And an excessive amount of presumption reflected that man can’t, or wouldn’t inadvertently be able at this point to have a massive effect on the ecology (and ultimate climate) of the world in which we live, or that we are not deeply in the process right now.
It also doesn’t really jive with our general knowledge. GGs are not trapping anywhere near the total heat being radiated back out by the earth. Yet levels of CO2 around ~250 up or down a bit along with a few other lesser long lived GGs, traps enough heat to keep the earth around 59F, average, and not around 0F average. Add more and they are going to trap (“absorb > re radiate, bla bla) more heat. The amount that has been added of CO2 alone (CH4 N20 and the man made CFCs and HCFCs,etc, also up) is a 43% increase or something over pre industrial levels. It’s a HUGE increase. And it’s a huge increase in geologic terms – again, at least on the order of reaching a two million or more year high.
Also, the issue is not the warming of the atmosphere, or what temperatures we can measure now (but they have been going up, http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world. and not insignificantly http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/
It’s longer term stases changes to otherwise relatively stabilizing (and stable) systems, that are slowly trying to change, and the ocean, which directly drives climate, as well as plays a huge role in affecting all the ice stases conditions. And the oceans have been accumulating a lot of heat energy, which is where much of the increased “trapped” radiation energy has gone.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/ocean-heat.html http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/where-global-warming-going-ocean-20140205
John Carter: If it’s intent is good it’s not fascism? Intent is a matter of opinion, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure the Nazi’s ‘intent’ was good from their point of view. So was Stalin’s ‘intent’ good when he shipped those folks to the Gulag.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” or the original “L’enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs” (hell is full of good wishes and desires) Saint Bernard of Clairvaux
John Carter:
CO2 is still increasing, probably due to release of CO2 sequestered in the oceans as a result of the natural interglacial warming we have been experiencing for about 16,000 years, but temperature has not increased for about the last 18 years in spite of this. Other natural climate variables are obviously overwhelming the very minor effects of this trace gas, which also happens to be necessary for life on this planet. Ever heard of photosynthesis? You should be much more concerned about the glaciers returning, which they most likely eventually will, as that has been the natural condition of our planet for a couple of million years now. This warming is a brief respite from the real killer which is cold. Cold brings famine, disease and war. On the other hand, warm might cost some folks their beach houses. Take your pick.
Here is something green and bitter.
The green roots of the Nazi party and modern-day eco-fascists
Folks, please remember that the goal of fanatical “Climate Science” (as embodied by Mr. Carter’s comments above) has NEVER been about understanding the climate. In fact, it has ALWAYS been about controlling people’s lives through taxation and use of force, and thereby destroying the liberty and freedoms we presently enjoy.
So what? The greening biosphere is bad? You talk of the rapid increase in co2, but where has the warming gone? Global warming has stopped; climate sensitivity is not so sensitive.
Here is unprecedented climate change in the last 15,000 years.
Carter says:
The absence of empirical, testable measurements showing the fraction of a degree rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2 does not have anything to do with the issue of the role that gg gases play.
But it has everything to do with the global warming debate. Since there is no real world evidence showing that human activity is the cause of global warming, that leaves you with True Belief. You are desperate to believe, so you cherry-pick, and you presume, and you baselessy assert, and you appeal to your corrupt authorities, and you do anything else you can to feed your confirmation bias. That is not science.
Carter says:
…trying to immediately undermine the credibility of someone who posts something that is not in line with discrediting the bulk of professional climate science…
Earth to Carter: it is the duty of scientific skeptics to try and find holes in conjectures. The fact that there are so many holes in the cAGW conjecture makes it very easy for us to deconstruct it.
I understand that you don’t like the result. It contradicts your belief. But the fact is, there is no real world evidence supporting your belief. It is clear from your incessant arguing that you will never abandon your belief based on the complete lack of empirical evidence. That is because you don’t have what it takes to be a skeptic. Being a True Believer is very easy; being a skeptic is hard. You’ve taken the easy way out, but the downside is that your conclusions are flat wrong.
There is no measurable evidence for AGW. Nothing happening now is either unusual or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a greater degree. Once you accept those facts, the only logical conclusion is that AGW is a non-issue. It just does not matter. At all.
John Carter doth protest too much, methinks.
Carter, i am sure if I give the government more money they will solve the “problem” after all their track record is so great.
Isn’t it funny how the government gets larger and the middle class keeps getting poorer, the rich get richer and less likely to fall out of the rich class. All government and taxes do is control the masses so the rich don’t have to compete to stay on top.
Even if you’re right about climate change your solutions are ridiculous, lucky for us you are just as wrong on the science.
BTW you writing style is nearly as incomprensible as your logic. But you are good at annoying people so kudos on that.
Could you please explain the increase in UFO sightings with the rise in CO2 this is what really worries me. Maybe we should get the UN to start working on our planetary defense system. I bet you’ll be happy to pay more taxes for that, I know I am.
One important South Korean still needs to be turned around. His name is Ban Ki Moon.
Correction: the monetary system is misunderstood by 99% of the population, which allows those that do (banks) to game it to the 99%’s detriment and continue the decimation of the middle class. The US federal monetary system is 100% different–and opposite–from the monetary system that state/local govts, businesses, households and foreign banks/govts must function and operate under with respect to the US dollar.
Correction: central banks, properly administered and regulated, prevent panics and runs on banks. Why? Because they, the central banks, maintain the reserves that individual banks would otherwise have to maintain within their four walls, which a bank panic can deplete in a few days. Central banks (except the ECB, by design) are the ‘lenders of last resort’. 19th C America was nothing but one long panic/bank run after another, destroying the wealth and property of farmers, ranchers, and small businesses for a century. In the US, the regional Federal Reserve banks, owned by the banks in the region, maintain their reserves at the regional Federal Reserve bank. US banks only need to maintain ‘vault cash’ to service the walking-around money their customers require on a daily basis.
In the US, it is the duty and legal requirement of Congress to regulate the Federal Reserve.
The climate dogmatists denounce anyone who disagrees as “deniers” or worse, but Australia’s vote shows that the real obstacle to their dreams of controlling more of the world’s economy is democratic consent.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/australias-carbon-tax-message-1405616207
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
“But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”
Obama State of the Union speech
John Carter says:
I see absolutely outrageous and near constant calls for climate scientists to be jailed, for really just doing what they are supposed to do or mistakes therein, by a standard that would have most of the scientists supporting climate change denialism,by their level of mistakes (never seemingly recognized by the climate denialists who instead tend to support them)…
What planet are you from, Carter? Because here on Earth, the calls to jail scientists come from the alarmist crowd. Skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] have lost their jobs for simply expressing a different point of view. Scientists are routinely ostracized by the alarmist cult, which allows no dissent from the Party line. Apostates are viciously attacked by mindless numbskulls who label them ‘denialists’. But that’s here on Earth. Maybe on your planet it’s different.
Are you proud to be a part of that intolerant crowd? You certainly condone those actions: you label people who have a different scientific point of view as “denialists” — a disgusting pejorative that only reflects on you. Anyone using that stupid term is automatically self-labeled a jerk. They cannot think of a rational response, so they label their opponents with that mindless term. It reflects very badly on you, John. Stop it.
As a religious fanatic with no reasonable arguments, it is clear that we will never be able to convince you by using facts and logic. Your mind is made up, and closed tight. AGW is your religion. You will never give it up.
But the world is moving away from your scientific lilliteracy; witness Australia’s rejection of their stupid “carbon” tax. It has taken a long time, but the fools are finally being marginalized. It is a pleasure to watch.