Climate sense
Another stinging attack on the nonsensical carbon tax policy:
HOW do you sensibly analyse an utter policy mishmash conceived in some phantasmagorical Julia-in-Wonderland Canberra world?
That is a mind-boggling combination of insanity and stupidity?
This is a policy that proudly boasts the average household will get $10.10 in compensation each week to cover the $9.90 in extra costs that households purportedly will face.
You can all save the Barrier Reef if not indeed the entire planet and be a thumping 20c a week better off. Every five months or so the average household will be able to shout itself a single cafe latte in collective celebration.
That a treasury could prepare figures of such exactitude, that a government and a prime minister could announce them, without the slightest sense of their fundamental and total absurdity, shows a major disconnect from reality.
That’s reality in the broad: you reckon you can calculate the consequences of such mammoth and wide-sweeping change to our economy and our lives down to an exact 20c?
But also a disconnect in the privileged palaces and ivory towers of Canberra from the reality of people’s everyday lives dealing with power price rises and those of food and all the rest in supermarkets.
We now have as official Gillard Government policy that the emissions from petrol used in cars and small trucks are OK; but the emissions from diesel used in semis are evil.
That a tonne of coal going into a power station is so bad that we must spend billions buying back and closing a big chunk of our coal-fired electricity sector.
But a tonne of our coal going into a Chinese power station is wonderful.
So it’s bad for Australians to have cheap power from our coal, but it’s just great for the Chinese to have cheap power from our coal. Can you get more Julia-in-Wonderland than that?
Read it all.
Australian Climate Madness 
So Chinese power stations that were using brown coal but are now using black coal can sell our black coal power stations certified emission reduction (CER) credits so they can meet their emissions targets.
So a Chinese brown coal station that emitted 2 million tons of CO2 and has been replaced by a black coal station that now only emits 1 million tons can sell the extra CO2 that it no longer emits to the Australian black coal power station so it can meet its emissions targets.
Terry McCrann is spot on when he asks how the Treasury can calculate the consequences of such mammoth and wide-sweeping change to our economy and our lives down to an exact 20c?
It becomes more interesting when you consider Treasury couldn’t even get the sums right when you consider some of the cost blow-outs of the Building Education Revolution, Pink Batts scheme. The Cash for Clunkers scheme was originally budgeted at just under $400 million but the costs blew out to over $800 million and that’s a very small scheme compared to the Carbon Dioxide Tax and ETS, but we’re assured by Treasury down to an exact 20c. Strange times indeed!
The real point is this – they can model the outcomes down to 20c per week, but they can’t tell you what effect the changes will have on the climate?
Such dishonesty should not be rewarded.
They seem to love models these warmists…
Their models forecast global temperature in the distant future down to a few degrees and now they model the effect of a carbon tax down to a few cents.
There’s no doubt about it. It’s amazing….truly….amazing…
Comrade Combet says “Change your light bulbs to beat the carbon tax”..
Um…..actually Comrade…how about is a slogan
“Change your govt to beat the carbon tax”
And bring back incandescent blubs too, you weenies. They might be less energy efficient, but they dont require a HazMat team to remove the mercury from your house if you break them, they throw proper light, and they dont cost a small fortune.
Oh the greatest irony is this – Labor are doing their best to put Tony Abbott into the Lodge.
Unless of course, that was the idea all along……
Ah politics, dirty one day, utterly appalling the next.
Socialism – has caused more deaths than WWII.
Quality stuff.
Terry McCrann:
“Where did Rupert Murdoch get $5 billion to buy up the Wall St. Journal?”
Climate skeptics—” 20 cents is nothing ”
Julia Gilliard:
“Beyond normal profits, his coffers were stuffed by dodging taxes in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Some of that is your money!”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html
WTF … where did that come from?
Ooookaaaay.
If he really evaded taxes, then call the authorities and round him up.
20 cents really is nothing. Don’t you find it amazing that they can calculate to within 20 cents the change in the cost of living, but can’t calculate to the nearest 1000th of a degree what effect this will have on the climate?
brc–you displayed a good mind in your earlier post
[individuals right to boycott]–but holy hell..
dollars have a very easy decimal explanation–ie you cant have more or have less…and then propose you have equalled something.
As opposed to climate-change– we dont have to change a billion-
which originally was a million million, to now only refer to a thousand million–to sustain certain claims.
Meaning–i dont think the IRS–buy that no employee companies make a billion dollars profit ‘on their own merits’.
Whereas we only end with egg on our faces–if ‘dark energy’ or a trillion other options– possibly cause climate change.
The sensible mean-time scenario might be if 40% of climate change pollution is auto-mobile exhaust
[NASA–1980]–and these gases adhere to roadways, buildings, and lungs–then does it really matter who says–‘we cant seriously decide to live amongst this crap’
So is this, but it’s not quite as serious.
Honestly, Julia Gillard is such an affront to our intelligence. She is calculating and deceitful and must, I say MUST be thrown out at the next election. When I listen to her it’s like we are all simpletons or little children listening to mother Julia who will make everything all right and by joining her and “doing the right thing” save the barrier reef indeed even the world! What a lot of BS.
It’s embarrassing to even listen to her as she has absolutely no knowledge at all about climate change or should I say global warming? All her minders have taught her is some rote learning some key phrases for her to quote when answering certain questions. She knows absolutely nothing and yet wants us to trust her and her comrades with the economy, jobs and the future of all Australians. What a lot of BS. The sooner she is dumped and labor and the Greens are sent to another planet where they can spout their rediculous policies the better. Good riddance I say and the sooner the better.
Sir
I’ve read with interest the derogatory comments you’ve made about our prime minister, however you haven’t stated in your diatribe on what basis you make your assertions. You haven’t given any scientific facts on which you base your rantings, it’s just a lot of unsubstantiated invective, on the other hand the Prime Minister has a very large proportion of the scientific community vindicating her position. Conversely you are only appealing to the very basic instinct the the hip pocket nerve which is unfortunately the majority of this society, the lowest common denominator. I can also judge from your comments, that you are a reader of the daily tabloid in this city that is written for grade four standard readership.
My friend there is lot to life than just dollars and cents in life although you wouldn’t know it to read the moronic rantings of people like yourself and the right wing in this country. This is where i have great deal of difficulty with the right in this country and elsewhere they’re bereft of any sort of intellectual rigour.
John Howard was in government for eleven years and he and his ministers sat on their fat arses and did bugger all, oh they introduced a great big new tax called the GST and that my friend was the sum total of their achievements. Costello is proud of the fact that he delivered surplus budgets, mate with the revenues that were rolling in from the mining boom and the GST and no disasters to deal with blind freddy could have delivered surplus budgets so what i say is whoopee. Menzies likewise was in government for over twenty years and again what was achieved, you guess it a big fat zero. With the massive amounts of revenue earned from the Korean wool boom the country should have had a national superannuation scheme and a national health scheme and a plethora of other structural changes to an iniquitous economy.
You and your lot can waffle on about the Labour Party’s infrastructure programs and that they were a failure, but any close impartial analysis would disagree with the rights assertions. The facts are these sunshine, the government was faced with an emergency situation owing to the ineptitude of Wall St and the failings of the capitalist system. The country was facing a dire economic situation with high unemployment and a shortage of liquidity, they had to stimulate the economy quickly so they did what any responsible government did they initiated infrastructure programs rapidly to fulfill the criteria.
The government tendered out an insulation scheme to private enterprise and yes there were shonky operators that were involved but really when faced with a crises situation that the GFC presented there was little time to vet the tenderers. The death of the two unfortunate souls weren’t I stress weren’t the fault of the federal government. I don’t know whether you have ever studied work place safety, I have. I can advise you that Work Place safety legislation is under the auspices of the state government not the federal government it is the employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace and it is the onus of the state government to provide workplace inspectors to oversee the employers, that is why the employers that employed these two unfortunate souls that died were taken to court and not the federal government. Peter Garret, the responsible minister at the time should not have been scrutinised by the media and certainly should not have been sacked. As far as the schools infrastructure program is concerned there was an audit undertaken by the federal government and the outcome was, out of some seven thousand five hundred schools where buildings were erected some two and a half percent had problems and of course the media homed in on the problem schools.
Summing up mate, the conservatives in this country have always governed for the good times and when they have faced crises, like WWII they have failed miserably.
Unfortunately Australian Government policy on climate change is based on advice from the IPCC. With the passage of time, more people have become aware of IPCC’s malfeasance and are less willing to accept the latter’s ‘authority’
The IPCC lacked due diligence and its conclusions cannot be regarded as scientific, thus rendering its Fourth Assessment Report a political advocacy document in the guise of pseudo-science rather than the rigorous, objective, scientific appraisal of climate science many assume it to be. [See The Interacademy Council (IAC) review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html (which includes the IAC’s questionnaire which was completed by IPCC participants). This documents important deficiencies in the processes of the IPCC. Specifically, irrefutable evidence provided by IPCC participants reveals that the IPCC is manifestly biased, lacks transparency, is subject to overt political interference, failed to respond to critical review comments, made vague statements not supported by evidence, used non-peer-reviewed and unpublished material which was not critically reviewed or identified as such, failed to properly reflect uncertainties and had no policy to preclude conflict of interest. Moreover, the conclusions of Working Group III (which considers mitigation of the effects of climate change) are based on computer models which incorporate many assumptions and large uncertainties limiting their usefulness.
So in effect the reality is that IPCC was given free reign to cherry pick whatever information they chose to include/exclude from consideration for analysis so that its ‘assessment report’ could justify the political agendas of their government sponsors! This does not amount to independent, robust scientific advice.
As Australian Government policy on climate change is based on IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was it ever justifiable?
Background: Following ‘Climategate’ and errors found in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, and Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, requested that the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) conduct an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures used to produce assessments. The IAC was also asked to review IPCC’s management and administrative structure, IPCC’s strategies for communication and to make recommendations for strengthening the IPCC in these areas.
The IAC was given only 4 months to complete the review and, significantly, it did not pass comment or judgement on the validity of the findings recorded in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report. [Page 2. “This report examines the procedures and processes used to carry out IPCC assessments; it does not examine climate change science or the validity of its representation in the assessment reports. It also does not consider the work of IPCC’s Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, which is not part of the climate assessment process.”]
As part of the review process IAC compiled a questionnaire which was distributed to participants in the IPCC. Some (but apparently not all) responses to this are available at
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/comments.html
Although the IAC report is couched in diplomatic, non-confrontational language a careful reading of the report and its recommendations is very revealing. Specifically, the following deficiencies can be discerned in IPCC and its processes viz. (page numbers refer to the IAC report)
(1) Political interference is an intrinsic part of IPCC’s modus operandi. The Executive summary includes (at page xii) the following viz. “Representatives of 194 participating governments agree on the scope of the assessment, elect the scientific leaders of the assessment, nominate authors, review the results, and approve the summaries written for policymakers.” Thus it is governments which dictate the agenda (scope of the assessment), select the scientists who perform the assessment and the authors who write up the assessment and approve the summaries for policy makers. At page 25 “…….many were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated.” Also at page 64 “Scientists and government representatives who responded to the Committee’s questionnaire suggested changes to reduce opportunities for political interference with the scientific results and to improve the efficiency of the approval process.” [ Comment: Given that the vast majority of participating nations expect an outcome which provides substantial financial remuneration by the minority group of developed nations, it is hardly surprising that the whole IPCC enterprise is politically driven.]
(2) Lack of transparency: Page 63. “Interviews and responses to the Committee’s questionnaire revealed a lack of transparency in several stages of the IPCC assessment process, including scoping and the selection of authors and reviewers, as well as in the selection of scientific and technical information considered in the chapters.” Also, at page 43 “….accountability and transparency…….are not yet reflected in the current governance and management structure of the IPCC.”
(3) Selection bias both in the selection of scientists and in the selection of literature to be considered. Page xvi of the Executive Summary: ‘”Most important are the absence of criteria for selecting key participants in the assessment process and the lack of documentation for selecting what scientific and technical information is assessed.” Full details of the literature search are needed in respect of each topic assessed to ensure that the literature review is comprehensive, robust and repeatable. This is necessary to preclude ‘cherry picking’ of the relevant literature to include only those papers which support a favoured hypothesis while excluding those which do not support it. For each topic assessed; Which databases were searched? What time period was covered by the search? What search criteria were used? What boolean logic was employed in the search strategy? How many citations were retrieved at each stage of the search? What were the final criteria used to determine inclusion and exclusion of published papers for further analysis? What was the date the search was performed? Answers to these questions must be documented and available for public scrutiny in the interests of transparency and ensuring that all relevant literature and the full range of views have received due consideration. Other forms of bias include assessment bias, measurement bias, confirmation bias (inordinate self-citation by the lead authors) and publication bias (negative studies are difficult to publish in peer-reviewed journals but the hockey team has a novel version – having done their best to marginalise and silence those with opposing views by excluding their articles from publication, bullying editors etc.)
(4) Biased treatment of genuinely contentious issues: One of the IAC Recommendations is “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.” Also, at page 18 ” Equally important is combating confirmation bias –the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al 2001) As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”
(5) Conflict of interest Page 52 “The IPCC does not have a conflict-of-interest or disclosure policy for its senior leadership ………or the Staff of the Technical Support Units.” Also, on Page 53……. “Questions about potential conflicts of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s service as an adviser to, and board member of, for-profit energy companies (Pielke 2010b) and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing assessments reviewing their own work.” Also, Page 23. “A complication could arise when Lead Authors are sitting side by side with their government representative, which might put the Lead Authors in the difficult situation of either supporting a government position at odds with the Working Group report or opposing their government’s position. This may be most awkward when authors are also government employees.”
(6) Poorly reflecting uncertainties : This was addressed by the following recommendations viz. “Each Working Group should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in its Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.” “Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur.” “Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).” “The likelihood scale should be stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words to improve understanding of uncertainty.” “Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.”
(7) Vague statements not supported by evidence: Page xv of the Executive Summary “The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself. Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.” Also, at page 39 “….it is unclear whose judgements are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgements were determined.” This seems to suggest that the judgements are arbitrary and not based on any objective criteria to justify them.
(8) Ignoring critical reviewer comments Page 19 Recommendation: “The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all noneditorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.” Also, at page 20 “A near-universal observation — made in presentations, interviews and responses to the questionnaire — was the need to strengthen the authority of the Review Editors to ensure that authors consider the review comments carefully and document their responses.” Hence assessment bias. A clear example of this was the fallacious claim that the Himalayan Glacier would disappear by 2035. This was wrong on several counts viz. (a) it should never have been included in the ‘science basis’ because it was based on non-peer-reviewed material (b) this error should have been detected on initial review but obviously wasn’t (c) it was noted and reported by independent reviewers (d) the reviewers’ comments were ignored. (see also http://accessipcc.com/index.html)
(9) Unreliable forecasts by Working Group III “With the exception of historical trends in greenhouse gas emissions, all of the analyses by Working Group III rely on models of various sectors of the economy and are future oriented. …………..The response to a carbon tax depends on the costs of substituting other factors for energy and low-carbon for high-carbon fuels. It also depends on how consumers respond to increases in costs. All of the factors that affect CO2 emissions and mitigation costs in top-down models are uncertain, and uncertainty about them increases with the length of the projection. In the long run, costs of substitution depend on advances in technology, which are highly uncertain and may themselves depend on assumptions about policies.”
(10) Unpublished and non-peer-reviewed information not critically evaluated or flagged as such: The IPCC’s prescibed procedures for treatment of ‘gray’ publications “are not always followed” (page 16) and “Clearer guidelines and stronger mechanisms for enforcing them are needed.” According to the IAC report “A search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed.” The IAC report cited the figures for peer-reviewed references in the third assessment report as follows viz. WGI 84% , WGII 59%, WGIII 36% (Bjurstrom and Polk, 2010). The relevant IAC recommendation at page 17 is as follows viz. “The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.” It would appear that IPCC has used non-peer-reviewed material which has not been critically evaluated or identified as such in the report. (See http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php and http://accessipcc.com/index.html for proportions of peer-reviewed citations in the fourth assessment report) It transpires that almost half of the 44 chapters of the 4th Assessment Report cited references less than 60% of which were peer-reviewed notwithstanding repeated statements by IPCC’s Chairman claiming that only peer-reviewed references were cited.
Comment: A document as important as the science basis of the IPCC’s Climate Change report, which is intended to inform the policies of governments around the World, should comprise a series of comprehensive and objective systematic reviews of all relevant material rather than opinion pieces supported by selective (?exclusive) reference to papers in agreement with IPCC’s preferred view of the world.
Notwithstanding the above, some will insist nontheless that “the science is settled”.
Shaviv, Courtillot and Svensmark et al present a much more plausible (cf IPCC) chain of events (backed by objective evidence for each component) which does not rely on pre-determined, exaggerated values for climate sensitivity or positive feedbacks from carbon dioxide. The links are as follows viz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&feature=related and
For a broader perspective on the politicisation and corruption of science see
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/7-8/fishy-science-on-the-great-barrier-reef
Marine science is oil refineries.
Walter Starck should have chosen plumbing instead– if the extent of his expertise is being unable to detect hydrocarbons–or his own
cities sewerage outcomes:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X89903597
quadrant fact finding:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/quadrant-magazine-scientific-hoaxer-revealed-1267335.html
ken–you need to slow down–take a deep breathe–and have a good look at–what is going down.
a few basics–1. the discoverer of U233, U234, and pile requirements for U238 to be fissile.
Regards emission effects–“Nuclear reactors are the same as nuclear bombs”
2. We presently have over 1134 operating reactors.
It doesnt really matter–if the climate is hot,cold or undecided.
[the emissions are safe. or like climate effects–questionable]
We know from the over 2000 nuclear tests conducted since 1954– that the materials liberated have an exact five or six year window–
depending upon age, sex and constitution–before exposure
(or inhalation) increases the expected average cancer rate.
EVERY TEST over the 50 years that has passed– has produced the calculated and expected increase.
In other words–the already known detonation amount created exactly the amount of damage [that we already knew delayed release material would ].
Hear about any referendums or of seeking a mandate from
the electorate for this guinea-pig stuff?
Clean and safe–and a real option isnt it??
2. WE know that we now have over 1000 operating reactors.
Forgetting the polemics of technical difficulties and what a boon
these difficulties are (when their full cost is transferred to taxpayers as the UK)—–we still rarely see mentioned that the cumulative contribution these reactors have added–just since 1990, is the equivalent of the fallout from 400,000 Nagasakis.
400,000 to 800,000 additional cancers per year is the US count
The HYSTERIA you come against if you suggest the United Kingdom is rapidly approaching to being considered as equally contaminated–is so unbelievable–that we wont even bother.
3. What we conveniently neglect if we embark upon that exercise is the following.
The same way that all authorities knew radium was lethally toxic in the 1930’s–they also knew hydrocarbon combustion left un-accounted benzenes, heavy metals, and by-products that eventually become radioactive.
It is also beyond doubt that they sponsor lobbies claiming otherwise.
The issue that we produce a billion tons per year of non nuclear toxic materials straight into the atmosphere instead becomes the nonsense of carbon dioxide.
REAL Climate-Change when we we allocate the level of difficulty required to grasp the concepts is actually based upon the assumption–that we breathe air.
Maybe this in itself is too rarified–because the skeptics point is that we do nothing.
Supposedly this then means we should wait until indentical technologies and their owners explain why we have 400% increases in autism on every continent
Industry being such a good citizen by never paying the full tax–probably wont have any difficulty in explaining
that in the last decade 400% increases in asthma and diabetes are occurring every year .
‘Lets look for CO2’ instead–seeing we already knew benzene and the raft of hydro-carbon byproducts–would create exactly these effects.
And if we believe, by judging personalities, rather than their proposals, would this enlightened sector care to provide a sensible reply to ‘where do they suggest emissions actually go?’.
Regards the Barrier Reef–we’ve known since the mid 1980’s–that from similar affected reef– that the same derivative chemicals
[mentioned above–ie benzenes, chlorines, bromides, fluorides,etc] with the same fully documented side-effects–now employed as a pesticide, herbicide or insecticide— that now does exactly what it does on land.
It kills the coral reproductive and cellular-re-building ability.
We’ve even tested brand-names-and replicated the poisoning and morbidity in laboratories.
The climate is affected–and isnt rather damning– that we’d rather attack each other–rather than have the correct persons held responsible.
thats my 8%–i’m special didnt you know.
Part of Julia’s Wonderland, her dream fantasy, is that miracuously America and other countries will follow Australia’s lead and get rid of coal.
Oh Yes?
Well not if this lady becomes President of the United States – Michele Bachmann.
“God will come and heal the land and bring “a new day to the country,” presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told an audience at an evangelical Christian church in Waukee on Sunday. …..
We have 25 percent of the world’s coal here. Trillions of cubic square feet of natural gas here. We just built one of the world’s largest lines of natural gas here,” she said. “We have got more oil in three Western states in shale oil than all of Saudi Arabia. Did you hear that on your local nightly news? Are you kidding? We’ve got it. I say let’s go get it.”
Now can you just imagine Julia paying a visit to Washington if Michele gets elected. By the time they finished talking about god and mining all that coal their cup cakes would be flying at each other.
Referring to Steve Haydon’s comment above I don’t necessarily disagree with you about Labor’s attemps to shore up our countries financial position. Sure mistakes were made but on the other hand I think the country is better off for those policies than not (even if it cost the tax payer far more than it should). Steve my argument with Julia is simply this. Australia’s contribution to world CO2 levels is currently about 1.3%. I was at the meeting in Geelong of the Climate Commission headed by Tim Flannery. At that meeting Tim stated that even if the whole world stopped all CO2 emmisions it may take up to 1,000 years before there would be any change in temperature. So what’s the point? Why subject our economy to the carbon tax when it will have absolutely no effect on world temperatures? Julia says she wants to tackle “carbon pollution”. Sorry do you mean CO2, which is a plant food necessary for the survival of the human race? Her other target is “climate change”. Sorry Julia Tim said that even if all CO2 IN THE WHOLE WORLD STOPPED TOMORROW any effects would not be felt for 1,000 years. Surely this is an argument for adaption rather than mitigation. We humans are incredible creatures (medical advances, technologies etc etc) and should temperatures rise as the flawed IPCC reports suggest we humans are capable to adapt to any changes. Julia’s climate change policy is simple a way to redistribute wealth afterall she is now working with Bob Brown and the Greens. Why? Because she wants to remain Prime Minister of this country. Because of her desire for power and The Lodge she partnered the Greens which has resulted in her carbon tax. If Labor had won the last election outright I don’t believe she would have reintroduced the carbon tax which she said would not implemented under her watch. I guess we all know now who’s running the country – Bob Brown!
rstly the science is not in, there is no concensis as there are thousands of world scientists who do not believe in the anthropogenic theory. The trouble is that the “alarmists” absolutely will not debate “the deniers”, not on radio or TV. The media are biased especially the ABC and Tony Jones. I can’t remember when the ABC last interviewed “a denier”. Unless the public educates itself on the subject, if all they are fed (media bias and labor politicians) is one point of view, Julia will most probably achieve success (despite poor poll results now). We are going to be subjected to government advertising (at tax payer expense) and continual media bias without the opportunity to listen to the other side of the debate. I am also unhappy that Julia is going to ramm this legislation through parliament when clearly she doesn’t have a mandate to do it.
regards gyptis444 unless he bothers to provide ‘the pseudo-science’-for scrutiny–the issues he cares to believe exist are nonsense-
regardless of whom endorses the possible conclusions.