Let’s start out with some agreed facts.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – 0.0385%.
Earth's annual production of Carbon Dioxide is almost entirely by Nature, 97%. Human activity including industry and transport produces just 3%.
Australian Human activity contributes 1.5% of the 3% of total Human activity or a measly 0.045%
Let’s put this factual information into a perspective we can easily understand.
The MCG has a Stadium Capacity of approximately 100,000 people.
Out of 100,000 people, Human produced Carbon Dioxide would represent just 1 person.
(If the crowd increased by 1 more person (Carbon Dioxide) would it really matter?)
Out of 100,000 people, Australia’s contribution of Human produced Carbon Dioxide would be no one (ok 0.017 of a person which is – no one). So why are we bothering with a Carbon Dioxide Tax? A lot of economic pain for zero environmental gain.
Whilst no one denies that the world’s industrialisation has increased considerably the output of greenhouse gases, to ascribe the current phase of our ever changing climate to one single variable (Carbon Dioxide) or, more specifically, to a very small proportion of one variable (i.e. human produced carbon dioxide – 0.00116%) is not science, for it requires us to abandon all we know about planet Earth, the Sun, our Galaxy and the Cosmos.
We also know that Carbon Dioxide is a consequence of temperature - not a cause of temperature.
Warming drives Carbon Dioxide release from the ocean. Thus the 800 year lag time between warming and Carbon Dioxide rise.
Atmospheric water vapor (Dihydrogen Monoxide) is a far stronger "greenhouse gas" than Carbon Dioxide. And it too rises AFTER temperatures warm.
Fluctuations in solar energy raise temperatures which in turn causes increased Carbon Dioxide and water vapor.
Every single hour the earth receives more energy from the sun than the entire human population uses in one whole year. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet annually is twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
So you see the Sun, and not a harmless trace gas (Carbon Dioxide), drives climate change.
I’m also confident that an additional person in the MCG crowd of 100,000 people isn’t the tipping point toward Armageddon.
Andy Semple is Stockbroker, novelist and general antagonist. He is the Assistant Managing Editor here at Menzies House and his personal motto is "Speak without Fear. Question with Boldness." Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt
Some one recently described Andy Semple to me as a living Australian National Treasure. Love this post...I have to agree!
Posted by: David | June 10, 2011 at 02:34 PM
Can't imagine how this government and its cohorts can spread such lies about the "evil" carbon dioxide and "con" Australians with these lies. This tax will have an enormous effect on everyday living, costs of services, food and even flow to every other commodity, manufacturing goods, builders equipment and everything we purchase. Why can't people use their brains and see where this tax will lead Australia.
A number of the BIG countries, Russia, Japan, India, China, USA, Canada are not so stupid as to tax their citizens which will achieve NOTHING. And there is the possibility that the world will be cooling considerably (a "maunder" limit) in the not too distant future (a 'maunder" limit) with the sun going quiet as it is at the moment (NASA and thousands of other scientists, geophysicists, geologists etc. report. But these people are gagged and if they do talk are threatened.
As Vaclav Klaus said "What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom"? And we all know that it is the latter which is threatened. I believe he is coming to Australia in the near future. Just wish everyone could get a copy of his book and read the truth. There are many who have written books and articles with the truth but the left wing just do not want to know. This is not about environment, it is about domination and the demise of freedom.
Posted by: Georgina | June 10, 2011 at 02:46 PM
"a living Australian National Treasure"
Wow! That's a wrap!
But I'd be happy with being called "a good bloke"
Posted by: Andy | June 10, 2011 at 04:18 PM
Georgina,
It takes a person like Klaus who formerly grew up under communism to warn us that our very way of life is under threat under the disguise of so called Anthropogenic Global Warming .
Our liberty is very much under threat.
Don’t believe me, then why is the Gillard Government pursuing the net filter?
Why are they taking away the property rights of the tobacco companies (Yes I hate smoking but it is a legal product and the companies have legal rights to their product).
The Marxists use the “nudge” process. Just “nudge” the populace here, then there and over a period of time the transformation happens.
The threat to our Children and Grand Children isn’t AGW, it is the restructure of our democracy into an Eco-Fascist new world order. The number one enemy of the Greens and certain leftards in the ALP is LIBERTY. They despise the fact that you can have and individual thought. They want the ownership of the collective with them being the controlling Elites. We need to defend it otherwise once it is lost, we will live under the foot and gun of the totalitarian.
It has happened in the past, Nazi Germany, Communism Russia, China and Cuba.
Posted by: Andy | June 10, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Spot the idiot who has never done science. These myths have been regurgitated by loopy nutters with no scientific qualifications or knowledge so many times despite being debunked by the science community it's laughable. Go back to school little fella.
Yes CO2 only makes up 'just' 0.03% of the atmosphere but such a tiny amount actually makes a significant difference to the Earth's environment being a greenhouse gas. That's the whole point stupid! Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere aren't GHGs. Without GHGs the Earth's average temp. would be below zero degrees celcius. With the feedback mechanism due to GHGs the average temp. naturally rises to about +15 degrees. Any significant change to CO2 (a GHG) levels despite it's tiny quality will have a noticable effect!
Over the past 150 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 40% (280ppm to 390ppm and counting) - a level that hasn't existed in human history. So what has and is causing this increase? Well when you measure the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12 you find the ratio is less in plants who use CO2 to photosynthesize than the ratio in atmosphere at any one time. As fossil fuels are made of decayed plant material they also have this property. So when fossil fuels are burnt to extract their energy the waste product CO2 has a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere and over time we are seeing the ratio of C13/C12 falling and now to record levels. As this waste product of CO2 is being artifically added and effecting the 'natural' atmospheric levels of CO2 it is being called "carbon pollution". It's not that hard to understand folks!
ps. the myths/garbage about water vapour and making out there's something wrong with records showing a lag between temp. and CO2 in Antartic ice cores have been debunked years ago.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
Just because loopy nutters with no scientific education repeat bullsh*t over and over doesn't make it any less bullsh*t. The laws of physics and chemistry don't give a flying firetruck about left vs right politics. Thankfully most British Conservatives are smarter and not anti-science compared to many of their American or Australian counterparts who would fit in well in the dark days of the Inquisition.
Posted by: Not an anti-science right-winger | June 10, 2011 at 04:54 PM
Regardless of all your scientific bullsh*t, it's as bad as all the other non-scientific bovine waste because it does not recognize that man's piddling contribution - mainly due to disgraceful chemical processes, as distict from carbon (dioxide) least of all - hardly rates against natures full-blown, uncontrollable belching of far more noxious gases and particulates, viz, that which is blanketing Sth Am now, or Iceland earlier, or where ever it may be. And further, I have failed to find anywhere, if there has been any experiment to prove the conjecture that the increase in CO2 is due entirely to man and it is producing the so-called climate changes as this action (to experiment) is the ONLY scientific method of correlating conjecture with the facts. I suspect it has not been done because it can't be done, anywhere, anyhow, any whatever!
Posted by: AMCOZ | June 10, 2011 at 05:33 PM
"Spot the idiot who has never done science"
Spot the idiot who hasn't bothered to check that I have a Bachelor of Applied Science in Geoology.
Earth has had three main atmospheres. During Earth's current atmosphere, CO2 has been far higher in Earth's relatively recent geological past. Scientists estimate that 550 million years ago it was as much as 18%, 470 times higher than current; 250-320 million years ago it was 1% (26x); 100 million years ago it was 5% (130x). Larger birds and even pterosaurs flew in Earth's past because the atmosphere was then denser. The atmosphere and its constituents vary naturally.
'A Short History of Planet Earth', by international award-winning geologist Plimer (2001), page 128.
I see Jo Nova references Berner and Scotese claiming that 550 million years ago CO2 was between 0.4% - 0.8%, 20 times higher than currently.
Beck and Jaworowski separately point to 90,000 measurements during the last 180 years showing atmospheric CO2 levels up to 40% above current levels.
Spot the idiot who is too chicken to put their name to their post.
Posted by: Andy | June 10, 2011 at 05:33 PM
It’s sad when debate results in personal jibes and attacks.
I hope everyone remembers that science is a sceptical field and should always remain a sceptical field. People who speak against popular climate science are constantly berated and libelled for their views. I value any critical and informed opinion.
We need policies that do not seek to outcast other people’s ideas. We need policies which enable us to adapt to changes, not to try and re-fix damage which may have already been caused.
We appear to be an arrogant species, thinking that we can change the earth. That shows no respect for its immense power, its climate is extremely complex and we don’t understand it. To believe that cutting carbon emissions at the detriment to our economic and social livelihood will save us from damnation is extremely foolish. To call it a great moral challenge rubs dirt into the wounds of aboriginal communities and all those below a global poverty line.
It is the task for liberals to present real issues to the policy table and onto the agenda, not to squabble over whether in 100 years our toes will be damp when we go to the beach.
Posted by: Charles Everist | June 10, 2011 at 05:51 PM
Let'a start a new campaign - Australia a free, genuinely democratic Republic with Andy as the first President.
Posted by: Richard Joachim | June 10, 2011 at 06:03 PM
I agree with you Andy, you are a darn good bloke and, I must say, a darn good assistant editor.
BUT, how could you write such rubbish? particularly as you have an applied degree in geoology which means you know nothing about science and should know better than to write such codswallop.
Besides, the great sages or which there are quire a few say:
Sage 1. It's the great moral something or other of our times.
Sage 2. After deploying a knife in the wee small hours - screams NO IT"S NOT - then, sorry yes, I agree.
Sage 3. If we do not have a carbon tax we are all going to fry in our beds and it matters not the least that SEQ had the coldest day since 1916 yesterday, or that I am an economist. I know of what I speak.
Sage 4 & 5 & 6 (just how many green people are there loitering in Canberra) say, you all know we are quite mad, so your had better listen up. If you don't, you know we will inflict the worst possible scenario we can dream up on you. Then you'll be sorry because you know the PM will have to implement it.
Sage (sorry, lost count) New England screams I agree, I agree, I agree because I am feted by the PM and don't care a jot that my electorate is not pleased with me.
As for Jokeshot - the least said the better.
Now considereing the wisdom of these collected sages, how could you write such tripe?
Posted by: Elizabeth | June 10, 2011 at 06:11 PM
"Spot the idiot who hasn't bothered to check that I have an extremist world view on the role of the UN and unspecified 'lefties' who apparently wish to instill a one world government, single currency and eat my children, in the name of this so-called AGW, and that the 'science' debate is just a way of peddling these beliefs to others"
fixed!
Posted by: pk | June 10, 2011 at 07:58 PM
Spot the scientific illiterate that believes facts are established by consensus or decree.
Start with one simple piece of research:
*How much does the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere vary in a day or a year?
*How much does the concentration of diHydrogen Monoxide in the atmosphere vary in a day or a year?
Now consider the fact that molecule for molecule, H2O is far more influential than CO2 in terms of heat capacity and IR absorption.
Now go to a mirror and look at an idiot.
Posted by: Anton | June 10, 2011 at 08:48 PM
"Spot the idiot who is too chicken to put their name to their post.
Hmmmm ... well as stated in Menzies House's Comment policy:
happy for - Use a screen name/alias/pseudonym
won't tolerate - Personal attacks
Nice to see the Assistant Managing Editor setting such a high standard.
Posted by: SignedIn | June 10, 2011 at 09:34 PM
"It’s sad when debate results in personal jibes and attacks."
Sadly true.
I had hoped this ended with the departure of The Philosopher, but the simple mindedness of other endures."
It is also sadly true that some are exploiting the very nature of science to spread FUD. History shall judge them for their actions, but who suffers won't be us, but the generations who follow.
Posted by: SignedIn | June 10, 2011 at 09:38 PM
Andy, your a very good bloke.
Posted by: Dallas Beaufort | June 10, 2011 at 09:47 PM
Spot the local idiot who does not recognize facts produced via observation by Inigo Jones rip and promotes model desired outcomes?
Posted by: Dallas Beaufort | June 10, 2011 at 09:51 PM
tks Dallas.
Posted by: Andy | June 10, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Yes Elizabeth, I suppose you are right with respect to the Sages
Posted by: Andy | June 10, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Chris,
I don't start the fights, I finish them.
So how's your 750 word contribution coming along???
Posted by: Andy | June 10, 2011 at 11:46 PM
Why limit myself to 750 words? I contribute with every comment.
and ...
"I don't start the fights, I finish them."
No you don't. You childishly perpetuate them, violating the comments policy you are meant to uphold.
Posted by: SignedIn | June 10, 2011 at 11:50 PM
So us Humans had evolved 100 to 550 million years ago? If you go 100s of millions of years back in time then of course many aspects of Earth were very different and CO2 levels were vastly higher but it was not a climate nor environment that humans evolved or existed in. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere 800+ million years ago were only around 1% for example. That long ago is hardly relevant to the modern Earth's climate and us humans as far as observations and evidence of AGW.
---------
"Beck and Jaworowski separately point to 90,000 measurements during the last 180 years showing atmospheric CO2 levels up to 40% above current levels."
--------
Funny how all self-proclaimed "denialists" claim to be free thinkers yet all regurgitate the same claims and sources. What a coincidence! But I digress ...
In any case for others who don't know Beck and Jaworowski disputed pre-Mauna Loa CO2 records based on a theory of water contaminating ice core measurements. However, Beck in 2007 admitted a number of his measurements were close to towns (hence too close to CO2 sources/sinks in order to measure the background CO2 concentration) and his CO2 plots had a unusual large variation over a few months (around 200ppm). Some data points need up to a 70 ppm correction to take into account nearby towns and were also at odds to the smoothness of the Mauna Loa and modern instrumental records. The orthodox method however from ice core measurements that has a CO2 profile dating from 600-800k years until now is verified against recent (post-1950) measurements made by modern instruments and is consistent with various less accurate methods such as using the size of stomatal pores on tree leaves, boron isotope measurements in plankton buried under the ocean, carbon isotope ratios in algae buried in the ocean floors, etc ... In the period 600-800k years ago until the 20th century CO2 had varied naturally between 170ppm to 300ppm. It has only been within the past 100 years or so that CO2 levels have exceeded the maximum of this range (Yes Andy you have to go back millions of years to find higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere). From the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12 we are seeing this current rise in CO2 as a result of waste CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
-------------------------
Spot the idiot who is too chicken to put their name to their post.
-------------------------
Spot the once undergrad who hasn't got the guts to submit his borrowed and regurgitated denialist rent-a-crowd "theories" to a reputable climate science journal to be critiqued and instead just posts them on his own unfetted blog as "fact". Looks like someone thinks he knows more than the majority of real professional scientists who earnt their doctorate and have worked for years on independent research in their field of expertise, read the latest research papers, and attend conferences worldwide to view and discuss the latest research.
Posted by: Not an anti-science right-winger | June 11, 2011 at 03:21 AM
"I hope everyone remembers that science is a sceptical field and should always remain a sceptical field. People who speak against popular climate science are constantly berated and libelled for their views. I value any critical and informed opinion."
--------------------------------
It goes both ways. Scientists who support AGW are mocked as "Alarmists", "lefties", "intelligentsia", "latte-sipping greenies" etc plotting a "one-world government" whatever that is. FFS how about Tim Blair in the Daily Telegraph the other day jumping down the throat of a PhD science student who simply offered to write a "climate science for dummies" piece for the paper. Anyone with a brain knows of the "... for dummies" books which are introductory books for a series of topics yet Tim Blair went on a rant and rave about how this was "proof" scientists believe the average folk are "dummies" and now conspiring to wanting newspaper space to force their 'evil' views upon the average joe. Seriously how does crap like this now pass as journalism. Pardon me but I would've thought presenting more scientific info in a readable form would enhance and lift the tone of the debate for both those for and against AGW rather than the typical poles-apart armageddon vs hoax/conspiracy theory extremist views that dominates left vs right political debates on AGW.
It's not most scientists fault that the issue has become this left vs right inane tribal battle once it is discussed in political and media circles. That's just another example of the impotence and lack of leadership and vision in modern-day politics where you oppose 100% whatever your political opponents support without question.
Even the supposedly free media is now saturated with career opinion writers from both the left and right pushing their own biased agenda and spin for their "side". What happened to journos presenting material as known and letting the reader decide. Me being too idealistic I know. Oh well!
Btw yes Science is a sceptical field but foremost it is field with the aim to fully understand what makes the world and universe tick and how. It is a never-ending quest for increased knowledge and to advance it. To not only question but to find the answer/solution to each question whether we or others like what the answer is or not.
Posted by: Not an anti-science right-winger | June 11, 2011 at 05:44 AM
The Dinosaurs evolved and roamed 100-550 million years ago. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t their excrement and exhalation that caused much higher Carbon Dioxide levels.
Funny how all self-proclaimed "denialists" claim to be free thinkers yet all regurgitate the same claims and sources.
So do you AGW alarmists call it “Carbon Pollution?” Carbon Dioxide isn’t a pollutant – its food for plants. “Carbon Pollution” conjurers up dirty soot and smoke, yet we know Carbon Dioxide is a tasteless, odourless, invisible gas so why call it “Carbon Pollution?” is it because alarmists like you are losing the public PA battle and more and more people are seeing through the bullshit of AGW?
You alarmist use words like “Catastrophic Climate Change” and spread fear where there is none.
Sure man emits Carbon Dioxide via industrialisation – no one argues this but to argue that man’s emissions are somehow the tipping point to doomsday is BS. So please stop the fear mongering.
Spot the once undergrad who hasn't got the guts to submit his borrowed and regurgitated denialist rent-a-crowd "theories" to a reputable climate science journal to be critiqued and instead just posts them on his own unfetted blog as "fact". Looks like someone thinks he knows more than the majority of real professional scientists who earnt their doctorate and have worked for years on independent research in their field of expertise, read the latest research papers, and attend conferences worldwide to view and discuss the latest research.
There is one word to describe your failure here – CLIMATEGATE.
Try Pal reviewed “science” by bent scientists on Government payrolls. Falsification of data on massive scale.
And you’re still too chicken to put your real name to your posts. My position on so called AGW is well known on MH and yet not one AGW alarmist has been able to provide any evidence to prove my statement that the SUN, not some harmless trace gas, drives climate change is wrong.
From the tone of your posts you aren’t interested in nor respect anyone having a sceptical view or an opposing opinion – you’re no scientist but just another alarmist who spews forth condescending nonsense.
So prove me wrong Pal – Prove that it is not the SUN, but some harmless trace gas, that drives climate change.
There is your challenge. Prove the Sun is irrelevant. I’ll save you the embarrassment – you can’t because will all know what really drives the planet’s climate.
Posted by: Andy | June 11, 2011 at 12:00 PM
“In questions of science the authority of thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” - Galileo
Posted by: Andy | June 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM
"Try Pal my extremist beliefs that all the major peak science bodies of the world and organisations such as the UN are in cahoots to ruin my freedom and way of life(tm), that therefore I will always have to reject anything officially published, stated or advised by these bodies. No matter how much more qualified these people are or the hundreds of years of combined study and and thousands of minds contained therein.
fixed again!
Yo And- for the record- i don't presume to know climate science and I generally choose to take the take the egg-heads up on their recommendations considering innovation, over stagnation, is mankind's best way forward, but you know, that's just me.
I expect you enjoy going to Symphony Orchestra recitals and telling them what they're doing is wrong because you can play chopsticks on the piano, especially when you don't like the song they're playing.
Posted by: pk | June 11, 2011 at 12:16 PM
good- o Andy- you stay humble, but don't ever deny the reason behind your reasoning has nothing to do with science and everything to do with deluded global conspiracy theories.
Posted by: pk | June 11, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Funny how massive wealth redistribution happens to be part of the “solution” of stopping dangerous AGW.
Maybe if you ran you own business you might know how I and about 2 million other Australian’s felt.
Prove to me PK that it is not the SUN, but some harmless trace gas, that drives climate change.
Everything stated on this post by me is FACT.
The case to prove an increase from the human induced harmless TRACE gas is the tipping point isn’t 100% proven.
Many eminent scientists have said so.
The left, as always, just doesn’t want to have a discussion or a debate because in the left’s opinion, it’s their way or the highway.
