JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The Big Scare Campaign looks set to claim another political victim

It made my day. The front page of The Australian: Record Labor low on Carbon Fury. Julia Gillards message is finally getting though and the voters are sitting up and paying attention. Where previously, they said “I like the idea of being good global citizens”, the question has changed:  now no one is asking your opinion, they’re telling you they want your money and they will take it from you starting on July 1 2012, on every car, tank-full, and trucked banana, on cold days, hot days, rainy days and at night time.

How bad is the news for Labor:

According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, Labor’s primary vote crashed six percentage points to just 30 per cent, the lowest primary vote in Newspoll survey history.

How intricately tied to the Carbon Tax plan, announced a little over a week ago, is the bad news?

In just two weeks, Ms Gillard’s personal support has gone from its best since she became Prime Minister in June last year to her worst. It is now the same as Mr Rudd’s failing personal support when he began campaigning for the mining tax in May last year.

As I said, Thank You Julia Gillard.

By announcing the Carbon Tax plan she has provided the catalyst to get the crowd to notice what it means. Am I pleased to see Labor reduced to such a weak point? No. But if they want to reduce the power of the Green vote they need to copy the good green policies and expose the bad ones instead of adopting them. It never made sense to pick the worst most-gullible plan as their “engine of change”.

This changes the playing field.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The Big Scare Campaign looks set to claim another political victim, 1.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4nyx3wl

91 comments to The Big Scare Campaign looks set to claim another political victim

  • #

    It is what happens when politicians acquire, presumably by some kind of mental contagion, the childlike alarms and assurances of those most agitated by airborne CO2. Some of them, such as your Prof Flannery, forget their basic adult responsibility of protecting the vulnerable from overblown and incredible fears, and unfortunately that suits the media and some lobbyists down to the ground. Ms Gillard seems to be one of their victims.

    00

  • #
    grayman

    “This changes the playing field” Hopefully for the better!

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Jo
    There’s more than one “political victim” here. Like parrots, Gillard, Swan and Combet have all been using the term “Carbon pollution”

    “The Government is committed to cutting carbon pollution by at least 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. That means we need to cut around 160 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2020 – that’s equal to reducing emissions from generating electricity by 75 per cent. This 160 million is on top of the 109 million tonnes of savings provided by existing measures.

    By 2030 we are projected to be 44 per cent above 2000 levels. “Clearly more needs to be done, and that’s why we need a carbon price, soon. “Without a carbon price underpinning long term investments in renewable energy, low emissions gas generation and energy efficiency, the report anticipates that new coal fired generators will continue to be built and there is a risk of falling short of the Government’s target of generating 20 per cent of our energy from renewable sources in 2020. “While there is a warning in this report, it is important to remember that it is not too late for us to act,” Mr Combet said. “We are tracking to be two per cent below our Kyoto target and a carbon price can work with appropriately targeted energy efficiency and renewable energy policies to drive the necessary transformation of our economy.”

    The Government believes that a carbon price mechanism is essential as the primary driver of an economic transformation which will set Australia on the path towards a low carbon economy, and achieve real emissions reductions. “What won’t work is the ongoing denial and obstruction of the Federal Opposition, led by Tony Abbott. It’s time for him to admit that his Direct Action policies would cost Australians more and are incapable of meeting our abatement challenge or transforming the economy,” Mr Combet said.

    Source: THE HON GREG COMBET AM MP Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 09/02/2011

    Terry McCrann writes Carbon not the same thing as CO2

    ASTONISHINGLY, the PM, the Cabinet and members of the Canberra Press Gallery don’t know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
    There are two great lies told about the need to “put a price on carbon”. Lies which I can’t recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with — far less the prime liar herself.
    And it’ll be a cold day in hell before you see a critical commentary from any of the supposed leading lights of the gallery such as Fairfax’s Michelle Grattan or Peter Hartcher applying a critical analysis to the claims.
    Now these two lies are in addition to Julia Gillard’s “there will be no carbon tax” lie. They precede it and will be told again and again after it.
    The first is that “climate change policies” are aimed at “carbon pollution”. No they are not; they are aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

    McCrann elaborates:

    Every time Gillard or Climate Change Minister Greg Combet mouths the term “carbon pollution”, a competent journalist would ask questions like:
    Do you understand that you are referring to what you are breathing out? Please explain how this is pollution? How are you going to stop personally polluting? Why don’t you use the accurate term carbon dioxide?
    The second great lie is that so-called “de-carbonising our economy” as a consequence of “putting a price on carbon” is the 21st century equivalent of the tariff reforms of the 1980s.
    In fact it is the exact opposite: it is the equivalent of imposing tariffs on the Australian economy. This is true whether or not the rest of the world follows. It’s just that much worse if we do it solo.
    This lie has been peddled not just by the government but also by Treasury. Be afraid, be really afraid that we have a Treasury which is that incompetent.

    This all sounds remarkably like incompetence laid bare on a grand scale!

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    But the poll shows that there are still 30% of the people who have little or no intelligence.

