Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Don’t listen to shock jocks on carbon

Don’t listen to shock jocks on carbon

I found this great piece by Bob Carter over on Online Opinion and I reproduce it here under the terms of its Creative commons licence It can be viewed at its original location via the link in the author’s name below the title.
Cheers Comrades

Don’t listen to shock jocks on carbon

by Bob Carter

“Last Monday, I received a report from the Climate Commission confirming again that climate change is real. It provided very real evidence that we need to act now. Not in a couple of generations time, or even a couple of years time, but now.” – Julia Gillard

Climate change is like motherhood: of course it’s real, and whoever would doubt it?

If, instead, the PM actually means to say “dangerous global warming caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions is real”, then she is wrong.

That such warming is occurring is a hypothesis which can be tested against the last ten years of data, which are: carbon dioxide increase – +5%; temperature decrease – -0.05O C.

The hypothesis is invalidated by the test. There is therefore no urgency to act now – or, indeed, at all – by penal taxation against carbon dioxide such as the PM is suggesting.

What the report shows is that in the past 50 years the number of record hot days in Australia has more than doubled. Australian natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef are already being damaged and the risk of coastal flooding could double by the end of the century. Most significantly, the report says the greatest contributor to recent climate change is carbon pollution caused by humans.

As detailed in a scientific audit published at Quadrant Online, the facts related in this paragraph are a manifestation of natural environmental variability, and the speculation about human causation is based on discredited advice from the United Nations IPCC.

These reports are not the first of their kind. They build on past work from scientists around the world who have been tracking the effects of climate change for years.

Thousands of independent scientists have expressed different views from the extreme alarmism of the IPCC and its advisors. Most have moderate, middle ground views. They accept that natural climate change is a hazard that we should prepare for, and note that hypothetical human-caused global warming, should it ever emerge, is best dealt with in the same way. Which is by contingency preparation in advance, and adaptive response when a climate hazard, of whatever causation, is actually visited upon us.

And like ones past, these research papers have been peer reviewed by other scientists to make sure findings are accurate.

Peer review does not ensure accurate findings. It is simply an editorial device used in an (often vain) attempt at quality control.

With the science so clear we shouldn’t waste time on shock jocks or politicians who rely on false claims to run their scare campaigns. They quote one crank or another in the same way people have argued the world is flat.

“The science” doesn’t exist. As for all contentious topics, there are a very wide range of interpretations put and views held by different scientists about the causes and mechanisms of climate change. “Cranks” are not an issue given that protagonists of the highest scientific quality can be found on all sides (and there are many more than two) of the public debate about global warming.

The best way to cut carbon pollution is to make up to 1000 of our biggest polluters pay for every tonne of carbon they generate. Not households. Not small businesses. Just the top 1000 polluters.

There is no carbon pollution, as particulate matter is filtered out prior to smoke stack venting at all modern industrial plants.

If the PM means “carbon dioxide pollution”, then she is wrong again, for carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Rather, it is an environmentally beneficial trace gas that underpins plant photosynthesis, and therefore most planetary food chains.

Imposing a carbon dioxide tax on large businesses will result in any unavoidable costs of that tax being passed straight down to ordinary consumers.

We know some industries will pass some of these costs on to consumers, which is why we will give more than half of the money raised back to families.

And for how long will this largesse continue? And what about families that do not fall within the PM’s definition of being worthy to receive a refund?

The rest will go to supporting jobs in existing industries and creating new jobs by investing in clean energy and technology.

Studies in Europe show that for every new job created in the “clean energy” industry, between two and three jobs are destroyed.

Putting a price on carbon pollution means companies will look to cut that cost to their business by decreasing their pollution, so much so that we are confident our plan will reduce Australia’s emissions by 160 million tonnes in 2020. This is equivalent to taking 50 million polluting cars off our roads in 2020.

No matter how many times the mantra is repeated, carbon dioxide emissions are not pollution, but, instead, help to green the planet.

For the first few years of the scheme the price per tonne of pollution paid by big polluters will be fixed, working effectively like a tax. After that, a cap will be put on the amount of pollution that these polluters can generate and a market will exist in which firms will buy and sell permits to emit a tonne of pollution.

In other words, as soon as possible we intend to pass control over to the same financial wizards whose trading of derivatives recently brought the world financial system to the point of collapse. What a great idea.

In this emissions trading scheme, companies that find ways to reduce their pollution will make money by selling permits to pollute and big polluters will have to spend money to buy permits. The forces of supply and demand for permits will set the price. But the golden rule will be: the less a firm pollutes, the better off it is.

In actuality, the same thing will happen to any Australian carbon dioxide trading market as has already happened to the Chicago (now closed down) and European (hopelessly corrupt) exchanges.

As the commodity  – which, remember, is a piece of paper that represents a colourless, odourless, tasteless, invisible and beneficial trace gas – changes hands, every man and his dog will clamour to clip the ticket, and the market will be rife with speculation and corrupt trading.

Overwhelmingly our nation wants to act on climate change but some worry it won’t be good for us if we get out in front of the world.

What Australian citizens want the PM to act upon is to ensure reliable and cost-effective energy supplies, to stem the escalating cost of living and to indulge in good environmental stewardship. Imposition of a carbon dioxide tax will have exactly the opposite effects.

They don’t have to worry because the world is moving too.

Just this month the U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to cut his country’s emissions by half by 2027.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key is enhancing a carbon trading scheme that has been in place in New Zealand since 2008. On May 29, the U.S. state of New Jersey announced its withdrawal from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a market designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. Northeast.

Meanwhile, Russia, Japan and Canada have told the G8 nations that they will not join a second round of carbon dioxide cuts under any continuation of the Kyoto protocol, and the U.S. has reiterated it intends to remain outside the treaty. The reason is because the rest of the world, outside of Europe, has chosen not to implement penal imposts on coal-fired power stations, nor to tax carbon dioxide more generally.

Western governments are in fact moving in precisely the opposite direction to PM Gillard’s demonisation and intended taxation of an environmentally beneficial trace gas.


27 Comments

  1. Craigy says:

    Quadrant?? Keith Windshuttle??…….Oh the Hoax, that’s right.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/06/how-windschuttle-swallowed-a-hoax-to-publish-a-fake-story-in-quadrant/

    With all the long debunked right wing(nut) talking points covered in this article, are you sure it isn’t just another Hoax Iain??

    You know they don’t check. (Bullet meets foot)

  2. damage says:

    Miow!

  3. Craigy says:

    Good morning damage……..never been a cat fan myself…..

  4. Craigy says:

    “environmentally beneficial trace gas”

    Ah….the latest Bolt talking point. Good to see you are paying attention to the wise words of the wingnut guru from news ltd.

  5. damage says:

    Is anyone else interested in the fact that Crikey were so willing to go to print when that happened, but not a word when their own fellows were duped by Composta?

    Hell Craigy himself has been taken in by a too good to be true ally from the left at this very blog.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    You do realise that this piece is by Professor Bob Carter don’t you Craigy?

  7. damage says:

    Only some professors may profess in the temple of Gaia Iain.

  8. Barton Sykes Zane Clint Eric Trow says:

    Ahhhhh of course, he’s “Professor”…so the “lattesipping post modern communist chardonay swilling living on the iron lung of government funding elitist unaustralian supporting islam and social engineering wealth distributing academic test” does not apply in this case Iain? LOL

  9. Craigy says:

    Yes Iain, but he is doing exactly what your side attacks AGW advocates for doing. He just repeats political talking points.

    Anyway, how can you be sure this is from him given the Quadrant editor and his record of sloppy work?

    Only the chosen few will be spared by Gaia in her revenge, and none of them will be wingnuts…..sorry…..but as you know religion can be harsh and penance must be done when you sin….

  10. Craigy says:

    That last para. is for you damage.

  11. Craigy says:

    BSZCET, don’t be surprised if you don’t hear back from Iain, he has taken up the tactic of dump and run of late. He may just be busy – though it seems to be strategic.

    Wingnuts don’t like hard questions or having their hypocrisy pointed out.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, seeing that “BSZCET” delights in making shit comments about people at an anonymosly authored st*lking blog, I hardly think Iain or anyone else owes him the courtesy of a reply. He deserves to be ignored.

  13. Barton Sykes Zane Clint Eric Trow says:

    71% of Australian respondents reported that their level of concern about climate
    change had increased over the past two years.
    78% of Australian respondents agreed that, “If nothing is done to reduce climate
    change in the future, it will be a „very serious‟ or „somewhat serious‟ problem for
    Australia”.

    Click to access Interim%20report%20-%20final%20document%20-18-04-2011-2_30pm(1).pdf

  14. damage says:

    “Wingnuts don’t like hard questions or having their hypocrisy pointed out.”

    Ok so maybe you might answer this question – one you must have “missed” the other day.

    Who said this
    “To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest.”

  15. damage says:

    Remember when Tony Abbot was ambusged by Mark Riely?

    There’s a room at RMIT with a bloke sitting in it with two fists and grinding teeth.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Damage,
    That is what the Warministas want us to believe 😉
    Zane Trow @ 10.26
    That is not the point I am trying to make here, to put it in simple terms I am suggesting that as Bob Carter has a certified white coat then going on Craigy’s previous form for appeals to authority then he should not be so dismissive.
    Craigy

    Yes Iain, but he is doing exactly what your side attacks AGW advocates for doing. He just repeats political talking points.

    Anyway, how can you be sure this is from him given the Quadrant editor and his record of sloppy work?

    Well No I think that he is doing a very good job of deconstructing Julia Gillard’s rather dreadful speech, The point of the piece just in case you did not work it out.

    BSZCET, don’t be surprised if you don’t hear back from Iain, he has taken up the tactic of dump and run of late. He may just be busy – though it seems to be strategic.

    I’ve been rather busier than usual of late doing things like fixing our daily driver (head gaskets on a Subaru are a bitch to replace ) and there have been a few other out of the ordinary things in my life lately. Further its not my fault that you want to comment here at a time when I’m otherwise engaged.

    Wingnuts don’t like hard questions or having their hypocrisy pointed out.

    😆
    Like you answered all of my most reasonable questions in teh previous thread 🙄
    Ray

    He deserves to be ignored.

    Hmm maybe but it just makes him look bad when he has the opportunity to criticise me to my face (here) rather than taking the cowardly option of doing so on the dark-side.
    Zane Trow
    Your citation is actually a very good example of just how you can get the answers that you want with carefully designed questions and it actually supports the point that Bob Carter makes in the opening of his piece..
    speaking of questions you have yet to answer the ones that I posed to you in the earlier thread so please don’t get all self-righteous about unanswered questions.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    I wonder if Zane realises he’s participating in st*lking by even commenting there and that under the laws of Queensland at least (maybe in Victoria too) he could be charged for harassing you online? No wonder Jo uses a different name when she comments there.

  18. Barton Sykes Zane Clint Eric Trow says:

    Well Reg, all Iain has to do is block my posts if he’s as so grandly offended, it’s not like I am trying to hide who I am, my avatar always stays the same regardless of what silly name I use on any given visit. I also have a sense of humour Reg, you seem mighty thin skinned about it all. Why is that? Something happened in a past life maybe?

    It’s called “taking the piss” where I come from.

    This is a open blog isn’t it? It is not password protected…..and I mean it’s also moderated, and it’s Iain’s. So if he wants me to piss off all he has to do is say so.

    Iain, what say you? If you give me the word I shall happily retire, never to grace these hallowed pages again.

  19. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    Well he strikes me as the sort of extreme Lefty who is also rather naive about the laws that pertain to the media he plays in.
    In any case I can’t see why he needs to bad mouth me or anything I write here, at any other site, its not like my email address is unknown to him or that the comment threads at the Sandpit are closed to him either.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Zane
    I am rather fond of the old adage that says, “keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer” so as long as you keep your comments generally civil you are welcome to continue posting comments.
    I really don’t get why you are so pissed off with me.
    Is it just that you are incapable of appreciating that there is more than one way to understand the world and the machinations of politics?

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    Zane, my name is Ray. If you want to address me then at least have the courtesy to use my name not something you and the anonymous d*ckheads use elsewhere.

    I haven’t accused you of trying to hide who you are, but haven’t you noticed that everyone else at that blog hides their identity? There’s a reason for that – what they’re doing is online sta*lking. You really are naive if you think that’s “taking the piss”. It’s like schoolkids going on FaceBook to harass their rivals. Real grown up stuff there, Zane.

    As for being thin-skinned, well, if I were as thin-skinned as your mates at that blog of shame are, why would I have been posting & blogging under my own name (with my address, phone number, business, etc, fully available to anyone at my blog) for the last 5 or 6 years?

    Sense of humour? Oh go on Zane, crack a joke. I haven’t seen anything remotely resembling humour coming from your direction. Plenty of poor manners and bad taste though. You’re actually behaving worse than those you criticise. Get a life.

  22. Barton Sykes Zane Clint Eric Trow says:

    “I really don’t get why you are so pissed off with me. Is it just that you are incapable of appreciating that there is more than one way to understand the world and the machinations of politics?”

    My response to this would certainly not be “generally civil”, so using words I have used here before I think you are a bottom dweller and you talk complete rubbish most of the time. And your complete ignorance of your own stupidity and prejudice makes me laugh. Most of the discussion here is just so dumb that the lure of your site remains, throughout even the busiest of days. The other site you and little Reg refer to also makes me laugh, so I will continue to post there as well, especially when I am not feeling “generally civil”. OAO, have a good weekend slobbering over right wing propoganda.

  23. Ray Dixon says:

    Zane, regardless of what you think about Iain (and I agree that some of his opinions are crap – but so what?) you cannot sink lower than to be a participant at that other blog.

    You strike me as a very pompous and pious person who can’t see where the line is crossed. You only come on here to mock and denigrate (you’ve admitted that) and then you go over there to do the same – only that’s known as online harassment.

    As you’re the only person using their real name over there I’d be a bit more cautious of my online activity if I were you.

  24. Blinded by the headlights of knowledge says:

    Thanx Reg for your sage like advice, I will take great care in future, clearly you are well experienced in these matters to do with the intehwebs and modern stuff like that.

  25. Iain Hall says:

    Zane Trow
    I can see that you are not burdened by any generosity of the spirit or the cognition and verbal skills to actually form any sort of reasoned argument. I have been taking note of your snipe and run style of argument both here and elsewhere. Its pretty shallow.
    Now as long time readers will know I just tell it the way I see it and I am more than willing to be convinced that I am wrong on any particular issue (which does not mean that I don’t fight my corner tenaciously) and I take some pride in the fact that I am so willing to entertain contrary viewpoints at my blog.

    My response to this would certainly not be “generally civil”, so using words I have used here before I think you are a bottom dweller and you talk complete rubbish most of the time.

    Hmm on what particular issues do you think that I talk complete rubbish?

    Why do you think this?

    And your complete ignorance of your own stupidity and prejudice makes me laugh.

    In my experience those who underestimate their interlocutors or have to resort to generalised insults like this are themselves very narrow minded and dare I say it utterly biggoted

    Most of the discussion here is just so dumb that the lure of your site remains, throughout even the busiest of days.

    This sentence does not quite work, It needs revision I think, and then it might just make some sense.

    The other site you and little Reg refer to also makes me laugh, so I will continue to post there as well, especially when I am not feeling “generally civil”. OAO, have a good weekend slobbering over right wing propoganda(sic).

    Does the phase “if you lay down with dogs then you will be sure to get fleas” mean anything to you?
    You are of course free to post anywhere you please but the choices you make may come back to haunt you sooner or later.
    as for your snipe about “right wing propaganda” I tend to read the stuff put up by lefty organs like Fairfax and The ABC it gives me far more pleasure and things to write about.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    “Shallow” sure as hell describes Zane. No substance whatsoever. No moral compass. Zero credibility. A waste of space.

  27. […] My response to this would certainly not be “generally civil”, so using words I have used here before I think you are a bottom dweller and you talk complete rubbish most of the time. And your complete ignorance of your own stupidity and prejudice makes me laugh. Most of the discussion here is just so dumb that the lure of your site remains, throughout even the busiest of days. The other site you and little Reg refer to also makes me laugh, so I will continue to post there as well, especially when I am not feeling “generally civil”. OAO, have a good weekend slobbering over right wing propoganda(sic). source […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: