Not the usual carbon cycle we’re used to, but a variation, for us down in Aus-shire at the forefront of “tackling climate change”.
Just one line from his latest report is enough:
“Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price.” (source)
So it isn’t the big polluters, is it Julia and Greg?
Lies, lies and more lies from our deceitful government. When will it ever end?
Australia’s plan to put a price on carbon [dioxide] and reduce emissions by 5% by 2020 will remove 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But last year alone, global emissions rose by 1.6 BILLION tonnes, which is TEN TIMES Australia’s total reduction over the next 8 years, or EIGHTY TIMES Australia’s planned reduction in a single year.
But, according to Labor’s logic, Australia’s carbon tax will “tackle climate change” and is “in the national interest.”
Julia, Greg, Penny: please explain.
Australian scientists Bob Carter, Stewart Franks, David Evans and William Kininmonth have produced a stinging rebuttal of the Climate Commission’s biased report, “The Critical Decade”, issued last week (see here).
The main accusation, which is difficult to ignore, is that the report simply rehashes the same old IPCC propaganda without any critical review. The IPCC isn’t a scientific body, but an organisation formed to find evidence for a preconceived conclusion, namely that AGW is real and dangerous. The Climate Commission, comprised of well-know alarmists, simply regurgitated the IPCC line, and, since there are no sceptics allowed on the Commission, failed to critically assess the validity of the IPCC’s pronouncements:
IPCC advice has been known to be politically motivated since publication of the 1995 2nd Assessment Report, in which the wording of the Summary for Policymakers was tampered with after the scientists had signed off on it. In 2001, the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report took as its leit motif a deeply flawed paper by Michael Mann and co-authors that falsely depicted Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 800-1000 years as having the shape of a horizontal hockey-stick in which the upturned blade represented alleged dramatic warming in the 20th century; this graphic was later exposed as false, and the result of statistical incompetence. Most recently, the 4th Assessment Report, published in 2007, has been subjected to a blizzard of criticism subsequent to the revelations of the Climategate affair.
The overall weaknesses of the IPCC have been well documented by Melbourne researcher John McLean, and they reflect that the IPCC represents a political advocacy organisation more than it does an impartial scientific advisory body. Relying on IPCC recommendations (as interpreted by Professor Steffen and the Department of Climate Change) as the sole source of advice for setting Australian climate policy is therefore clearly unwise. In no other major financial or medical context would such dramatic policy prescriptions be adopted without exposing the expert advice to contestability by seeking a thorough second opinion and audit.
The Critical Decade contains no substantial new science. Rather, the report is a reworked amalgam of many of the IPCC’s dated and alarmist assertions, and at the same time it ignores recent independent reports (for example, that of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change; NIPCC) and also ignores the numerous published papers that are consistent with the null hypothesis that contemporary climate change has largely natural causes. As for the IPCC reports on which it is based, The Critical Decade cites no empirical data that demonstrates that dangerous warming is occurring, let alone that human-related carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for the late 20th century phase of mild warming. Instead, the case for action to “prevent” dangerous warming put by the IPCC and the Climate Commission rests almost exclusively upon the validity of numerical computer models that are known to be incompatible with decades of detailed observations of the atmosphere.
In other words, the report, and the Commission, simply ignore dissenting views, and as a result, have produced a worthless report, on which no government should ever base its climate policy. Read it all here (PDF).
In other good news, Tony Windsor has said he won’t support a carbon price unless the rest of the world takes action too (see here). OK Tony, read the next item below…
Kyoto has been pronounced dead, as Russia, Canada, US and Japan all pull out of any further cuts under the treaty (see here).
Looks like you can’t support the carbon tax, Tony…
(h/t Jo Nova)
Cate Blanchett, who travels everywhere by first class air travel or private jet, and is worth millions of dollars, lectures ordinary Australians struggling to pay their energy bills on saying “Yes” to a tax that will make their lives even more difficult and achieve precisely nothing for the climate, whether in Australia or globally. Hmm, that will go down well!
The Australian Conservation Foundation, an extreme environmental pressure group (which still organises lectures in Australia to spread Al Gore’s climate falsehoods – see here), is launching an ad campaign to say Yes to a carbon tax. Here it is:
And as expected, there are all the usual misrepresentations. Let’s go through them shall we?
- “Yes to less carbon pollution”: False. We would be saying yes to less harmless trace gas carbon dioxide.
- “Yes to new money for clean energy that never runs out”: “New money” here means government subsidies for inefficient and expensive renewable energy sources. When they are competitive in the market, then people will use them. And as for never running out, wind and solar only work when the wind blows or the sun shines, so solar “runs out” every night, and wind “runs out” when it’s not windy enough.
- “Yes to help for people struggling with bills”: which are only going to get much, much higher under a pointless carbon tax. And anyway, if we compensate people, they won’t change their behaviour – duh.
- “Yes to jobs”: omitting to mention that every fake “green” job on average sacrifices between 2 and 4 “proper” jobs
- “Yes to better health for our kids”: reducing harmless CO2 will make no difference to the health of our “kids” [by which I think she means "children", or are we talking about goats here? - Ed]
- And Cate’s starring role: “Finally doing something about climate change”: False. A carbon tax in Australia will do NOTHING for climate change, whether you believe CO2 is to blame or not.
The ad is very good at confusing harmless carbon dioxide with “carbon pollution”, smoke, soot and dirt – as demonstrated by the usual belching smoke stack photo. Because the more confusion that can be sown in the minds of the public, the more chance of pulling the wool over their eyes, and getting all these misrepresentations and falsehoods past them without being noticed.
I am all for reducing proper pollution such as particulates and toxins, but reducing carbon dioxide has nothing to do with this. If the campaign was about reducing “real” pollution by taxing people more, and had nothing to do with “saving the planet”, it wouldn’t get off the ground.
But who cares about the facts? As this blog has said countless times, nothing Australia does on its own will make any difference to the climate, and that’s even if you believe that CO2 will cause dangerous global warming.
Cate can afford to pay a carbon tax and not even notice (and can always go and live elsewhere if things get too rough here in Australia), and will continue to travel all over the world by fossil-fuel powered means of transport. When she turns up at a film premier on a bike, then we may take some notice. But until then, forget it.
The Herald Sun editorial sums it up well:
FEW Australians would dispute Cate Blanchett’s acting prowess.
She is a genuine international movie star who won an Oscar for her role in The Aviator and has banked an estimated $50 million fortune off the back of her success.
Good on her.
But that doesn’t qualify her to lecture Australian families — she is the star of a pro-carbon tax TV advertising campaign starting tonight — on why such an impost is good for them. Particularly when Prime Minister Julia Gillard has failed to tell the nation exactly how big this new tax will be.
It’s reasonable to assume that cost-of-living pressures are not something that trouble Blanchett, but they are certainly keeping Aussie mums and dads awake at night.
Electricity prices will soar higher once the tax is imposed. And it is likely that many families deemed “wealthy” by Ms Gillard will miss out on compensation. Cate Blanchett should stick to what she does best — acting. (source)
A carbon tax will strangle Australia’s manufacturing industry, Tony Abbott has said this afternoon:
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has warned that Australia’s manufacturing sector would be slowly strangled by Labor’s planned carbon tax amid rising concern in business about the impact of the policy.
Mr Abbott made a direct appeal to manufacturing employers and workers today to take notice of the Coalition’s anti-carbon tax campaign at the same time as launching his latest personal attack against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
He told the Victorian Liberal Party’s State Council that Melbourne would suffer badly if Australia followed the Labor course.
“Over time, a go-it-alone carbon tax means the slow strangulation of manufacturing in Australia,” the Opposition Leader said.
“Let the message go out to our country from here in Melbourne — the manufacturing heart of our country — that we must be a country that continues to make things. We must be a country with a first world economy.
“But we can’t be a first world economy if our manufacturing industry has been killed by Labor’s carbon tax.”
Read the rest here.
Terry McCrann makes the very strong point that according to the Climate Commission, the science is settled and therefore the world will inevitably get warmer (because China and India will be increasing their emissions over the next decade). So, the argument goes, if we know that as a certainty, why are we flushing billions of dollars down the lavatory in a hopeless attempt to stop it, when we should be spending that money on adaptation? Don’t wait up for an answer from the warming zealots.
IF the science is as settled as climate commissioner Will Steffen asserts, then the Gillard government has only one rational policy option. It is the Lomborg solution.
It should immediately abandon all attempts to impose costly and inefficient wind and solar energy generation and, more broadly, abandon the 2020 target of cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent; with the redirection of all those freed resources to dealing with the perceived consequences of a hotter world.
Because it will get hotter; indeed, much hotter. That is to say, according to Steffen’s “settled science”. Because, simply put, global emissions in 2020 – at the end of Steffen’s “(absolutely) Critical Decade” – will be higher than they are today. Perhaps much higher.
The die will have been cast. For, according to Steffen and his settled science, that would then require the world to agree to cut global emissions by 9 per cent a year, every year from 2020, all the way to zero. That is, to total global decarbonisation in 30 years. And even that would only get us to a still 2 degrees hotter world. According to Steffen and his settled science.
You would have to rate the chances of doing that as zero. That a world that had allowed emissions to grow each year to 2020 would both agree to start cutting them immediately by 9 per cent a year, every year, and actually have a pathway to do that. Such an agreement is beyond even the most wishful of thinking.
As Danish statistician and “sceptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg has consistently and persistently argued, the best course (for the world) is to adapt to short-term temperature rises rather than engage in futile and costly attempts to stop them.
Read it here.