    00

  • #
    Stephan

    Big story developing looks like Mann has been caught out
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/
    Check WUWT for more details

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Has any journalist asked Combet how and where the CO2 emission levels for Australia are measured ?? ( NB I don’t know the answer but it might be revealing)

    Also in my morning paper there is a reprint of an article from the SMH by Ian Verrender.
    Headline ” No way around paying for carbon emissions” Scientists have proven that climate change is real. It’s less clear what the authorities plan to do with this hot potato…

    It is a classic example of warmist clap trap in plaCES.

    00

  • #

    As old Nap said, “never disturb an enemy when they’re contemplating a grave mistake” …

    Pointman

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Tony Windsor savages carbon tax “strategy”

    Independent MP Tony Windsor has labelled the Federal Government’s carbon tax strategy a mistake and warned that a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign will only make things worse.

    Windsor playing Gillards “fall guy” has already been discussed about the blogs.

    What shenanigans is going on here?

    00

  • #
    pat

    terry mccrann should have included the other lie – that the CO2 tax is a so-called response to ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, not to CLIMATE CHANGE which has always happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

    those are the two biggest lies carried in the MSM.

    00

  • #
    pat

    the truth is coming out:

    9 March: Australian: Hedley Thomas: The 48-hour delay that sealed Brisbane’s fate
    ENTRIES in the “flood event log” for the devastating Brisbane River flood reveal that the senior engineers in charge knew by 7.10pm on Sunday, January 9, that high releases of water from Wivenhoe Dam would be needed “in view of heavy rain over the last three hours”.
    The entries also show that senior engineers proposed more than doubling the releases, from 1400 cubic metres a second (cumecs) to between 3000 and 3500 cumecs that Sunday night to give the dam more storage capacity to manage the flood and intensifying rainfall.
    But it took until Tuesday, January 11, when the dam was almost full for SEQWater, which employs the engineers who operate Wivenhoe Dam, to start releasing more than 3000 cumecs.
    By Tuesday evening, with the dam at risk, the releases were dramatically ratcheted up to 7500 cumecs – flooding thousands of Brisbane homes and leaving a damage bill of billions of dollars…
    Evidence in the flood event log points to the council’s input influencing the release strategy on Sunday, January 9, when there was time to manage the flood.
    This will be seized on by insurers and flooded residents amid calls for the log to be closely scrutinised by a public inquiry…
    The official report justifies SEQWater’s decision to not release more water sooner by pointing to Bureau of Meteorology forecasts, which underestimated rainfall intensity.
    A spokesman for the Bureau of Meteorology referred questions to the floods inquiry, ignoring assertions from SEQWater that the forecaster was responsible for inadequate rainfall warnings in the lead-up to the January floods.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-48-hour-delay-that-sealed-brisbanes-fate/story-fn59niix-1226018055436

    00

  • #
    wes george

    It will be critical to see how the election in NSW plays out. We all know it will be a Lib/Nat landslide, but will the NSW election be one of those historical tipping points which cascade outward to the whole society resonating as an example of what needs to be done on a national scale?

    My guess is that Labor’s insane clown posse coalition has wedged itself in the worst of all possible positions and is shedding voters to the center as well as to the Green Party.

    The Greens are bleeding off laborites to their “revolution, ” because by tabling a carbon tax so defiantly against her word, Gillard gave succor to Green fanaticism desperate for hope while weakening the moderate Labor position.

    Real Greens know Gillard’s cynical tax is a sell out, but they hold their noses and stand with her only to get the carbon foot in the door. They despise her bougeois paeans to “working families” and promises to “save coal mining jobs.”

    Meanwhile, the rest of Australia, the sane part, knows that the carbon tax will achieve nothing other than giving the Green/Labor coalition billions of tax dollars to redistribute to their mates in order to secure more power for themselves in future election cycles.

    On Gillard’s right is that vast silent majority of Australians made up centrist Labor, independent voters and the Lib/Nats. She sold that lot, the majority of Aussies, down the river with the Carbon Tax as well.

    So really, Julia’s got nothing. No friends left, No base constituency at all, nothing but a fine sliver of leftist Labor that just can’t quite take the step into Green delusionalism and those few who cling emotional to her identity as our first female PM. The only thing saving Julia from being shown the door now is the fact that the Labor Party already played the coup de tat card on Rudd.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    The blame game begins.

    00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    There is definitely panic in the ranks. Have you noticed that overnight the TV ‘warmists’ have once again started screening the “dirty ‘smoke’ belching power stations” By the way that’s water vapour belching from the cooling towers, and a bit of smoke from the smaller stacks!!!
    What a bunch of *ankers. do they really think we are all stupid!!

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    The other blame game this week is the Wivenhoe Dam water release scandal, with the dam operators formally blaming BOM for wrong forecasts.

    The interesting twist not picked up by the MSM is that BOM switched over to a new climate model on 17 Aug last year, and they got the new model from the UK Met Office. Just in time for the Qld floods to prove it wrong.

    The UK Met Office long term forecasts have been so bad they have been a running scandal for most of the last couple of years.

    00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    More panic…..this time from Tony Windsor. That weasel is now backing away from the policy he has backed all along. It looks to him as though the whole thing is going to blow up & cause him to lose his seat in the next election [coming soon].
    So suddenly it was not a good idea put forward by LABOR and not very well thought out. [not Mr weasel Windsor].
    What a devious immoral hypocrite. Run for cover Mr Weasel.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Great news!

    Predictably, the laborites are blaming their demise on the opposition – claiming a great big “scare campaign”. Yes, labor and the greens will take your money. Yes, it will cost more and hurt people – this tax is intended to. Tony Abbott is only speaking the truth.

    But as for labor crying foul over a “scare campaign”? What do you think the warmists have been doing for the last 20 years???

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    Forget the “Fall Guy” thing I mentioned @8.

    As Andrew Bolt says I think Gillard is finished – it’s just a matter of time.

    Windsor is simply behaving like any cornered rat does.

    Wow, this IS fascinating politics – like watching a car crash in slow motion – terrible, and dangerous, but you just can’t look away.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Surely everyone has seen this.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/my_favorite_enemy/

    We must all bookmark these links and never let the ABC or our trolls ever forget Alena Composta.

    Alena Composta!

    …the greatest coup for climate skepticism since…well, there are so many now, it’s an embarrassment of riches.

    ROTFL

    When our PM made the decision ten days ago I thought to myself, “How low will the reactionaries go, the deniers and the corporatist lapdogs, and how soon will they start.”
    I didn’t have long to wait.

    These assaults on our PM are nothing but sexism and woman-hatred. The outpouring of Tea Party-style hate could easily lead to violence, sooner or later. If our PM introduces the licensing of commentators and a peer-review panel of media professionals (Laura Tingle, Phillip Adams, Virginia Trioli, Mike Carlton, Hartcher, for example) to determine what constitutes “fair free speech” and to stamp out the noxious, inappropriate variety, I would support her 100%

    .

    —Alena Composta, Hero of the Revolution

    00

  • #
    Mark

    There is a thread at Judith Currie’s site on Congressional Hearings currently underway in the US. It seems that John Christie has had the temerity to raise the subject of the falsifiability of AGW. In other words, nothing falsifies it and everything verifies it.

    AGW protagonists have often been challenged to name empirical, on the ground or in the sky facts which would give them cause to abandon the voodoo belief system. What results is usually one or more of the following.
    (1) A flat refusal to do so.
    (2) A blizzard of links to their favourite AGW sites which show nothing but spurious, theoretical GCM blather or equally spurious discussion on aspects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    (3) A flurry of “goal-post” shifting activity.
    (4) An outrageous attempt to reverse the scientific “burden of proof”.
    (5) An apopleptic restatement of the belief.

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    Graham (comment No 13)- those chimneys shown on ABC and SBS are most commonly sugar mill chimneys sending up steam from drying sugar as part of the refining process. I don’t know the precise figures, but at a rough calculation some of them seem to send up about 2 million tonnes plus of water in a crushing season- spectacular. As you point out though, thoroughly dishonest journalism.

    Sometimes they show power station cooling towers as well but it isn’t anywhere near as spectacular as they only release wisps of steam.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Swan is hiding the numbers … Swan is now admitting that the 2012 carbon tax will not be included in the upcoming May budget estimates, citing uncertainty over the legislation. You’d think, wouldn’t you, that the 1 July 2012 implmentation date is a tad early if we don’t even know what the legislation looks like yet.

    I bet the polls can go lower yet… does anyone want to start a book on where it bottoms out? I am guessing 28%…

    00

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    Might be some more scalps if this keeps going!

    “How much has the world cooled since 1998?”

    Check the blink comparison at

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/how-much-has-the-world-cooled-since-1998/

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I do not understand. The govt has two clear choices to get out of their current predicament.

    1) Call a double dissolution. Go to the polls now. They would get a bath, but would be in sight of govt at the subsequent election. This would have the added benefit of destroying the current green representation (remove a thorn in labors side).

    2) Wait for the next general election. The bet is that they will be down to the hardcore left vote (~20%). The will end up with 20-30 seats in the parliament. There is no way back from this scenario.

    Of these two scenarios, 2) is the most probable outcome (Hang onto power now, at all costs).

    There something wrong with labor strategists if they are prepared to stand by and watch the impending decimation.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Binny

    For any government to bring in a new tax of any kind they must have a massive majority and an opposition in disarray.
    Rudd had this when he first tried the ETS, by sheer luck climategate and an uncooperative climate lifted the scales from the general populations eyes and the ETS crashed and burned taking Rudd with it.
    When Howard proposed a GST he had massive majority and opposition in disarray. Even then he gave the voters two years to debate it and took it to an election (which he only just won). I didn’t like the GST then and I don’t like it now but I voted for it because I could see that it was necessary to clean up our tax system and get rid of stupid things like sales tax and stamp duties (which most of the States renege on) as well as streamline the bracket system.
    For Gillard to propose a new tax from a minority government. Can only be described as nothing less than political suicide ,and probably the stupidest political move any of us will see in our lifetimes.
    My guess is the next move will be for the Greens to move further up the moral high ground (on petrol etc) secure in the knowledge that not even Gillard is sufficiently insane to follow them . Opening up a big enough crack between them and Gillard, for Windsor to slip through and scuttle the whole thing.
    Oakeshott seems to have suffered some sort of breakdown (hence the beard) and gone missing in action. His only chance now is to go completely over to the Greens and hope for an endorsement in an inner Melbourne safe seat (which might explain the beard)

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    The greens message to all Australians – “Let them eat cake. In the dark”…

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/let_them_eat_cake_in_the_dark/

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    incoherent rambler @23

    Of these two scenarios, 2) is the most probable outcome (Hang onto power now, at all costs).

    Hang onto power at all costs – like any good autocratic regime.

    So similar to another deluded despot in world news at present it’s laughable.

    There something wrong with labor strategists if they are prepared to stand by and watch the impending decimation.

    Aint that the truth. I suspect though, that the strategists are most likely all “shiney eyed” idealists complete with a university educated socialist mindset who have NO clue about the real world.

    00

  • #

    I’m not willing to say the wheels are falling off the Great Green Scare yet. That’s kinda what the other side are saying, that the sceptics’ position is almost a corpse. This to me, all seems like “the debate is over” rhetoric. There are still many people to win back from the dark side yet.

    No-one in Australia believes in climate change. This is the unmovable object in climate politics. Look at our life style and energy consumption choices. Particularly the green-tingled middle class. Or, the jet-setting green activists. It’s an open fraud. The great unwashed masses aren’t fooled.

    @Stephan 5: Climate Audit is the funniest program on the inter-tubes at the moment. Watching a bunch of crooks who have gotten away with their shenanigans for so long is like all new episodes of Yes Minister. Attempting to hide their corruption seems almost like an afterthought. Being asked hard questions appears to be a novel experience to them.

    I can’t resist posting more censorship from Real ABC. I’m validating my theory that direct evidence and references get canned, vague generalities are let through. In response to this comment:

    Not sure you’re getting it. What these guys publish is one giant mud cake. We have no idea about the raw ingredients. Why? Read the climategate files, they lost it. Particularly instructive is the harry read me file. They took data, flogged it, flogged some more, until it was unrecognisable and then expect us to believe their big fear campaign.

    http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

    “Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation – apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective – since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that.”

    “OH #$%! THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

    “getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.”

    And my all time favorite…

    “yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor”

    Steve McIntyre can tell you all about how difficult it is to get a straight answer, yet alone some actual data out of the motley CRU. Why? Because they lost the data and never document their methods. They pull that stuff our of the hat for you on a per FOI basis.

    And if you think it’s not about the money, then explain why the Muir Russel review, a half day’s work, cost the UK tax payer almost 300 000 pounds?!?

    00

  • #
  • #
    Binny

    wes george:@18

    Isn’t it funny how the left just don’t get the meaning of the phrase.
    I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend your right to say it; to the death.

    Actually there is nothing funny about it all. They are all psychopath or dictators at heart.
    Yet we will still defend their right to have whatever rant they want to.

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    crakar24

    Treeman in 3 and various others (sorry)

    You guys have hit the nail on the head, there are so many lies surrounding this TAX. Some people (people like us) know these lies and understand what they mean and as Abbott (God bless him) continues to harrass Gillard the lies will bubble to the surface and the people who dont bother to look any deeper than the nightly news will slowly become educated.

    Once this happens they will become very angry and labor will be tossed out. I am heartened by this latest news poll result which i beleive is primarly based on the “big lie” being absorbed by the masses, now that they know she has lied once they will look for more. The labor crash and burn will be a sight to behold.

    00

  • #

    Looking at the data for the last two news polls, one interesting thing pops out. PM(Gillard) satisfaction swings downward 13%. Yet, Opp PM(Abbott) swings upward 1%. Both primary vote an two party preferred swung to The Coalition by 4% with a 2% increase for The Greens. It seems pulling a price on C02 is a dead-bounce policy. The opposition’s alternative seems just as unpalatable as the government’s.

    Also interesting, is that both Gillard and Abbott have an identical satisfaction rating of 39%. We hate ‘em both.

    http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110302%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

    00

  • #
    Allen Ford

    I’m not sure the Libs are really on top if this issue, judging from an email I received yesterday from Liberal HQ.

    Labor’s carbon tax mess

    After a predictable rant about Labor, what caught my eye was the following:

    “For Labor and the Greens the only answer is tax, tax, tax.
    The Coalition knows there is a better way. Our direct action plan on climate change is economically responsible and won’t cost Australian jobs.”

    Dear Libs,

    With all due respect, there is an even better way. Bite the bullet and face the fact that the “science”, upon which the whole fiasco is based, hovers between the incompetent and the fraudulent, so with this given, the prudent thing to do is do nothing. No tax and no futile “direct action plan”.

    I strongly urge you to consult your own colleagues, Dennis Jensen and Senator Cory Bernardi, for an exposé of the scientific fraud underlying the whole AGW scam. Major critiques have been made by numerous scientists, including a submission by distinguished German physicists to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that there is no basis for the confected panic of climate doom promulgated by the IPCC and its followers.

    Please do your own independent research and thinking and cease the mindless adherence to fashionable hysteria.

    Fortunately, average Australians are more awake to the realities of alleged man-made climate change than the Labor Party, mainstream media, and even the Liberal Party, it seems.

    Let’s see if they have deaf ears.

    00

  • #
    manfred listing

    Yes folx- the liberals claim to prefer direct action but really they aren’t intending any action, just being politically correct. Suits me!

    00

  • #
    Paul79

    This topic prompts a few questions to be asked. The terminology used by politicians is at times confusing and inaccurate. So may I ask?:

    1. When the government or politicians talk of $ X / tonne, do they mean per tonne of carbon burnt or per tonne of Carbon Dioxide produced?

    2. In burning coal some carbon is often left unburned in the ash. Is this allowed for?

    3. If the legislation uses the word “Carbon” when “carbon dioxide” is intended, would the Act be invalid or make it invalid?

    4. Likewise, would the use of the term “Carbon Pollution” also be invalid? When they do not mean ‘carbon’ but ‘carbon dioxide’ and as we all know, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but essential plant food. Very strange and in error that many think this way about carbon dioxide.

    If this tax is to be applied to fuels generating heat from the combustion of carbon, it is difficult to understand how some may be exempted and others to be compensated without the whole scheme being a costly ‘merry-go-round’ costing more than $1,000 per head one way or another. A few hundred dollars per household for electricity bills would be only chicken feed, with the real cost being passed through to all goods and services.

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Treeman
    I have also noticed the slight change in wording towards carbon-free economy and carbon pollution.
    An interesting debate on Channel 7 recently had an Aussie scientist say that the global cooling phase we had during 1945-1975 was caused by pollution.
    So cooling was caused by pollution and warming is also caused by pollution.
    Which one is it?
    See link at
    http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/watch/24172061/the-great-climate-debate/

    and scroll to around the 9:30 min mark to hear statement (you can’t scroll through the ad at the beginning).

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Paul79 @41

    # 1 answer: YES

    # 2 answer the coal will be taxed at $x per ton(ne) AND the ash (carbon containing) will ALSO be taxed at $X per ton(ne).

    # 3 It is safer to assume that “carbon” for the purpose of $X taxes means EVERY compound containing carbon.

    # 4…..You don’t seem to be getting this do you? Plants are also carbon and so are humans Duh! more $X taxes

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Ian thats an old one,

    There is good pollution and there is bad pollution depending on which way the temp is going.

    I think you will find the warming from the 1910′s to the 1940′s was caused by pollution (enter AGW) the cooling from the 1940′s to the 1970′s was caused by pollution and this cooling masked the effects of AGW. Now with all the pollution out of the way the full effects of AGW can be seen. Now they talk about adding pollution to mask the effects of AGW.

    If you show your hand and say these climate shifts correlate well with the phase changes of the PDO you are hissed at and called a denier.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Carbon dioxide is heavier than air.

    As air closest to the Earths surface is usually the warmest and the higher the altitude the lower the air temperature is, and in passing from sunlight to darkness the temperature also drops.

    As warm air close to the Earths surface is less dense it therefore naturally rises. Heavier cold air then sinks to take up the displacement.

    Therefore in my mind as CO2 is heavier than air the ratio of CO2 in cold or hot air near the Earths surface would remain the same.

    As I see it the arguement that increasing CO2 levels raises the Earths temperature must be wrong as the air isn’t static. The CO2 global warming theory is negated by convection.

    Just a thought – I’ll probably get ridiculed.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Why Big Business Favours the Carbon Tax
    Reports of big business rushing to prop up Gillard’s silly “Carbon Tax” had me thinking about why they would do that. In the end, it comes down to the bottom line.

    If government imposes the tax on the “big polluters” who also happen to be the big suppliers that meet consumer demand, then that increased cost to make stuff (to transport, store and to preserve it) will be passed on to the consumer as higher prices.

    The government claims that the consumer will be compensated, so demand will not decrease.

    But business turnover does increase in monetary terms. Which looks good on the balance sheet and will no doubt result in bonuses being paid to directors and, to a lesser degree, to shareholders.

    So it’s all good. Isn’t it?

    Well, there’s the matter of “leakage” between the collection of the tax and the compensation of selected individuals. First; there’s the ransom of 10% to be paid to the UN. Then there’s a huge swag of new bureaucrats (aka “green jobs”) with their snouts in the trough to administer the tax and to determine who gets how much as compensation. My edumacated guess; it’ll cost several hundred million dollars a year to pay for all that furious (carbon-dioxide emitting) activity.

    And then we get to the crux of the matter: That all the taxes will not lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions at all because demand will remain unchanged; except indirectly as more people go broke and can afford even less. A fruit that takes 3 to 5 years to “ripen”.

    The big business decision cycle isn’t built on the long-term. The long-term consequences of their decisions today aren’t shown on the balance sheets. And those responsible are issued with golden parachutes when it becomes too embarassing to have such people on the board and in management.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Kevin in 45,

    Remember CO2 is a “well mixed gas” now dont you go asking me for evidence as i dont need evidence cos i have faith.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That bloody Sceptics Handbook is on the carbon/CO2 smoke and mirrors trick too!!!
    “NOTE: Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, and CO2 are all used interchangably here”
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Kevin and Crakar24, reasonably, Co2 has to follow a number of physical gas properties. I wouldn’t suggest that we know everything there is to know at the volume of the earth’s atmosphere, but left alone, gasses in a composition WILL mix by themselves. It is a basic physics observation.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Bernd

    Adding to your comment, I see on Andrew Bolt’s blog he interviewed Jill Duggan from the Directorate -general’s office for Climate Action at the EU Commission, on his radio show.
    Among the many things he got her to admit was the EU stuffed up on measuring the emissions because they did not measure the emissions of the company’s before the start of the EU ETS.
    They relied on company figures — but the companies were smarter than the bureaucrats
    ( as usual !!)– they inflated their figures so after the appropriate time period when the
    “inspectors” did the measurements the company results came out looking fantastic. The Scam continues !! ( Would Aussie companies do that ??)

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Mark D @49;

    But if CO2 doesn’t stay close to ground level how is the Earths vegetation going to get the necessary CO2 for growth?

    00

  • #
    Paul79

    To Mark D @ 43:

    #1 Yes … to which alternative?

    #2 That then is per tonne of fuel, be it coal, oil, petrol or bio-fuels?

    #4 Not sure what was missed. Plants at times, animals and humans all produce CO2, but not considered a problem unless burned. If the CAGW people are fearful of CO2, they may stop breathing.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Paul79, humor is in the eye of the beholder (apparently). Sarcasm is sometimes funny and irony, well that can be funny too.

    Now I find your questions to be good and serious. Please re-read my answers with a bit of bias towards irony (humorous)

    To summarize: “what will be taxed?”: YES (everything)
    “How many tonnes will be taxed?” Yes (everything)

    “Plants and animals be taxed?” Yes (everything)

    Sincere apologies for any mis-match in our senses of humor :)

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Kevin @ 51, Are you saying that there is no Co2 at high altitudes?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Yes he is… Jo prepared the handbook for people like this. Shame they don’t use it.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Mark D @54,

    Wind would mix up CO2, but CO2′s weight would give it a propensity to precipitate is the way I would see it.

    I’m not saying I’m right. Just putting forward a thought.

    00

  • #

    Here is a NASA chart showing how “well mixed” CO2 is in our atmosphere.
    http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2008/282311main_PIA11194%5B1%5D.jpg

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    To be filed under “the ice is melting and it’s worse than we thought” section:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/8980401/polar-ice-melt-accelerating-rapidly-study/

    Sea level rise now predicted to be (they say “could be”) 32cm by 2050 according to NASA.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Baa, how do they get a resolution of 376 to 386 PPM Globally? Neat that they would try to show it.

    MattB and Kevin, since Baa has provided empirical evidence that the atmosphere contains Co2 mixed (well) to the observational range of between 376 and 386 Parts per Million, we may have to agree seperately on the definition of “well Mixed”.

    I’ll await all responses.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mauna Loa is at 11,141 feet above sea level. I suppose it is very possible that the Co2 measurements recorded at that site and trusted, are far too low compared to the “unwell mixed” surface. I am also certain that Mann, Jones and sundry other warmists would let that go unnoticed whilst they spread all the other crap about man-caused warming.

    Even MattB is laughing

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Guys CO2 is only a bit player in the whole catastrophic climate change scenario.

    The whole thing hinges on CO2 triggering an endless feedback loop by water vapour to cause runaway warming and catastrophic climate change.

    Everyone acknowledges that CO2‘s potential to cause slight warming is scientifically plausible. However there is one paper that suggests even this won’t happen because each CO2 molecule will simply displace a H2O molecule and have no extra affected all.

    So it’s not CO2 that is going to do us all in it’s water vapour (yes this whole thing is built on and argument that silly)

    To highlight just how silly that argument is.

    If climate change has already began as the alarmist tell us, then the endles positive feedback loop of water vapour is already underway.
    Consequently even removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere won’t make any difference because water vapour so dominates the greenhouse effect.

    Remember in the theory CO2 is merely the spark that ignites the fire, the fuel that keeps the fire burning is H2O.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    US President Richard Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/nixon-was-told-sea-level-would-rise-by.html?

    More climate alarmist lies from these Green Communists……..

    00

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    Ok. I’ll admit it. I don’t like Tony Abbott or the libs. I also don’t like Labor much, I just dislike the libs more.

    But now Joolya has gone too far. Whatever lukewarm support I had for Labor is gone. Time now to start actively trying to either kill of this tax or work on the independents to withdraw their support. I’m furious, angrier about something in politics than I have been for many many years. I would guess there are many others who feel equally betrayed and bloody pissed off.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Binny, no argument with your post.

    You might be missing my intent namely; we face many hurdles one of which is subversive comments that make skeptics look foolish. Kevin Moore, I think, is new here which means he could be learning or he could be a troll. MattB is the master of subversive propaganda.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    TYPO! “You might be missing my intent namely {pointing out that}; we face many hurdles…..

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Troll Alert.

    I have it on good word that various Green forces on the Intertubes are preparing to mobilize a major offense “opinion” offensive in the blogosphere. I’d suspect that Jo Nova’s would be high on the list of targets. Labor and the Greens are absolutely desperate and are pulling out all the blocks. No dirty trick is deemed too low. Moderators watch for Mobies attempting to insert bigotry into your comment sections.

    Alarmists have no rational arguments left, expect them to use fear, smear and loathing. OK, I hear you. So what’s new, you ask? Duh. I don’t know ;-) But something is up.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    wes george:

    Troll Alert.

    Excellent, I can hardly wait, I enjoy exposing trolls or “mobies”. (and thanks to your informative lesson the other day wes I now know what a “moby” is – the most irritating form)

    Bring it on you zealots, we’re ready for you!

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lol – “Master of submersive propaganda”
    I may have to make a badge or a T-Shirt!

    Mark D in #60. The altitude of Mauna Loa is not an issue as the “concentration” is ppm… so it doesn’t matter if there is not much air, but for every million parts of it there are 370-390 parts CO2. It is not a per volume thing, but per million.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    How to Decode Climatespeak……..

    “Lower income earners will be compensated for the Carbon Tax”:-”We’re going to screw everone”
    “We’re only after the big polluters”– “and the little ones ,too”
    “Carbon pollution is —”–”"we all failed high school chemistry”
    “We’re not sure about petrol yet”—”Is your journey necessary?”
    “But Flannery and Garnaut agree–”–”this one is a real turkey”
    “Hot rocks and wind power works”–”the losing quinella”
    “Air Con not needed any more”—”Next ice age is nigh”
    “You confuse climate with weather–”–”you jackass sceptic”

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “wes george” (66),
    The likes of “Vince Whilwind”, “john brooks”, “mattb” etc etc are the First Wave of trolls……..

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Funny I was here 3 years before you Percy.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    No Matt, the discussion presently revolves around the notion that Co2 being heavier than air will “settle to the surface” rather than stay well mixed. If that notion were true the PPM would also change to reflect more molecules of Co2 per volume of air at the lower altitude surface.

    I do not agree with that notion either.

    PS a million parts of air would not be a volume? Define Pedantic

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No it’s not pedantic. A million parts could take up a tiny volume or a massive volume. It is like when you climb a mountain, it is not a lack of oxygen in the air, it is a lack of air, that makes breathing a bit harder. You made a reference to Mauna Loa, and that its altitude could explain differences, but that is not the case.

    If you are discussing whether CO2 falls to the surface with someone else here, then nothing to do with me. My opinion is that would be incorrect.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Lets try Ratio.

    The ratio of Co2 at Mauna Loa (El. 11,141 Feet ASL) is in the range of 380:1,000,000. If that same volume of atmosphere is brought to sea level it would be the same ratio (you and I agree). However, some have suggested that Co2 being more dense will result in some >380:1,000,000 ratio. A notion that I do not agree with (call me skeptical).

    Pay attention, you did appear to agitate the conversation as per @48 and @55

    00

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    Being British, I don’t know the ins & outs of Oz politics. However, is a change of Government likely to result in a change of policy?
    You can’t get a shim between the climate/tax policies of the ploitical parties that have a chance of being elected.
    Is this the same in Oz?
    “New boss, same as the old boss”?

    00

  • #
    Perry

    I posted at WUWT:

    Andrew Bolt this morning on the radio in Melbourne this morning:

    “We chat to Jill Duggan, from the directorate-general for climate action at the European Commission, who says the opposition here to a carbon dioxide tax is ”slightly bizarre” when Europe has no problem with its own price on carbon dioxide. Really, I ask, with European unemployment at 10 per cent and growth at just 1.6 per cent? So I ask this salesman of the EU emissions trading scheme the two basic questions everyone should ask of anyone selling anything: how much does it cost, and what will it do? How many billions will Europe spend on this scheme to cut its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, and by how much will that cut the world’s temperatures by 2100? The interview suddenly goes very pear-shaped for one of us – and is a stunning indictment of the EU’s foolishness. The question about job losses caused by Europe’s green schemes goes no better. ”

    Please listen to this show. It will inform and greatly amuse. The link to the recording is under the picture of Jill Duggan. Make it viral.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_9/#commentsmore

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Adam:

    There is a difference here, though not as much as I’d like. The Liberal/National coalition does not currently have either a “carbon” tax or an emissions trading scheme as its policy. But, and it’s a big but, the current leader won his position from the former leader by only one vote. Said former leader being a merchant banker in a previous life and had done a deal wih the Labor Party to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

    This bankster still has a solid support base in the party despite the reality that both his personal rating and that of the party resided in the septic tank. After stating that he would not stand again in his seat, he reneged.

    He is prone to making statements of matters not in his shadow portfolio. Clearly a man of some ability but unworthy of trust IMHO.

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Is the ABC starting to hedge its bets?

    See below for an extract from the 7.30 report transcript tonight.

    “CHRIS UHLMANN: Well the United States has basically – the Democrats have lost at a national level, they have lost the debate on pricing carbon. So, now what’s happening, and particularly those people who ran the Tea Party campaign, they are moving on to the state-based schemes that the Prime Minister talked about. Now, there are about three of them in the United States that are running that do involve various states of the United States.

    But to give you just an example on one: in the western region, there are seven US states and four Canadian provinces which were signed up over a period of time to being – to a carbon trading system. Well, the only one left in that now is California. All the Republicans states are removing their states from those carbon trading systems. So, the US is in retreat on this. And it interesting to contrast really what we’re told often in Australia about what’s happening on an international stage and what is actually happening.”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark in 76 don’t forget that the Abbott is also planning to meet the same reduction targets, but through direct action that will only cost more, it being about a govt picking winners not a market based scheme.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark in 74:
    In 48 and 55 I assumed I was on your side.

    00

  • #
    janama

    It appears that the editorial staff have gone from the 7.30 report along with Kerry.

    Uhlmann is showing a new face for the ABC at last, Anyone who’s followed him would have seen it coming.

    Now if we could only do it to lateLine and Tony Jones.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Matt #78

    That’s quite true MattB. I was just giving Adam Gallon a brief precis of current Oz politics.

    I will not be voting Lib if that’s what crossed your mind as I believe Abbott should state unequivocally where he stands and I don’t believe he’s done that. Two bob each way isn’t good enough for me.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Mark, this is probably not the place to discuss why I am a dyed in the wool ALP or LNP voter.

    00

  • #
    brc

    Adam – yes the Libs have promised no carbon tax or no carbon trading. In this respect it is good there is an alternative.

    However, as already pointed out, they aren’t actively rejecting the entire theory, and the official line is they believe, and are committed to a 5% reduction by 2020. The policy is to do stuff that affects carbon dioxide levels, like planting more trees and buying back and closing down old technology that emits a lot. Yes, this is expensive, but no new taxes are promised to fund it.

    Personally I see this policy as a halfway house to get the party singing from the same hymn sheet. You can bet the level of believers in the party hovers at close to 50%. So an official party line of being ‘deniers’ is not possible at the moment. There are outspoken skeptics and outspoken warmists. However the numbers will drop further when they see how toxic these policies are becoming with the public. I don’t think it is possible for the Liberal party to walk away from the AGW charade at this point, because it would allow the screamers to yell denier at every chance and nothing else would be heard. As it is, every chance they get, they repeat that ‘Tony Abbott (leader of opposition) said that climate change is crap’. It’s not actually what he said, but whatever. What the Greens and Labor don’t actually realise is that they are helping Tony Abbott. Because he gets painted as a skeptic but gets to maintain his official line as being cmomitted to co2 cuts. They’ve been bleating this stuff for years now but his poll ratings refuse to drop – they’ve thrown everything and the kitchen sink at him, so the public has heard it all and they’ve either made up their mind or they haven’t.

    The only good thing I have to say about the Liberal climate change policy is that it can be walked away from at a moments notice. There’s no lock-in of agreements, no complicated trading arrangements or legislation. You could simply close down whatever department was doing the work and stop the program immediately. And that some of the actions would have a net benefit for the environment anyway – like planting trees in some areas.

    As for the UK – I’ve often wondered out loud if the conservatives wouldn’t have got a bigger winning majority if they had actually rustled up an ounce of skepticism on matters climate change? If I were in the UK I would find it very hard to vote for someone like David Cameron with their nuts windmill policy and impossible to vote for Brown or Clegg. With non-compulsory voting I’m sure a large conservative voter base probably stayed at home and stewed about it.

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    brc #83
    Good analysis. I think the LNP has nothing to lose by ditching the “I believe in climate change” stance. They can only lose the green vote that they have never had.
    If, as I suspect, the AGW lobby becomes more on the nose as time goes by, they will be seen (in the future) as the least gullible of the voting alternatives. It would be a sound longterm investment to back the rational science.
    Hopefully, rationality comes out on top. If it does not, I see a dark (pun intended) future.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    BRC #83

    I agree that Abbott is pretending to believe to get disillusioned labor voters but lets not forget there are many climate scientists that claim land use plays a big part so the libs plan to replant areas does have some merit. I dont see anything like this in the green/labor plan. It is simply a TAX.

    To all,

    If certain sections of the government and media are going to continue to abuse science by calling it carbon pollution can we please adhere to the following:

    Water in all its forms should be referred to as Di-Hydrogen pollution

    Ozone will now become simply pollution, pollution, pollution

    Sulphur di-oxide is now sulphur pollution

    and so on.

    TIA

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Funny I was here 3 years before you Percy.

    But Percy has spammed more crap in six months than your total input for 3 years.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Bring it on you zealots, we’re ready for you!

    Trolls succeed in derailing threads because there are always idiots that engage with them.Bring it on you zealots, we’re ready for you!

    00

  • #
    Geoff Dean

    “if they want to reduce the power of the Green vote they need to copy the good green policies and expose the bad ones”

    Which good green policies? I’ve never heard of any.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Matt b @ 68

    Apparently Mauna Loa is a volcano so altitude would be irrelevant when measuring CO2 levels there. Yes it took me a while to twig.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Geoff in 89: How about equality for same sex couples?

    00