Just look at the Boat people issue – complete and utter shambles – and Gillard now wants a Malaysian solution which people like QC Burnside say worse than Howard’s Nauru solution.
The one thing the Left are experts at – stuffing things up – the list is as long as your arm when you look at the Rudd/Gillard Government.
Latest example they have stuffed up – the live export of animal trade with Indonesia. A complete blank ban is the wrong call.
It is a typical over-reaction in which winning the short term media cycle has once more trumped sensible policy.
It is bad animal welfare policy, shocking foreign policy, disastrous for the Australian cattle industry, cruel to poor Indonesians and terrible for the Australian economy.
Posted by: Andy | June 11, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Prove to me PK that it is not the SUN, but some harmless trace gas, that drives climate change.
Everything stated on this post by me is FACT.
You just dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole all the time don't you Andy. Anyone with a scientific foundation knows that the above statement is absurd, the onus of proof is on you to prove your argument - and not just with bits and pieces you have stolen from Andrew Bolt, Jo Nova and Alan Jones.
Half of this article is just cut and pasted from other articles. Stick with your derivatives Andy because you know nothing about science.
As for the live cattle trade ban to Indonesia:
Janet Thompson, my heart bleeds for you
Posted by: terra | June 11, 2011 at 02:12 PM
"Funny how massive wealth redistribution happens to be part of the “solution” of stopping dangerous AGW."
Nailed your 'argument' and in turn your philosophy and proves that this is why you don't want to trust peak science bodies - you still believe that tens of thousands of scientists have devoted their entire lives, not to their field of study, but to one day, rise up and intill a program of wealth distribution, and global dominance from a central body (I guess you're thinking the UN).
Well, of course there's nothing creepily irrational about that at all!
How's your stockpiling of canned food and weapons going in your bunker, for when Australia finally puts an emphasis into general efficiency measures and more funding into renewable energy than coal?
Posted by: pk | June 11, 2011 at 03:23 PM
Andy asked pk to prove that it was not the sun but some harmless trace gas that drives climate change. Terra, the onus of proof is not on Andy, it is on pk and yourself. Andy asked PK and he (and you) SHOULD ANSWER. But of course lefties often try to twist and turn the tables because they have no answer.
Remember that there was more of the harmless trace gas CD emitted in pre-industrial times. You would know this if you read history about how ancient civilizations adapted to a changing climate.
Andy is quite right when he says this tax is nothing but an attempt to spread the wealth. But this will not happen because there are those very wealthy who would not care less about increases in cost of living. and this includes the bureaucrats in world organisations. They would survive but it is the middle class who would be the ones hit hard. And no one need think that compensation will assist especially when the tonnage price increases.
Vaclav Klaus' book is entitled "Blue Planet in Green Shackles- What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom" It is the latter in which you will be deprived if Australia goes down this path. Freedom of speech, freedom of choice.
Posted by: Georgina | June 11, 2011 at 03:27 PM
The whole pro-AGW alarmists - from the science to the politics to the policy - is riddled with falsehoods, false assumptions, dodgy statistics, exaggeration and utterly useless gestures.
Posted by: Andy | June 11, 2011 at 03:45 PM
The onus of proof is for the alarmist to prove like night turns to day that man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions ARE the tipping point in altering and irreversibly “damaging” the environment.
So the science to the politics to the policy - is riddled with falsehoods, false assumptions, dodgy statistics, exaggeration and utterly useless gestures.
Not 4,000 scientists, just five reviewers of unknown qualifications. The government admits its climate policy is based on reports by the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC. The UN IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd repeatedly stated that 4,000 scientists claim global warming was caused by human production of carbon dioxide, CO2. Yet IPCC figures themselves reveal only five (5) UN IPCC reviewers endorsed the claim - and there's doubt they were even scientists. That's a blatant falsity from the top of the UN's climate body spread by the very top of the Australian government.
5,587 references not peer-reviewed. The UN IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri repeatedly publicly claims that UN IPCC reports rely on 100% peer-reviewed science yet the 2007 report cited and relied on 5,587 references not peer-reviewed, including hikers' anecdotes, newspaper stories and political activists' campaign material. That's another blatant falsity from the top of the UN's climate body.
Out of 100,000 people sitting in the MCG stadium, Human produced Carbon Dioxide would represent just 1 person.
Posted by: Andy | June 11, 2011 at 03:52 PM
"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – 0.0385%.
I wonder if this article caught your attention this week?
"It was highlighted for me this week by a letter that argued, as Jones does, that anything so small as 0.04 per cent - the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere - couldn't possibly matter. "Please let me know," concluded my correspondent, "how anyone could believe that CO2 is responsible for climate change?"
It's like arguing that a virus is too small to give you AIDS. Or that a lethal dose of heroin, at about 0.0007 per cent of your body weight, couldn't possibly kill.
Never mind that applying the same logic to asylum seekers would make you wonder what all the fuss was about (our total asylum applications - 8150 last year, including dependants - being a mere 0.04 per cent of the population.)"
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cane-toads-of-the-air-thrive-on-stupidity-20110608-1fsuj.html#ixzz1P1vrq33S
Posted by: SignedIn | June 11, 2011 at 09:15 PM
And yet after all the arguments for the science, those arguing for a carbon dioxide tax admit the science proves it will have no meaningful effect on future global temperatures.
It will simply make us feel good about about ourselves, so we can tell other nations that they should do it because we've done it.
Doesn't really seem like a lot of benefit for putting up the cost of living for an Australian family to the order of $1000 per year, then increasing it every year thereafter.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Exactly, Michael.
All pain with no environmental gain.
Posted by: Andy | June 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Tax breaks kids, you forgot the tax breaks.
BTW I don't have to prove anything to you Andy. I am not a scientist and would never be so arrogant to presume to know their field of study. What I trust is the expert recommendations. In the same way I trust an oncologist to recommend the best cancer treatment (do you accuse these professionals of falsehoods and wrong statistics too?).
Because we both know, even if they are wrong, everything we do to curb AGW (real or imagined) has positive roll on effects for mankind and innovation anyway - properly utilising renewable non polluting energies, reasonable use of resources, proper building design. . etc..
Fringe groups who fight change to the status quo (and fear it) because of political theories, and somehow equate themselves with Galileo because they're fighting 'the Man' (when really they come across more like David Icke), carry no weight in my outlook on this subject.
Posted by: pk | June 12, 2011 at 01:01 PM
"Without GHGs the Earth's (sic) average temp. would be below zero degrees celcius (sic)."
But your Greenhouse analogy only applies: if you were referring to the Earth's surface and not the entire planet; and if the Earth had no atmosphere at all; and if the Earth had no ocean; and if the Earth's surface behaved as a ideal Lambert radiator.
But we live on a real world, don't we?
Posted by: Cliff Maurer | June 12, 2011 at 01:34 PM
Fringe groups.....................carry no weight in my outlook on this subject.
Exactly. The polls suggest this issue is dominated by an enviro fringe group and the government is pandering to this fringe group to maintain a workable situation with the Greens. There's only one way to solve this: call an election now and let's solve this through proper democratic process like a civilised democratic nation should.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 12, 2011 at 01:36 PM
sure thing. Bring it.
I will sit back and laugh when we
a) Vote for it and it passes.
or
b) vote against it and bury it for all of 10 minutes, only to deal with this issue arising again and again and again while the rest of the world takes up carbon pricing and innovation and leaps ahead of us.
It sure aint going away with this little political drama we are witnessing this year, that's for sure.
Posted by: pk | June 12, 2011 at 02:38 PM
sure thing. Bring it
No worries, PK, let's do the right thing and get it back to the people to decide.
There you have it from both sides. No mandate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jncV6gRtIvw
means no carbon dioxide tax without the consent of the people.
This is a democracy. A carbon dioxide tax will be one the biggest taxes imposed on the Australian people ever. That means the people must vote on it.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 12, 2011 at 03:25 PM
Michael, you assume PK believes in democracy.
PK the closet totalitarian thinks she knows best.
Posted by: Andy | June 12, 2011 at 05:40 PM
I'll take PK at her word. I'm sure she acknowledges that regardless of her personal opinion regarding AGW, we shouldn't have any new tax imposed on the Australian people without a mandate. And a mandate means a politician adopts a platform before an election, gets elected on that platform, and then implements it.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 12, 2011 at 07:25 PM
No point in trying to get intelligent debate from pk, who has no thoughts of its own but just rebroadcasts an official position.
In pk's own words:What I trust is the expert recommendations
No point in looking for intelligence in pk Michael
Posted by: Anton | June 12, 2011 at 07:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Posted by: skeptic | June 12, 2011 at 09:58 PM
Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large
From: The Australian
June 11, 2011
"Gillard Labor's carbon pricing policy is superior to that of the Coalition"
"The persuasive message documented across nations is that carbon pricing is the best policy response. This validates Labor against Tony Abbott's "direct action" alternative ..... It is neither new or revelatory, since the former Howard government embraced carbon pricing in 2007 on the type of advice offered in this report."
"...time is running out for Abbott's policy credibility. Over the long run his response is untenable and will require revision."
"This report is an assault on the inefficiency and inequity of schemes that directly subsidise renewables."
"This report shows both the anti-carbon pricing Coalition and pro-renewable energy subsidising Greens have got the core policy response wrong."
"The lesson for Australia, given further action will be taken, is to ensure it delivers maximum abatement at minimum cost."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/report-a-mixed-blessing-for-labor/story-e6frgd0x-1226073260714
Posted by: SignedIn | June 12, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Paul Kelly is a known Warmist. Nothing new in his column piece.
Man produced CO2 is equal to one person sitting in the 100,000 seat MCG.
What's the big deal.
Climate change is a natural process mainly driven by the SUN.
Everything else is Fringe science...
Posted by: Andy | June 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Asylum Seeker application in Australia in 2010 equal less than 0.04% of the Australian population. Hmmm
Sometimes its the small numbers that matter to different people.
Posted by: SignedIn | June 13, 2011 at 12:38 AM
Signedin, Forget it.
Your wasting your time with Andy. He's still fighting the cold war and looks at the who AGW thing through this distorted prism.
Try explaining the difference between blue and orange to a person who is color blind and sees only shades of grey. It's the same thing, Andy does not have the right equipment. The fact that he equates concentration with harm is evidence itself that his world view really prevents him from contributing anything of real value.
If your just winding him up a bit and it's amusing you, by all means keep going. If you want to learn a bit more about how the Andy's of the world tick try this link:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/
Alternatively read some of Naomi Oreskes's stuff.
Anyway, come July 2012 the Andy's will just melt further into obscurity and look as ridiculous as Tobacco executives and flared pants.
Posted by: Skeptic | June 13, 2011 at 08:37 AM
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#dont
Posted by: Skeptic | June 13, 2011 at 08:50 AM
OK buddy, then nominate a number that you feel is acceptable. 10,000 (oops, already gone past that)...20,000 then ?...50,000 ? 100,000? ...1 million ? come on, how many of the 12 million refugees do we take?
Perhaps you would rather just throw away our border integrity and open it up for anyone?. Have you learnt nothing from the lessons of Europe and Mexico / US ?
Until you and your ilk are willing to put up a credible alternative immigration policy that you are prepared to commit & adhere to you are without any credibility on this issue what so ever.
Posted by: Grantley | June 13, 2011 at 09:30 AM
OK buddy, then nominate a C02 concentration that you feel is acceptable. 300ppm (oops, already gone past that)...400ppm then?...800ppm? maybe 1000ppm?...? come on, what percentage of the atmosphere do we decide is the cut off point?
Perhaps you would rather just throw away scientific consensus and open it up for anyone to decide?
Until you and your ilk are willing to put up a credible alternative carbon pollution policy that you are prepared to commit & adhere to you are without any credibility on this issue what so ever.
Posted by: Duncan | June 13, 2011 at 09:46 AM
Hey Skeptic, what's your prediction for the decrease of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and the drop in average global temperatures from the imposition of the carbon dioxide tax over the next 50, 100 and 150 years?
Perhaps then you or one of the economist types could then calculate the cost of the carbon dioxide tax to the Australian people, perhaps in something like multiples of current annual GDP per 0.1˚C decrease?
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 13, 2011 at 09:47 AM
Ok buddy, why don't you nominate an acceptable cost per 0.1˚C per century after which we consider a carbon dioxide program so expensive it's just not workable?
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 13, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Seriously Chris - your side of the argument makes some truly incredible assertions in defence of your position, but to compare CO2 to a virus - WTF? Viruses, like illegal immigrants, are capable of self replicating and thereby over-running the host organism. CO2 on the other hand is a relatively inert molecule. I'm unsure of the latest IPCC howlers in regard to their 'science', but if you can get lifeless compounds to start reproducing - I have a small piece of gold bullion that I'd really like you to demonstrate on.......
Posted by: Mat | June 13, 2011 at 09:59 AM
Given that I have said on many occasions that I accept that the Climate is Changeing and has been changeing since the beginning of time but I disagree with the emphasis placed on mans contribution and believe that it has more to do with the natural causes I can not give you an answer to your question Duncan....but then I note that neither can anyone else, and I note that you also do not nominate a figure.
Even the most ardent of the AGW theorists, Flannery for example, notes that it may take 100's (or was it 1,000's) of years for effects to be noticed...I am not going to support a Carbon Tax that is going to invade all aspects of our lives to appease a theory when other methods are available to us through the existing taxation system to achieve exactly the same outcomes.
So how many refugees do you think we should take?
Posted by: Grantley | June 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Human produced Carbon Dioxide would represent just 1 person out of 100,000 people sitting in the MCG.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Posted by: Andy | June 13, 2011 at 11:22 AM
"Carbon Dioxide isn’t a pollutant – its food for plants. “Carbon Pollution” conjurers up dirty soot and smoke, yet we know Carbon Dioxide is a tasteless, odourless, invisible gas so why call it “Carbon Pollution?”"
Oh dear - how simplistic.
How would describe noise pollution? Noise is a natural element, not soot, no smoke, so why call "Noise Pollution?"
Posted by: SignedIn | June 13, 2011 at 12:56 PM
apologies "How would you ..."
Posted by: SignedIn | June 13, 2011 at 12:56 PM
"Hey Skeptic, what's your prediction for the decrease of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations"
Aaaa, No thanks Mr Sutcliffe (nice try though). I'm not qualified to make those sorts of predictions. I'll leave to to he experts. What will you do?
BTW, what's your prediction for the warm inner glow I will be feeling when you start paying a carbon price next year : ) ?
Posted by: Skeptic | June 13, 2011 at 01:04 PM
Chris, Skeptic, Pia, PK, Terra & Spot the idiot a.k.a NAASRW.
Some more facts about "Evil" Carbon Dioxide.
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/06/say-hello-to-my-little-friend-evil-carbon-dioxide-part-2.html
Posted by: Andy | June 13, 2011 at 01:41 PM
Give it a rest people. The Warmists are hard left totalitarians bent on absolute power and control. They are off the Fascist left. The denial-ists are right wing, 'get out of my face individualists.
We are in the midst of a 100 + year Culture War. The two sides will NEVER agree and all of this personal sniping is just a waste of electrons. Now both sides are equipped with the power to reach millions via the web. The sniping will no doubt go on until the Cold- Culture War eventually gets hot. At that point one side will prevail and exterminate the other side, as happens when cultures clash.
Alas this planet is obviously not big enough for both sides of this Culture War to exist side by side. Forget the overblown rhetoric and sharpen your knives for the main event. Meanwhile whoever wins let me know as I am off fishing.
Posted by: Peter Angle | June 13, 2011 at 02:16 PM
"The Warmists are hard left totalitarians bent on absolute power and control."
Really? The hard core socialists I know fear that an emissions trading scheme is just another way for the rich to get richer. They see it as another market that will see the worker be exploited.
Posted by: SignedIn | June 13, 2011 at 02:47 PM
Really? The hard core socialists I know fear that an emissions trading scheme is just another way for the rich to get richer. They see it as another market that will see the worker be exploited.
The hard core socialists are right on this one. An ETS, as opposed to a carbon tax, is certainly a way in which the political class, the bureaucrats and those that make their living creating an illusion of value i.e. 'sub-prime type' financiers and bankers, will profit at the expense of those who create real value such as the workers. Consider it sort of like the USSR: it was all being done in the name of the worker but really the worker who toiled in the fields was totally exploited by the political class and the bureaucracy.
An ETS is the epitome of green socialism. It will need a mass government bureaucracy to administer and police the carbon accounting regime. This is what the Greens call 'green jobs' or the 'low carbon economy'. All those people shuffling paper producing nothing particularly useful on good government salaries would make the latte leftists wet themselves in joy. But I also suspect it would shit the old-school hardcore Marxist BLF-style unionists to tears. No surprises there.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Aaaa, No thanks Mr Sutcliffe (nice try though). I'm not qualified to make those sorts of predictions.
It's a bit two-faced that you demand Grantley specify an exact upper limit for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in hundreds of ppm, but then when I ask you to specify an upper cost limit for the carbon dioxide abatement program you decline with "I'm not qualified to make those sorts of predictions". But I suppose it's also pretty much the kind of self-contradicting double standards the public have come to expect from your side of the climate change fence.
I'll leave to to he experts. What will you do?
One thing I certainly won't do is say to the government 'you just tax me whatever you say you need to and I'll adjust my standard of living downwards and just pay it'. Because I think anyone who says that to government is an idiot and will get completely screwed over by a government in debt like this one.
If I was being treated for an illness by an expert doctor I would demand that doctor gives me all the details of his diagnosis (and I would seek alternative opinions if I thought they were wrong or incomplete), all of my treatment options and the associated costs and benefits. And then I would make my decision as to the best course of action. And and that's with a doctor who I've selected specifically because I trust them and value their professional opinion.
I do not trust this government, I didn't select them and I don't think they're particularly competent. This is a democracy. It is the unquestionable duty of the government to present the options to the people and seek a mandate. So I won't be leaving it to them to make the decision for me, I'll be expecting to act as a citizen in a democratic nation and do my own thinking, obviously unlike yourself. You're the type of person Churchill was thinking of when he said "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter".
BTW, what's your prediction for the warm inner glow I will be feeling when you start paying a carbon price next year : )
My prediction is that your glow is going to dim somewhat when this tax results in Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minister.
BTW, that's when my glow will kick in and it will probably peak around the time this tax is repealed. Feel free to come over when your glow starts to feel a little cold. I'll be radiating so much warmth I might need a special global warming program of my own! :)
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Practical democracy, I'm all in
Posted by: Anton | June 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM
"It's a bit two-faced that you demand Grantley specify an exact upper limit for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations"
????? Uuuuuhhh, I'm sorry to point out something so obvious and hate to stop you when your on a (428 word (WTF)) roll, but that was Duncan. Not me : )
“To those of you who received honours, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the C students, I say you, too, can be president of the United States.” George W Bush
There you go, Mike. You can still be president : )
Posted by: Sceptic | June 14, 2011 at 01:12 AM
Yeah, sorry my bad. I'll throw the original question back to you:
Hey Skeptic, what's your prediction for the decrease of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and the drop in average global temperatures from the imposition of the carbon dioxide tax over the next 50, 100 and 150 years?
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 14, 2011 at 01:27 AM
I see no response to how carbon dioxide can be a pollutant from the ignorants!
Posted by: SignedIn | June 14, 2011 at 02:10 AM
No one responded because your example is retarded. Noise pollution is a projection of energy in a pressure wave. It's like people who use Intellectual Property concepts to justify their position on property rights. It's not that you can't see what they're saying, it's just that starting from a such a confused premise makes them look like retards, so no one engages.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | June 14, 2011 at 02:26 AM
"Hey Skeptic, what's your prediction for the decrease of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and the drop in average global temperatures from the imposition of the carbon dioxide tax over the next 50, 100 and 150 years?"
I don't know enough about it, suggest you refer that question to an expert. If the tipping point theory has any merit, it may already be too late. We have really squandered the past 30 years with action on AGW. I guess we can only try and keep our fingers crossed : (
Posted by: Skeptic | June 14, 2011 at 01:23 PM