Bob Carter lashes Labor

Climate sense

A joy to read. Professor Bob Carter (who, let’s face it, is a proper scientist) teaches the warmist scaremongers Garnaut, Flannery, Combet and Gillard a lesson in basic science:

Do you understand the meaning of the phrases “empirical science” and “hypothesis testing”? [I can answer that one: “no” – Ed]

Do you understand that the correct null hypothesis is that gentle warmings, such as that which occurred between 1979 and 1998, and equivalent coolings, are to be viewed as due to natural causes unless and until evidence indicates otherwise. [Ditto, “no” – Ed] Gentlemen, where is that evidence, and why is it not presented in the voluminous reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that you and the government so often refer to?

Despite this lack of evidence for dangerous, or potentially dangerous, warming, and despite the lack of efficacy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions as a means of preventing the trivial warming that is likely to occur (cutting all of Australia’s emissions would theoretically prevent, perhaps, around one-thousandth of a degree of warming), the political course in Canberra is now set on carbon tax autopilot, and the plane is flying squarely into the eye of a storm that is labelled “let’s spin a regressive new tax as a virtuous environmental measure”.

For instance, the Prime Minister says:

I also want to be very clear with Australians about what pricing carbon does. It has price impacts. It’s meant to. That’s the whole point.

No, Prime Minister, that is not the point at all. The point is supposed to be attaining a meaningful reduction in future warming, which a carbon dioxide taxation policy will not achieve – even were it to successfully close down the entire industrial economy of Australia

Climate Minister Mr Combet believes that reducing “carbon pollution” to “drive investment in clean energy …. is fundamentally what a carbon price is about”.

No, Greg, the matter has nothing to do with either carbon or pollution, for the alleged dangerous warming is supposed to be produced by the atmospheric trace gas carbon dioxide. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of logic, language and science, given its pivotal role in the photosynthetic processes that underpin most of our planetary ecosystems. In essence, carbon dioxide is the very staff of life, and increasing it in the atmosphere helps most plants to grow better and to use water more efficiently.

Never has an important national policy issue been so surrounded with public dishonesty and deliberate ambiguity of language as is the issue of dangerous, human-caused global warming.

Choreographed over the years by green lobby groups, politicians and commentators alike now participate like puppets-on-strings in an entirely faux public gigue involving words or phrases like “carbon” (when they mean carbon dioxide), “pollution” (when they are referring to an environmentally beneficial trace gas), “settled science” (when the science is hotly contested, and the onus of proof of danger still rests, unattained, with the climate alarmists of a discredited IPCC), “climate change” (when they mean dangerous global warming), “energy efficiency” (in the same breath that they rule out the environmentally friendly baseload energy source represented by nuclear power) and “international good citizen” (at a time when international action on climate policy has never been less certain).

It is therefore entirely unsurprising that there has been a swing in public opinion against alarmism on global warming, though nervous Labor politicians are doubtless already sucking in deep breaths of surprise at the apparent strength of the swing. One recent online poll, in The Age of all places, received an 89% NO answer to the question “Would you support a climate tax?”; and another, in the Herald-Sun and with more than 30,000 respondents, received an 85% NO to the question “Do you support a price on carbon (sic)?”.

Wonderful stuff. Read it all.


  1. “Wonderful stuff”

    Indeed. Very succinct and damning for alarmists.

  2. Bob, I just love your work. That is all. 🙂

  3. I wonder if these are the same “green jobs” that Ju-liar Gillard keeps telling us about?

    “Britain is moving faster than any other European country to contain a surge in solar power and prevent the boom-and-bust seen in Spain and predicted for the Czech Republic. The risk is scaring off the investors who would create the “green jobs” Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking to revive the economy.”

  4. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    If the Gillard government were forced to present its scientific evidence that justifies its plan for a carbon tax, it would not be able to do so.

    The Gillard government relies on the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4) for its case. But has the IPCC presented any empirical evidence whatsoever that proves CO2 emissions from human activities is causing catastrophic global warming? No.

    AR4 is just a fancy report that has been prepared (supposedly only based only on peer reviewed studies, according to IPCC Chairman, Dr Pachauri) expressly to promote anthropogenic global warming but fails to provide the evidence. Even its ‘science’ has been discredited… 30% of the 18,500+ citations to peer reviewed scientific literature was found by an independent examination to be, in fact, anything but peer reviewed… e.g. biased articles by campaigning bodies like WWF and Greenpeace… to create alarmism.

    The fact is there is no empirical evidence that proves CO2 drives temperature, but there is empirical evidence based on ice core sample tests that shows it is in fact temperature that influences the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  5. The Loaded Dog says:

    Choreographed over the years by green lobby groups, politicians and commentators alike now participate like puppets-on-strings in an entirely faux public gigue involving words or phrases like “carbon”….etc etc

    Very well said Professor.

    How fed up I am of the “ambiguity” of language, the half truths and downright lies used by the Alarmist spruikers..

  6. froggy uk says:

    I just thought id put a link up as to what happens when you get a “yogurt knitter” in charge of energy like we have in the UK, perhaps it should be forwarded to Gillard to read (if she can).

  7. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of logic, language and science, given its pivotal role in the photosynthetic processes that underpin most of our planetary ecosystems.

    Here are two examples of “an abuse of logic, language and science” in action.

  8. If manmade CO2 emissions are a threat to humanity, and governments around the world tell us it is, why is it that the World has yet to see a well-funded R&D effort to find a new, 24/7 energy source that can replace carbon fuels?

    Why is it that we have only seen economic issues raised under the banner of global warming? Government seems uninterested in finding a way to permanently replace carbon fuels, even as “deadly” as they’re claimed to be. We see taxpayer-subsidized wind, solar, and biofuel projects… none of which can replace carbon fuels, and ALL of which must be backed-up by carbon fuels. We see government pushing carbon taxation schemes by various names, as if tax revenues will find a new energy source to replace carbon fuels. We see a few large corporations (hiring a handful of new workers), building windmills, solar arrays, etc, and making huge profits from the subsidies.

    If governments aren’t looking for this new replacement energy source, how can the people actually believe that manmade global warming is real?

  9. I started researching the so-called climate change [ 6mnths ago] & wanted both sides of the story .. the Alarmists all talk in rhetoric , never with scientific evidence While the rationalist’s always argue with evidence…… NOW I feel totally pissed off How can you call a Rationalist a Skeptic ?? PLEASE will so one send me EVIDENCE & EFFICACY … STOP Ju-Lar Gallar …. She is a Liar and a Disgrace to women that should be in power…………. And to all the MEDIA listening – GROW SOME BALLS & PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY …. ie RATIONALIST’S vs ALARMIST’S

%d bloggers like this: