Baldrick says:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 8:01 pm
Nice drawing Simon ... Just need to add 2 more groups getting money from our Government. The likes of Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery who will still be on the Government payroll long after a carbon dioxide tax is introduced to keep perpetuating the lies.
The second group would be money going to companies to find the holly grail of renewable or infinite energy, which doesn't exist :)
Reply
Kevin says:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 9:05 pm
Shouldn't the government be spinning as well?
Reply
Andy G55 says:
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 at 7:01 am
To better represent reality, the arrow going from the Governemnt to the consumer should be much smaller. And there should be a large arrow going into thin air.
Just one line from his latest report is enough:
"Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price." (source) So it isn't the big polluters, is it Julia and Greg?
Lies, lies and more lies from our deceitful government. When will it ever end?
Baldrick says:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 6:29 pm
Well finally the truth, ALL Australian households will bear the cost of a carbon dioxide tax. A tax that is designed to rid the world of 0.00009% of all man-made co2 in the atmosphere and ultimately rid you of your hard earned dollars. Good one Julia and Bob ... now tell the truth that a 0.00009% reduction will do nothing for the
worlds climate and the reason for the tax is purely politics.
Audrey says:
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 at 6:13 am
Using backward logic.
With the value of $28 per tonne of manmade carbon dioxide as an example; and Julia/Bob's insistence of a 0.00009% Reduction.
(0.00009% x World Manmade CO2(tonnes)) x $28/tonne
Wouldn't it be cheaper for Australia just to sack all of the climate change committee, advisers, so on and so on, and just hand over the value of the proposed reduction to what ever greedy world organisation that is demanding it for third world mandatory intervention for insistence on western civilisation way of life/ ie they want a piece of action in their natural resources and mineral wealth..
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what price you put on CO2, it will do absolutely nothing for the environment.
CREDIBILITY CORRUPTED.
very other day our climate gurus table new reports. Here’s the latest: “ScienceDaily (Jan. 20, 2011) — The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between
global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998.”
Next day: ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2011) — Meteorologists at Freie Universität have found a correlation between warming in the stratosphere and cold or warm winter periods. “This could mean that in Europe there will increasingly be periods lasting several decades with predominantly colder winters alternating with periods of warmer winters,” says Semjon Schimanke, who led the research, reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.” That’s a bet each way!
This shouldn’t surprise because most of these academics go public with anything that will maintain their tenures at the many institutions competing for public money. Truth in academia is a misnomer, it’s damned FRAUD!
For the truth, however, simply follow the money trail to uncover key players and their financial interests.
Climate change, for example, has morphed into a massive moneymaker for some, a catastrophic loss for most. This scam took off when Al Gore effectively brainwashed most of the world with his stellar movie production of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Unquestioning educators, incompetent scientists, entire governments, and an utterly
gullible, lefty media swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker—a brilliant campaign comparable only to the Y2K Bug. Gore now refuses any debate on the many lies and myths portrayed in his handiwork.
We laboured “Climategate” ad nauseam when UK’s East Anglia University’s climate experts were caught fudging the books and worse—credibility corrupted!
With no professorial knowledge of climate whatsoever, two greedy choirboys Al Gore and Canadian born Maurice Strong raised the climate scare to religious fervour.
Gore and Strong are disciples of the religion known as Gaia; belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. Strong, until recently, was little known in the US, that’s because he spends most of his time in China teaching them how to make Communist China the world’s next superpower—avarice run amok!
Gore’s climate sham began on Earth Day, April 1995 when he scammed US government grants. Molten Metal’s stock skyrocketed from pennies to USD$35 a share following Gore’s pulpit sermon. In March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry. Seven officers, including Maurice Strong, sold off
USD$15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On 20, Oct. 1996 the company announced the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.
By morning, stock plunged 49%, stalling at USD$5. By early 1997, furious stockholders filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Strong was a major shareholder, in yet another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company chaired by him. That case mirrored the Molten Metal sham. Strong boosted the stock value into the stratosphere before flogging it. To escape a jury verdict he and his hucksters agreed to repay USD$5 million. Corruption proven, credibility destroyed!
However, the unethical duo, hot on the money trail, conned Barack Obama to support their new plans. While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that came to play a critical role in today’s US cap-and-trade carbon reduction program. Obama organized grants to launch the privately owned (Gore’s) Chicago Climate Exchange with global affiliates and projects worldwide.
This cozy affair allowed Gore to buy his carbon offsets from himself, the Generation Investment Management with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner.
Gore’s lifestyle became public for his extravagant waste and toxic, carbon footprint that he still conveniently ignores, and why not with an estimated company turnover of USD$10 trillion—an amount beyond conception.
But, like all frauds, sooner or later the wheels begin to fall off.
On 21 Oct. 2010, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced it would soon halt carbon trading. The looting of taxpayers and consumers became too hot to handle when the carbon price plummeted to a virtually worthless 10 cents per tonne. Regardless, and greedy for more lucre, CCX flogged the dying dog to the European Climate Exchange (ECX), for USD$600 million who craved a piece of the action.
The final curtain: On 20 Jan. 2011, European Commission officials announced that, “…hackers had stolen the identity of account holders and used their online payment systems to commit fraud.” The Commission said it was suspending most transactions. Czech Republic hackers are alleged to have stolen €6.7 million in emissions certificates. Accounts in Austria, Estonia, Greece and Poland have also been hacked. The ECX has been hacked several times. €69 billion of permits to emit carbon dioxide were traded on the ETS in 2009. Italy’s mafia are involved with hundreds now arrested.
Credibility corrupted! Still want to buy carbon credits? The Australian Government does and will give your money to foreign polluters—pay to pollute is the new game. Sadly, Brown and Gillard will lead us like lemmings over the cliff—idiots, both.
Thought for the week: “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” Jeremiah 5:21
Non of the carbon pricing scams would be possible if it were not for the glassy eyed followers of the new religion called Blind Faith whose derivations are directly from Evidence Free Science.
GOVERNMENT ATTEMPT TO EXTORT MONEY
Prior to the 2010 Federal election, Labor leader Julia Gillard stated the following as an election promise - clearly and concisely:
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."
Press Play to hear Julia Gillard blatantly lying to the Australian electorate
Prior to the 2010 Federal election, shadow treasurer Wayne Swan stated the following as an election promise - clearly and concisely:
"No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition."
Press Play to hear Wayne Swan blatantly lying to the Australian electorate
GILLARD'S AND SWAN'S BLATANT LIES EXPOSED
The Labor Party under Julia Gillard was elected in in August 2010 on the basis of the promise not to introduce a carbon tax and other undertakings. But in February 2011, Prime Minister Gillard announced that a carbon tax would be introduced in Australia in June 2012, despite her very plain pre-election promise not to do so.
So by her own clearly stated and recorded words and her action in announcing a carbon tax in 2012, Gillard is now exposed as a blatant liar and not worthy to be a member of parliament, let alone be prime minister of Australia.
If she had lied like this in a job application in either the government or private sector, she could have been prosecuted for fraud and gaining advantage by deception. However this is exactly what Gillard has done to the Australian people - gained the highest job in the land by such fraud and deception.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS THE REASON WE ARE ALIVE
The most preposterous notion involving the theory of human-caused climate change is that the pathetic efforts of humans can somehow affect global climatic conditions and that reduction of human-emitted carbon dioxide will somehow reduce global warming and thus reduce the greenhouse effect.
What firstly needs to be understood is that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the sustenance of life on Earth. If there was no greenhouse effect trapping heat and keeping temperatures at the current levels, life on this planet would become untenable.
The average surface temperature would be around minus four degrees. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, so if this dissipated, the surface of the planet would be as dry as Mars.
In other words, the greenhouse effect is not something bad, as many of these climate change scaremongers are trying to insinuate. It is the most important facet of life on Earth as we know it. Greenhouse gas emissions do not cause any detriment to the planet - they actually help sustain our existence.
HUMAN EMISSIONS CANNOT COMPETE WITH NATURE
The other preposterous notion is that human emissions can somehow influence global climate. In fact it is easy to show that one natural occurrence can make human efforts in this regard look like a drop in the ocean.
Puyohue Volcano
The Puyehue volcano in Chile erupting in June 2011 For instance, in just four days, the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland in 2010 negated every
single effort by humans to control CO2 emissions for at least five years. The eruption of the Puyehue volcano in Chile in 2011 did much the same. But the killer was Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines that erupted in 1991 for more than one year and spewed out more pollutants than the whole human race managed to emit in 40 billion years of existence on the planet. And there are over 100 active volcanoes on the planet at any one time.
This is not to say that humans should just continue emitting pollutants. In fact humans should do what they can to ensure that they don't contribute to a degradation of the environment, but to claim that human emissions can compete with volcanoes, cosmic phenomena, solar activity, oceanic CO2 emissions and other natural phenomena is just ridiculous.
But the most ridiculous concept is that a tax on CO2 will somehow stop those emissions.
WHY THE PUSH FOR A CARBON TAX
The real reason for this iniquitous carbon tax is that in a world where bankers create and manipulate the money supply and the slow collapse of economic growth in the industrialised world, a new form of trading had to be found.
Globalisation, privatisation and the worldwide finance disasters that required massive bailouts of the bankers who caused them meant that industrialised nations are now essentially bankrupt. The creation of money without tangible assets to back it has finally wreaked havoc on nations such as the USA that influence the world economy and creditor nations are slowly reducing their intake of debt.
So as the world moves from production to consumption, the emphasis has shifted to the creation of a new economy based on taxing that consumption, firstly by means of creating false pretexts such as man-caused global warming or the very open-ended man-caused climate change, then finding a way to raise money by imposing taxes to combat this bogus problem.
Journalist Richard K Moore has written a fascinating and very detailed analysis of this situation called Prognosis 2012: Towards a New World Social Order that explains why governments around the world have pushed for emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, even though they all know that such taxes will not reduce emissions.
The truth is that it would be counterproductive for emissions that are taxed to be reduced or eliminated, simply because that would reduce or eliminate the revenue. Of course if polluters actually do reduce emissions, the tax rate will rise to compensate for the reduced revenue, but if polluters manage to actually reduce their
emissions to a marked degree, governments that rely on the rakeoff from carbon taxes and emission trading will collapse.
So there is absolutely no incentive for anybody to reduce emissions and the whole scam relies on taxpayers literally paying hefty levies on all goods to ostensibly reduce emissions, but those emission won't be reduced at all, not as long as governments need them to be there to be taxed.
CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER STATES THERE SHOULD NOT BE A CARBON TAX
In a speech at an AIG luncheon on 06 February 2008, Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong stated, "The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain."
Wong admitted that imposing a carbon tax would encourage or force industries to go offshore, losing Australia valuable resources and creating unemployment. This admission exposes the lies of the Gillard Labor regime, who constantly claim that a carbon tax will not cause business losses or unemployment.
Wong stated that a carbon tax is "a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target, each time subjecting these adjustments to the inherent Uncertainties embedded in the political process."
STATEMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER PENNY WONG
"A CARBON TAX DOES NOT GUARANTEE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS"
Yes that's right - the government's own Climate Change Minister Penny Wong clearly admitted to The Australian newspaper on 23 February 2009 that "a carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions." In fact anybody with more than half a brain knows that a tax on something does not necessarily prevent it.
When did a tax on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages stop everybody smoking and drinking booze? When did a tax on petrol stop people driving?
Wong's admissions prove that the government has clearly known for some years that a carbon tax is really not the way to guarantee to reduce emissions, therefore it has only one other purpose - to raise revenue for the government. It is more than obvious that the carbon tax is really a scam to fleece the Australian public of
billions of dollars, with no guarantee that emissions will be reduced because of it.
The Climate Change Minister confessed to that more than once.
GILLARD IGNORES THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION
In April 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated that half the greenhouse gases and pollution in Australia was being emitted by just 50 companies. So if that were the case, the most obvious way to eradicate half the harmful emissions would be to deal with those 50 companies and legislate to force them to switch from coal-fired energy to gas-fired energy and also monitor their emissions and fine them if they did not ensure that they complied.
This solution would see a huge and very real reduction in all pollution, not just the theoretical 5% reduction in carbon dioxide that Gillard claims will occur with her $11 billion per year tax. Even if only a 25% reduction in all greenhouse gases was achieved by such a measure, this would be a real achievement, not the bogus reduction of CO2 that Gillard is claiming.
Actually forcing the biggest polluters to stop polluting would ensure a real reduction in greenhouse gase emissions, but of course it would not raise revenue for the government and its quasi-communist ideology of wealth redistribution, which is the whole idea of the CO2 tax.
The problem with a CO2 tax is that it would not stop polluters from emitting CO2, it would merely impose a cost on them for doing so and this cost would merely be passed onto the end-users of their products after the government had reaped the revenue from this tax.
This is why the Gillard Labor government would not countenance any real measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, simply because such measures would actually achieve their goals without ripping off the taxpayers and filling government coffers. In fact, with a CO2 tax, the government would have no incentive in reducing CO2
because that would result in a reduction in revenue. It is the same principle as speed cameras, where a government would lose a fortune if every motorist stopped speeding and the revenue from fines dried up.
CONCLUSIONS OF RENOWNED CLIMATE EXPERTS
Around 31,000 top scientists around the world have stated unequivocally that human-caused global warming or
climate change is utter nonsense. Here are a few statements from such eminent scholars.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself - climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B Laughlin
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical. The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
Legendary atmospheric scientist the late Dr Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA, who authored more than 190 studies and described as one of the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
Japanese UN IPCC scientist Dr Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
US Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
THE ROLE OF ECONOMIST ROSS GARNAUT
To further its agenda for inflicting a carbon dioxide tax on the Australian public, in 2008, the Labor government appointed Professor Ross Garnaut to study and review the alleged human-caused climate change issue.
Firstly, Garnaut is not a climate scientist - in fact he is not a scientist at all, but an economist, so already any opinion directly from him regarding alleged human-caused climate change would be worthless on its own.
Any reasonable person would also have to question Garnaut's agenda, simply because if he reported that there was no human-caused climate change, he would be out of a very lucrative job. So it would obviously be in his interest to keep riding the human-caused climate change gravy train. Garnaut used data and graphs from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis of his postulations and guesses, however that data has now been thoroughly disproven to the extent that even the famed Royal Society has shunned it.
In 2008, out came the Garnaut Climate Change Review, making predictions and guesses - not facts - based on the hypothesis of that discredited IPCC Report of 2007, predictably with the doom and gloom of catastrophe unless something was done about the alleged effects of human-caused climate change. Unfortunately for Garnaut and the Labor government, there has been an avalanche of real climate scientists completely debunking his conclusions, some of which are so obviously wrong, that most experts would be inclined to dismiss the entire report as being a waste of time.
To demonstrate how completely misleading Garnaut has been, Garnaut issued a report in early 2011 that completely and very seriously misquoted the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. He stated that the current CO2 levels were 465ppm (parts per million), yet the true figure happened to be around 386ppm at the time.
That is a whopping 17% error, completely unacceptable by any proper scientist. If Garnaut cannot even obtain and use the correct figures from the sources that accurately measure the composition of the atmosphere, then his so-called
data and conclusions are not worth the paper they are printed on.
However, the problem for the Australian public is that the Labor government will continue to push its carbon tax agenda by continuing to trot out these erroneous reports by an economist - not a scientist - remembering that at best, they are nothing more than predictions and guesses, fooling some sectors of the voting community into falling for this gigantic carbon tax scam. Many ignorant people in the community will continue to believe that Ross Garnaut is some sort of scientist, not just a bean counter co-opted by the Labor government to drum up their case for this insane cash grab.
CLIMATE CHANGE APOLOGIST TIM FLANNERY GETS IT WRONG
Paleontologist Tim Flannery, another self-professed climate change expert, is being paid around $180,000 to sit on the Climate Commission by the Labor government to push its carbon tax onto Australia, however he has made so many wrong predictions, that nobody could ever take him seriously.
Among Flannery's litany of wrong predictions are these gems:
In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city facing extreme difficulties with water. Sydney's dam levels in 2011 were 73% full and rising.
In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20% decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems." In 2011, the Murray-Darling system was in flood.
Brisbane's dam levels were 100% full and according to figures from Wivenhoe Dam's operator, SEQWater, the dam's capacity went from 106%full on the morning of 07 January 2011 to 148% on the morning of 10 January 2011, much of this excess water having to be released into the Brisbane River.
In 2007, Flannery predicted that global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. He stated, "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20% of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. In Adelaide, Sydney and
Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie [ THE MOST CORRUPT PREMIER EVER - SEE FIRST STORY IN THIS BLOG ] took such predictions so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayer money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate". That desalination plant is now mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned - not just rains, but the worst flooding in Queensand's history - and $90 million has gone down the toilet.
In 2008, Flannery said, "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009." Adelaide's water storage levels in 2011 were 77% full.
So far, Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages have been so far off the mark, that anybody who takes this man seriously would have to be insane. His
influence on various Labor governments have resulted in the squandering of untold millions of dollars of taxpayer funds.
For instance, back in 2007, Flannery warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff. This was a load of rubbish in itself, as nations such as China are purchasing more coal than ever before to burn for energy. However, Flannery suggested that Australia should switch to "green" power instead and he recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.
"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," Flannery said. "The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward." Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology and
in 2009, the Rudd Labor government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. It should be known that Flannery has been a Geodynamics shareholder for many years.
This tip from Flannery turned into disaster. The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't. One of Geodynamics's five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement. The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in an alleged warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further delayed, following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region.
With this abysmal track record, how on earth did Flannery land the cushy $180,000 position on the Climate Commission? There's only one explanation - that the Labor government found itself a tame scientist to push its carbon tax agenda and although
Flannery is not a climate scientist by any means, many people will consider him
to be some sort of authority because he is a scientist of sorts - although with nothing to do with climatology.
The fact that federal and state governments, all of them Labor, actually listened to Flannery, took his advice and squandered so much taxpayer money is an indictment on their gullibility and irresponsibility.
What is worse is that this insane Labor government is not only still listening to Flannery, but is paying him around $3000 per week for his baloney. But the gross waste of this money will pale into insignificance if a carbon dioxide tax is imposed.
TIM FLANNERY ADMITS THE FARCE OF THE CARBON TAX
In March 2011, climate change apologist Tim Flannery was asked that if Australians were going to be taxed for emitting carbon dioxide, surely they should at least be given an idea on how much their tax contribution will help cool the planet. He was told that if the taxes of Australians are going to be used to cool the climate, it
would only be fair that Australians should know by how much. Flannery could not answer this question. He thought that a probable amount might be 0.5%, but he could not be sure.
Flannery was then asked how long would it take before this enforced carbon dioxide tax contribution would start to show signs that it is working. His answer was stunning in the extreme.
Flannery stated to journalist Andrew Bolt, "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years." But Flannery wasn't talking about the lousy 1.4% that humans in Australia allegedly emit - he was talking about ALL nations cutting ALL greenhouse gases globally. However, this is merely a guess on his part, because if the truth be known, Flannery doesn't have the foggiest notion of what will happen to the climate, whether humans keep emitting the same stuff or we close down everything and crawl off to live in caves and eat worms.
But having admitted this, Flannery is still acting as the federal government's climate change apologist and travelling around the nation promoting a carbon tax, knowing damn well that it will not reduce CO2 emissions and even if it would succeed, it would only reduce global greenhouse emissions by around one-millionth.
It is obvious that Flannery, who is being paid a lot of money for doing this, is prepared to promote this new religion that will have such a detrimental effect on the entire Australian population, knows that it's a scam.
Flannery's admission clearly demonstrates what a gigantic scam the proposed carbon tax really is. This insane tax is not even aiming to eradicate that whole 1.4% of all Australian human-emitted greenhouse gases, but just 5% of the CO2 component, which is 3.6% of the total.
But when did a tax actually stop something? Have high taxes stopped people from smoking, drinking alcohol or driving cars? Of course not - in fact, the last thing
any government reaping revenue from taxes wants to see is a reduction of that revenue.
THE SCAM RELIES ON BLATANT DECEPTION
The government and proponents of this new tax are relying on the ignorance of the general public as to what is really going to be taxed. The very name of this tax is completely false. It is being called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because the general public associates carbon with that sooty black stuff that comes out of the chimneys of factories and power stations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
THE CARBON TAX IS NOT A TAX ON CARBON
IT IS A TAX ON CARBON DIOXIDE GAS
IT IS ULTIMATELY A TAX ON THE AIR WE BREATHE
It is going to tax the gas on which all life on this planet relies, which is not a pollutant.
It is going to tax the gas that all plant life photosynthesises into oxygen that humans breathe.
It literally amounts to taxing the air we breathe.
CLIMATE COMMISSION IS RIGGED BY THE LABOR GOVERNMENT
In May 2011, the first report by the Government's Climate Commission (CC) warned that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record. This report stated that the biological world was changing in response to a warming world.
It also stated that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation were triggering the changes that are being witnessed in the global climate.
But this is just another government attempt to scam the people of Australia. The Climate Commission members were handpicked by the Gillard Labor government on the basis that they had to believe in climate change. No skeptics or completely independent scientists were permitted to be on this Commission. In other words, it was the same situation as only appointing judges that were sympathetic to the government's political line and no judge who was totally independent would be considered.
On top of that, the Climate Commission's findings are a pile of rubbish. This bunch of government-appointed stooges claimed that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the past decade being the hottest on record. They very conveniently forgot to mention all the drastic heating that the planet had undergone in the past, with temperatures far higher than anything in the present era. In fact about 800 years ago, icy Greenland was sub-tropical and the Arctic was navigable by ships. There are many more instances of severe global heating, as well as a number of ice ages.
This Climate Commission also stated that if nothing was done about alleged human-caused pollution, the planet's temperature would rise by 2º by 2050, less than 40 years away. This completely flies in the faceof the statement of the head of the International Panel for Climate Change, who stated that the planet's temperature
would rise by no more than ½º in a century. So who is to be believed? Actually none of them.
All the predictions are based on completely flawed computer modelling, no better than a long-range weather forecast or a wild guess.
One can only be amazed at the depths to which the Gillard Labor government will stoop to try and impose a CO2 tax. This bunch of inept clowns, having already destroyed the Australian economy with a monumental series of blunders and scams, has rigged a Climate Commission that cannot be believed.
US GOVERNOR WITHDRAWS STATE FROM GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN
In June 2011, Governor Chris Christie of the US state of New Jersey announced that New Jersey will withdraw from a 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program by the end of 2011, saying the program is ineffective at combating global warming. He stated, "The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It is a failure."
“RGGI does nothing more than tax electricity, tax our citizens, tax our businesses, with no discernible or measurable impact upon our environment,” Christie said. Critics of cap-and-trade programs say that they constitute a new form of taxation because they impose additional costs on electric utilities that are then passed on to customers.
Governor Christie hit the nail right on the head with New Jersey's withdrawal from this scheme, simply because what he said was quite correct. A carbon cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax will have no discernible or measurable impact on the environment. And no politician or scientist has yet been able to definitively show
that human-caused CO2 emission cause global warming, climate change or any other problem.
Of course the big problem with any sort of tax or impost on electricity generators is that they will merely pass the additional cost onto their customers and still keep emitting the same CO2 if not more, as demand increases. This is how all businesses operate, by factoring all expenses into their products and setting prices
for those products that contain the expenses. In other words, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme will not reduce pollution by one iota.
THE SCAM OF HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
This proposed carbon tax is ostensibly a move to reduce human-caused CO2 emissions and thus reduce so-called human-caused climate change, if at all it exists. This is what the government is saying. But what do the figures say? Very simply, the figures say that the government is completely misrepresenting this issue and every concerned person in Australia should be demanding to know the real motivation behind imposing this massive tax on everything, when it has no basis in fact.
Firstly, climate change has been occurring for millions of years without any human intervention or effect. This planet has been much hotter at many times in its history than now. Back in 1200AD, Greenland was sub-tropical, hence the name, but there were no massive industries that spewed out CO2. So it is a fact that climate does change, regardless of any human activity, because humans cannot even remotely come close to affecting this planet’s climate, when compared to natural phenomena.
This is why you don’t hear much about “Global Warming” anymore, because this planet has actually cooled in the past 100 years. There were two warming periods in the 20th century followed by cooling periods.,The new mantra is “Climate Change” because the climate certainly does change.
The problem is that people with vested interests are claiming that humans are changing the climate to an unacceptable degree, which is utter nonsense.
THE FIGURES PROVE THE SCAM
CO2 is the new enemy, according to proponents of this theory and human emissions of this gas must be reduced, mainly by imposition of a carbon price. This is just a piece of spin that actually means a carbon tax. But how much CO2 do humans actually produce as a percentage of total global greenhouse gases? Here are the figures.
Greenhouse gases constitute approximately 1% of the atmosphere. They are:
Water vapour - 95%
Carbon dioxide - 3.6%
Methane and other gases - 1.5%
Humans can’t do a thing about water vapour - it evaporates from the oceans that cover seven-tenths of the surface of the planet and is very important, because water vapour becomes rain that falls on land. Although it is considered a greenhouse gas, water vapour is essential to all life on earth.
Methane and other gases are emitted by volcanoes and other natural phenomena that are completely beyond the control of humans, therefore until a way is found to stop the 1500 active volcanoes on the surface of the planet and the tens of thousands of submarine volcanoes erupting at any one time on Earth, there is nothing that can be done about it.
So this leaves the 3.6% of the 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 comprises around 0.0036% of the total atmosphere. In other words, CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas that is less than four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. However, it has to be always remembered that this gas is the pillar on which all life on earth relies and is neither a poison nor a pollutant.
But how much of this 0.036% CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans? The answer - around 3.4% of that 3.6% - 0.001% is emitted by humans. What does this mean?
Very simply, it means that globally, humans emit around 0.001% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, the total human-caused CO2 emissions globally is a whole one-thousandth of one percent - a completely insignificant amount, because it means that 99.999% of all CO2 emissions occur naturally and humans cannot do anything about this.
So let’s say that all the humans on the entire planet shut down every industry and we all go back to shivering in caves and humans stop emitting that 0.001% carbon dioxide. Subtract it from the total CO2 emitted worldwide by all phenomena.
99.999% minus 0.001% equals 99.998%. That is virtually no change whatsoever to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact this is literally unmeasurable.
AUSTRALIAN CONTRIBUTION TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
So what percentage of global CO2 is emitted by humans in Australia that could cause the government to want to impose a carbon tax to reduce it?
The answer - virtually nothing. Here are the facts to prove it.
ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES AT GLANCE
Total greenhouse gas - 1.00% of total global atmosphere
CO2 component of 1.00% - 3.6% = 0.0036% of total global atmosphere
Total human-caused CO2 emissions - 3.4% of 0.0036% = 0.001% of total global atmosphere
Australia's total CO2 emissions - 1.00% of 0.001% = 0.00001% of total global atmosphere Target of 5% reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions - 5% of 0.00001% = 0.0000005% of total global atmosphere
Estimated cost of reducing total global greenhouse gases by an unmeasurable 0.0000005% (five-millionths) =
UNTOLD BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
A VERY EASY EXPLANATION OF THE CARBON TAX
Imagine that the atmosphere is a 1 kilometre long road. All the gases in the atmosphere are lying on that road in their correct proportions. Let's go for a walk along this 1 kilometre road of atmosphere and see what is on it.
The first 770 metres are nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre gone. Only 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. Only 10 metres left.
The next 9 metres are argon, a rare gas. Just 1 more metre to go.
A few rare gases make up two thirds the first bit of that last metre. Just a few centimetres to go.
The last 38 centimetres of the I kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot in the old measurement.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural and there’s nothing we can do about that.
So out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left - just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. World-wide, not just in Australia.
And of those 12 millimetres, Australians emit 0.18 of a millimetre.
That is less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a whole 1 kilometre!
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what the PM misleadingly calls Carbon Pollution.
DEMONSTRATION OF THE STUPIDITY AND FUTILITY OF THIS NEW TAX
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge is ready to be opened by the Prime Minister.
This new 1 kilometre long bridge has been polished by an army of workers until its entire length is surgically clean.
Then the Prime Minister says that we have a huge problem - SHOCK HORROR - the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
That human hair on the 1 kilometre long bridge would have absolutely no impact on it.
But we would be immensely angry if the PM demanded that we paid billions of dollars in a new tax to remove that hair.
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE LABOR GOVERNMENT IS PROPOSING WITH THIS DISGUSTING AND MISLEADINGLY NAMED CARBON REDUCTION POLLUTION SCHEME - REMOVING THE EQUIVALENT OF A HAIR FROM A KILOMETRE OF ROAD BY INSISTING THAT IT IS POLLUTING THAT ROAD.
HOW WILL THEY KNOW IF IT WORKS?
The Australian government is not trying to reduce all CO2 emissions completely with the carbon tax, just around 5% of the CO2 that it claims that humans emit in Australia. So if it actually achieves this target, which is highly unlikely, Australian CO2 reduction of 5% will reduce total global greenhouse gases by a completely unmeasurable, insignificant and unnoticeable amount.
But how will the government or anybody actually know if this massive carbon tax actually does anything? How on earth can anybody measure an unmeasurable percentage of CO2 in total greenhouse gas emissions?
The answer is that they can't. So nobody will know if anything happens.
However, one thing is easily predicted. If global temperatures are seen to rise slightly through whatever natural phenomena that has caused such rises since this planet came into existence, the government will state that the CO2 emitted by Australians has not been reduced by the imposition of the carbon tax and the tax will NEED TO be increased.
Of course if the planet cools, which it is doing anyway, long before any carbon tax has been imposed, the government will crow about the effectiveness of the carbon tax and how this is causing the world to cool, even when a complete idiot will realise that even if Australia's human-caused CO2 emissions are reduced unmeasurable
amount of total global greenhouse gases, this has absolutely no significance whatsoever.
EFFECT OF THE CARBON TAX ON AUSTRALIA
However, if this insane tax is imposed, it will certainly have an effect on the people of Australia. It will make them much poorer by increasing the cost of literally everything and extracting money from them and putting it into the government’s coffers, where like so much of taxpayer’s money, it will be squandered on failed projects or electioneering expenses, so that the government can try and clutch onto power.
Expert modelling and projections show that a carbon tax will cost around $50 billion for the next 40 years, or around $4550 per taxpayer per year, to achieve absolutely no change to the climate of this planet.
One decent sized erupting volcano such as Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines or Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland emits more pollutants in a single day than the total amount of pollution that the entire human race has emitted in 40 million years.
BUSINESS AS USUAL
So what will companies that emit this CO2 do in real terms? Will they actually reduce those CO2 emissions? Here is a typical scenario.
The Aussie Widget Company (AWC) produces widgets which are sold to the public for $1.00 each.
The government imposes a carbon tax on AWC, which now has the following choices:
Absorb the new tax and still make and sell the same number of widgets for $1.00 and suffer a loss in earnings
Reduce the number of widgets it makes to reduce the amount of carbon tax it pays and suffer a loss in earnings
Increase the price of each widget to $1.10 and pass the increased cost of them onto the consumers and still make the same profits as before, but the consumers of the widgets actually pay the tax.
Obviously on economic grounds alone, AWC will not choose Option 1 to absorb and pay the tax itself, because that would reduce its earnings. AWC would not choose Option 2 and reduce production just to reduce its CO2 emissions, because that would also reduce its earnings.
The only scenario that would ensure the survival of AWC would be to choose Option 3 and continue to manufacture the same number of widgets and just add the carbon tax to the cost of each widget and the public will just have to pay more for them.
By doing this, AWC will continue to make the same amount of profit and will emit the same amount of CO2. In other words, the carbon tax will not reduce carbon emissions by companies such as AWC.
Statistics show that literally in every case where additional taxes are imposed on manufacturers or service suppliers, those costs are passed on to the end-users, the consumers.
REDUCE POLLUTION BY ACTUALLY REDUCING EMISSIONS
There is only one real way to reduce pollution and that is to actually reduce harmful emissions. If the government was really serious about reducing emissions instead of merely trying to create and impose a new tax, it would require that all manufacturers install pollution metering devices and that realistic maximum levels of emissions be set by law. Any company that exceeded those levels would be heavily fined and persistent transgressors would be closed down for periods of time.
This is how the USA state of California reduced emissions from cars. It didn't impose a stupid tax that would have merely raised money but not reduced emissions. California legislated that all cars sold in that state by a certain year had to comply with a maximum emission level or they could not be sold. Car makers screamed that it was impossible to meet those reduced emission levels, yet when the deadline was reached, all the car makers managed to meet those reduced levels.
So in California, a tax on car emissions was not required to reduce those emissions, merely a maximum emission level enforced by law. But of course, governments around the world are always scrabbling to find ways of raising revenue, so scaring the citizenry with dire threats of man-caused global warming, climate change and
other nonsense is a good way to soften people up for the imposition of a completely unjustified tax.
CO2 IS AN ESSENTIAL AND IMPORTANT GAS
In any case, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a requirement for all life on this planet. All plant life absorbs CO2 and by photosynthesis, converts it to oxygen that humans and all living creatures require to exist.
Without CO2, all life on Earth would die. CO2 is odourless, tasteless and non-toxic. CO2 is not a poison. Humans exhale CO2. Humans consume it in carbonated drinks. CO2 released by baking powder or yeast makes bread and cakes rise.
CO2 is used in fire extinguishers and has many other applications of benefit to humans.
To state that CO2 is detrimental to this planet is a colossal lie, designed to scare gullible people into believing that a carbon tax will save them from disaster. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact it is a proven fact that farmers such as tomato growers actually deliberately increase the amount of CO2 in their greenhouses to promote the growth of their produce. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plant life will
grow and thus produce more oxygen for us to breathe.
The other myth about CO2 is that it allegedly affects upper atmosphere in the way that gases such as sulphur dioxide break down the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. CO2 is heavier than air and it does not rise - it obviously stays at the surface of the planet, which is essential, because that is where the plant life lives and uses CO2 to grow and produce the oxygen that humans breathe.
So CO2 has nothing to do with breaking down the ozone layer or being detrimental to the planet in any way.
Imposing a carbon tax will merely result in increased cost of production that will be passed onto consumers, but will not reduce CO2 emissions by industry. It is nothing more than another rapacious grab for money by government on the basis of deliberate misinformation and scaremongering.
MORE PROOF OF THE SCAM
On 18 March 2011, a British investment company sent out an emailed newsletter stating the following:
SUBJECT: Free Report - Carbon Market expected to double in price by 2013
The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre.
You can find out how to take advantage of this exciting new investment opportunity by simply downloading our FREE Investment Report.
Comprehensive trading strategies
Find out why the price of carbon is set to explode
Discover which credits FTSE 100 companies are buying
Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit market
Sceptre is a leading specialist carbon trading firm that specialises in premium Gold Standard and CDM emission
reduction credits.
“Anyone going for the ‘dash-for-cash’ approach is in for a rude awakening when the carbon market picks up.”
Diane Simiu, Carbon Analyst (Carbon Finance)
“Carbon trading will become the world's largest commodities market.”
Louis Redshaw, Barclays Capital (New York Times)
Now does anybody with more than half a brain think that anybody is going to promote a moneymaking scheme where the basis of it is the alleged REDUCTION of the commodity that drives the scheme? The idea that is being sold to a gullible public is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that will eventually eradicate man-caused pollution and thus save the world. So why would anybody invest in something that is going to be wiped out in the medium to long term?
Of course not. The moneymaking aspect of any scheme relies on it continuing and growing, therefore the sponsors of this scam are really relying on two things - that the human-caused carbon dioxide emissions will continue and increase, thus increasing the profits from the scam and secondly, that the value of the carbon credits themselves will rise, just like stocks and shares, reaping huge financial rewards for those who trade in them and especially those who control the trading.
THE CARBON TAX IS A COLOSSAL SCAM
It is very easy to see from the facts and figures that a carbon tax will not have any effect on climate change and even if it reduced all human CO2 emissions in Australia by the proposed 5%, it will reduce all global greenhouse gas emissions by no more than a completely unmeasurable five-millionths, an amount so insignificant
and minuscule that it is preposterous to even try to do this. But of course anybody with more than half a brain can work out why the carbon tax is proposed - it's just another government money grab that will be achieved by conning the gullible people of Australia into believing the spin.
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming,seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system
mathematically.
When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.
GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as "garbage in, God's-truth out".
Alternative computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns within them and projecting these patterns into the future.
Such models are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.
In 2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data, Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.
In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late
20thcentury warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.
In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to
that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China.
They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude "we see
clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years".
Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative).
Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided "the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result".
Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century.
Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown.
Yet in spite of this, governments across the world - egged on by irrational, deep Green lobbying - have for years been using their financial muscle and other powers of persuasion to introduce carbon dioxide taxation systems. For example, the federal Labor government recently spent $13.9million on climate change advertising on
prime time television and in national newspapers and magazines.
Similarly, the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research advised the British Government "ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming ... It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour change."
Introduction of a carbon dioxide tax to prevent (imaginary) warming, euphemistically disguised as an emissions trading scheme, is a politician's, ticket clipper's and mafia chief's dream. All will welcome a new source of income based on an invisible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and often unmeasurable gas. No commodity changes
hands during its trading, and should carbon dioxide emissions actually decrease because of the existence of a carbon dioxide market (which is highly unlikely), the odds are that it will have no measurable effect on climate anyway.
Nonetheless, the glistening pot of gold which beckons to be mined from the innocent public is proving nigh irresistible, and it is going to need a strong taxpayer revolt to stop it in Australia.
The present global financial crisis should be inducing politicians not to squander money on non-solutions to non-problems. Yet to support their plans for emissions taxation Western governments, including ours, are still propagating scientifically juvenile greenhouse propaganda underpinned only by circumstantial evidence and GCM
computer gamesmanship.
Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world's granary belts.
Bob Carter is an adjunct professor of geology at James Cook University.
To add some more science to some of the educated comments here (as opposed to comments posted by the religious zealots). The CO2 theory falls apart on more fronts as well... * For anthropogenic CO2 warming to be possible, there needs to be atmospheric warming at 200hPa in the tropics.
Satellite data confirms that in fact a slight cooling is occuring. This destroys the GCM models. * The CO2 saturation effect - now confirmed thru satellite measurements. There is a limit as to CO2s warming potential. This saturation theory (Miskolczi
Constant) has yet to be disproven by anyone. Not to mention a confirmed residence time of between 5-10 years, not 100 that the GCM models use. This destroys the 'tipping point' hysteria.
* Outgoing radiation levels (as neasured by satellite) are six times greater that what the IPCC states. This data has only come to light in the past couple of years. CO2 is simply not trapping the heat that the models suggest. This destroys the 'runaway greenhouse effect' hysteria. The CO2 climate theory is merely a laboratory 'construct' which looks ok in a computer model, but in mother nature it simply does not work.
John Ecob MIET retired chartered Engineer and DD. of Orange NSW Australia Posted at 9:54 PM January 11, 2010
Can the oceans rise? Absolutely NOT. There is 350mill sq km of ocean and 150mill sqkm of land. All floating ice returns to the same volume of water it displaces so forget all floating ice. Only Greenland and Antarctic land ice caps can supply the water to raise oceans. The temp. in Antarctic is av. -45degrees C and goes as low
as -85degrees C. On summer the average zero doesnt get to the land mass except at the Larson Peninsula.
The heihgt of the ice cap is 4500 m in Antarctic and 3500m in Greenland!!! Ice is up to 4000m THICK. Greenlands Ice cap is -20 and -30 degrees C. And what about latent heat to change ice to water without a temp. change? It takes as much heat to change ice to water at zero C as it does to heat same vol. thro' 80 degrees C. The floating ice eg Arctic can ALL melt with NO rise in seas and the land ice caps are up to 4500 m ABOVE SEA level and have NO SUN for 6 months of every year! Mr Obama said at Copenhagen that the ice cap would melt in 5 years.
Such ignorance is appalling.
Tony in Sydney of Sydney Posted at 12:30 PM December 28, 2009
The globe warming debate is over, forget about it and adapt if we have to. China, America and India have seen to that. They have little or know interest in doing anything that will be of relevance to reduce their emissions to the levels warming scientist have projected to be critical. Here in Australia we emit around 1% of the global emissions and China are increasing by that amount currently annually and their economy is still growing rapidly, just give them 10 years. About using precise language if he is a scientist, why is it that all the name-calling and put downs coming from the believerâ??s side of the argument.
It smells of politics more than science, which is why it not referred to as global warming anymore but climate change (weapons of mass destruction / war on terror).
(1) The solar insolation, expressed as terawatts, representing the averaged rate at which solar energy hits our planet, considering day, night, winter, summer, cloudy, or clear. 32,000 terawatts (a terawatt is one million million watts.
(2) The estimated total human rate of energy production considering all manufacturing, transportation, and other processes in 2007. 16 terawatts.
This shows us that 2000 times as much energy reaches the earth from the sun than all mankind’s activities put into the earth’s environment. Do you still think we have a predominant effect on global temperatures? That would be like an ant running up an elephant’s leg with rape in mind.
Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. Should we cap-and-tax them?
By Edmund Contoski, Liberty Unbound
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."
— Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor Of its first three reports.
During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13 F.) in 2007. A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop — equal to 100 years of warming — is noteworthy. Of course, it can also be argued that a mere 0.6 degree warming in a century is so tiny it should never have been considered a cause for alarm in the first place. But then how could the idea of global warming be sold to the public?
In any case, global cooling has been evident for more than a single year. Global temperature has declined since 1998. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide has gone in the other direction, increasing 15–20%.
This divergence casts doubt on the validity of the greenhouse hypothesis, but that hasn't discouraged the global warming advocates. They have long been ignoring far greater evidence that the basic assumption of greenhouse warming from increases in carbon dioxide is false.
Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide were not significant before worldwide industrialization began in the 1940s.
They have increased steadily since. Over 80% of the 20th century's carbon dioxide increase occurred after 1940
— but most of the century's temperature increase occurred before 1940! From 1940 until the mid-1970s, the climate also failed to behave according to the greenhouse hypothesis, as carbon dioxide was strongly increasing while global temperatures cooled. This cooling led to countless scare stories in the media about a new ice age
commencing.
In the last 1.6 million years there have been 63 alternations between warm and cold climates, and no indication that any of them were caused by changes in carbon dioxide levels. A recent study of a much longer period (600 million years) shows — without exception — that temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
As the earth warms, the oceans yield more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because
warmer water cannot hold as much carbon dioxide as colder water.
The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas.
Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.
Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.
Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.
Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)
Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more.
In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're
living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity. There have been times when volcanic activity was ten times greater than in modern times.
But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute.
The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?
Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting environmental catastrophe depend on the small amount of warming from carbon dioxide being amplified by increased evaporation of water. But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened. During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300–500% greater than today.
Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15–20 times what it is today. Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred.
Today we're told catastrophic warming will result if carbon dioxide doubles. But during the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age. That's exactly opposite to the "runaway" warming that computer models predict should occur.
Clearly the models are wrong; they depend upon an assumption of amplification that is contrary to the climate record of millions of years. There is no reason to trust the computer predictions — or base public policies on them.
Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
There are other examples where the computer models fail to agree with reality. According to the greenhouse hypothesis, the warming should occur equally during day and night. But most of the warming that has been observed has occurred at night, thus falsifying the models.
All of the models agree — for sound theoretical reasons — that warming from a greenhouse effect must be 2–3 times greater in the lower atmosphere than at the earth's surface. This is not happening. Both satellites and weather balloons show slightly greater warming at the surface. These atmospheric temperature measurements
furnish direct, unequivocal evidence that whatever warming has occurred is not from the greenhouse effect.
Everyone knows the sun heats the earth, but the public is generally unaware that the sun's heat is not uniform.
Solar radiation is affected by disturbances on the surface of the sun, called "sunspots," which correspond to the sun's 11-year magnetic cycle. There are also several solar cycles of longer duration. Superimposed, these cycles might augment or cancel each other. There are also periods when sunspots "crash," or almost Disappear, which can lead to dramatic cooling of the earth for several decades.
This is what happened 400 years ago during the Maunder Minimum, which was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. During one 30-year period during the
Maunder Minimum only about 50 sunspots were observed, compared to a typical 40–50 thousand.
Sunspots have now virtually vanished. You can check out pictures of the sun day after day after day for the last few years here. Very few show more than one sunspot and many show none. We are currently at a solar minimum, awaiting the start of the next solar cycle. If sunspot activity does not pick up soon, we could be in for some seriously cold climate. The jury is still out on sunspot numbers.
In any case, some climate scientists believe the length of past solar cycles points to a cool phase in this century. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, believes a slow decline in temperatures will begin as early as 2012–15 and will lead to a deep freeze in 2050–60 that will last about 50 years. Climatologist Tim Patterson thinks that by 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest 11-year sunspot cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. He says, "If we're to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming'
would have had."
The global warming advocates make all sorts of false claims about dire consequences of global warming. They claim it will result in the spread of malaria, food shortages, more human deaths, more violent weather, and a loss of biological diversity through the extinction of species. All untrue. The largest number of species — the greatest biological diversity — is in the tropics.
As you move away from the equator, you find fewer and fewer species, until you reach the earth's poles, where there is zero diversity because nothing can live there.
Agricultural productivity is also reduced by cold climate, not a warmer one. That's why Siberia and Alaska are not noted for agricultural abundance. A warmer climate would mean longer growing seasons and would make agriculture possible in areas where it isn't today. And there are at least 300 studies showing plants and forests grow faster and more luxuriantly under conditions of increased carbon dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------
From the Federal House of Representatives own report - “Australia’s uranium exports currently displace at least 395 million tonnes of CO2 per year, relative to use of black coal. This is equivalent to 70 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions for 2003. Australia’s total low cost uranium reserves could displace
nearly 40,000 million tonnes of CO2 if it replaced black coal electricity generation. “
And Julia’s plan will cut an insignificant 16 million tonnes a year until 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Gillard on Thursday:
The plan I will announce on Sunday will be a plan to cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020.
So what difference would this make to the world’s temperatures?
Let’s assume the climate really is as sensitive to carbon dioixde as the IPCC has claimed - a very big assumption - and lets accept the calculations presented in Nature:
The team used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change… Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. The new research shows that, despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.
These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.
So the calculations. Gillard’s massive taxes and billions in subsidies for green powers will over the next decade avert 0.00024 degrees of warming, providing she does all she claims she will, and provided global warming theory works as advertised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat 09 Jul 11 (04:44pm)
Listening to Gillard today at the NSW Labor party conference one would be forgiven for thinking that Australia had just won some incredible world lottery. There she was sprouting how everyone is going to have more dollars in their pockets and there will somehow be more jobs!?!
It really defies belief that the leader of this country can mindlessly pursue such a pointless cause, with such destructive consequences to us a nation, all the time being allowed by our media to avoid any scrutiny over the science and basic problems associated with what they are doing.
The total silencing and shutdown of debate is dangerous and worrying to anyone who believes in representational democracy. The wheels are about to fall off the Labor bus of fools and watch for the fallout as all those silent backbenchers, who didn’t have the integrity or honor to stand up when it counts, desert Gillard and all her terrible failed policies.
I’ve said it before in here, the longer Gillard is in charge, the more labor ministers will be voted out and the harder labor will fall.
Keep her labor, keep her as long as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat 09 Jul 11 (03:59pm)
It needs to be made clear to people that the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is LABOR’S GST.
The CO2 tax is a broad based consumption tax, same as the GST.
People won’t stand for an increase in the GST. So Swan won’t even consider increasing it (at the tax summit later this year) but will happily enact an entire additional CARBON GST.
But unlike the GST it is not a smart tax, not fair, nor economically neutral. Labor’s CARBON GST does not eliminate inefficient state taxes, it is not fair by giving tax cuts (or compensation) to all (instead compo only to Labor supporting low income households), it invites rent seeking and corruption, with the ALP/Unions
choosing which industries and companies get compo (Howard gave it all away to the States) and it is a job killing tax by damaging our competitiveness by only applying to goods produced in Australia.
Once people realise the Carbon Tax is LABOR’S GST FOR DUMMIES, it and the ALP will die a quick political death.
---------------------------------------------------------
In 2009 the Utility giant American Electric Power (AEP) applied to the US government for $334 million in stimulus money to construct the world’s first commercial scale CO2 capture and storage project at a West Virginia coal-fired power plant. The project was expected to cost about US$670million and begin operation in 2015 – MAYBE.
The project goal is to capture 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year and then to store it 1.5 miles below the surface.
The scale of this CO2 removal by 2020 is almost exactly the same as that planned by Julia Gillard for the whole of Australia. How much of a difference in atmospheric CO2 levels will this make and what will it cost?
Atmospheric CO2 accumulation from this US power plant is the product its emissions (0.0015 billion metric tonnes of CO2) times CO2’s persistence in the atmosphere (estimated by the IPCC to be 40% over the period),which equals 0.0006 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per annum.
Since 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2 in the atmosphere weighs about 7.81 billion metric tonnes, the atmospheric persistence of the plant’s emissions is roughly 0.0006/ 7.81, which equals an increase of about 0.0001 ppmv.
So US$670 million will be paid by US taxpayers and electricity users to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.0001 ppmv per year. That’s roughly US$7trillion per ppm CO2 avoided.
(The atmosphere carries about 390ppm of CO2 at the moment)
If the project started burying CO2 in 2015 as planned, if the IPCC’s calculations are correct, if all other sources magically ceased, then between 2015 and 2100 the atmosphere would contain about about 0.0085 ppmv less CO2 (85 years x 0.0001 ppmv per year).
Julia plans to spend much more than US$670million so our cost per ppm avoided will be much much higher.
Together with our Green fanatics this woman will waste billions for absolutely no result whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sat 09 Jul 11 (02:11pm)
It is good to see Australia join an international effort to reduce the globes emissions.
What’s the matter Adam, don’t you own a calculator?
Hit the numbers, even if ALL the nations of the planet joined Australia in reducing CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020, it’ll make diddly squat difference to global temperatures. One doesn’t need to be a scientist to work a calculator.
The UN and it’s IPCC knows this, yet continues to push the party line. If that doesn’t tell you that the whole AGW meme is a scam, nothing will and I have a bridge I want to sell you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 95% of global CO2 emissions are by Mother nature, i.e. only 5% is by man.
Of this 5%, half is sequestered by nature, of the remaining half, Australia is responsible for 1.5% of it, that is, of the CO2 that (supposedly) remains in the atmosphere to cause dangerous warming, Australia is responsible for 0.000375%
Gillard wants to cut the above figure by 5%, i.e. 0.0000187%.
How many tens of billions of our hard earned is this foolish woman going to spend for the above pimple on a bees dick sized problem?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The tax on carbon dioxide has been tarted up as a “free introductory offer” in the full knowledge that once it is passed it will be there forever as a funding mechanism (under a socialist Labor/green government) for all the craziest social experimentation one could ever imagine.
Of course when all the coal-fired power stations have shut down, all coal mining has been phased out, and Australia is looking like a South Pacific version of Greece, will Labor and the Greens say SORRY?
Hopefully Gillard and her pathetic mob of economy wreckers will be gone and the carbon dioxide, mining tax and all the other unnecesary taxes gone with them.
And I hope the Greens are finished forever - never to return to destroy our nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am now however totally confused since we all know that the “Carbon Tax” will not achieve any environmental benefit and we thought it was just a tax grab to balance the budget. With it actually having a negative impact on the budget what is the govt really trying to achieve? Is there some other Agenda or have they just plain
snookered themselves and kicked an own goal.
If they are so pig headed that they must persist with this farce then the only outcomes I can see happening are
1) they just abandon all the “compensation” thus creating another massive LIE.
2) They abandon the thought of a budget surplus
3) they include all fuels including ‘Petrol”
4) they raise the level of tax
and in any case they will be unceremoniously dumped at the next election which can’t come soon enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
in one year 800gigatons c02
in one year 160 gigatons plant/sea..etc
in ................ 8 gigatons by man alone...ipccc statement
reduce by 160 MILLION tonnes by 2020...mmmm jg says
and finally “termites produce c02 emissions many more times all the factories and automobiles of the world..Science ,Nov 5 1982”
junk science peddled by jg-c02 is not a pollutant-nor does it heat the planet...no need to do anything....
-------------------------------------------------------
i only offer to point out absurd assumption that increase in measured c02 may not BE MANMADE........hallo
why does everyone think that ..oops..there goes a mmc02 molecule..look overthere a natural one....ooops a termite label on this one...look a volcanic one ...
who told you the increase of c02 is manmade and not natural expression of this planets existance..oopsthe ipcc
told us so…
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In December, another alphabet soup congregation on climate change will meet in Durban, South Africa to discuss efforts to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. Durban may be a fine city. But if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wants a dose of reality regarding carbon emissions, it should convene in
Hanoi.
The reason: over the past decade, Vietnam's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 136%. That's faster than any other country on the planet. And Vietnam's explosive growth looks like it will continue for years to come. Indeed, the country where some 58,000 US soldiers died stands as a proxy for many of the countries in the developing
world. And as those countries grow their economies, their energy use, and their carbon dioxide emissions, the hope for any hard cap -- or tax -- on carbon becomes ever more remote.
To be sure, Vietnam's energy use is a tiny fraction of that used by countries like China and the US. In 2010, Vietnam's 90 million inhabitants consumed about 900,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. That's a rounding error when compared to China's consumption of nearly 49 million barrels of oil equivalent per day or US consumption of nearly 46 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Even South Africa, which has about half as many people as Vietnam, consumes nearly 2.5 times as much energy.
But the latest data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, released last month, shows that Vietnam's huge appetite for energy is part of an ongoing surge in the developing world to escape energy poverty.
Vietnam represents a whole class of fast-growing, populous countries where energy use is growing ferociously and that's resulting in more carbon dioxide emissions -- 33.1 trillion tons in 2010 alone, an increase of 28% over 2001 numbers.
Whether the issue is oil use, coal consumption, or electricity generation, the numbers out of Vietnam are stunning. Over the past decade, Vietnam's oil use jumped by about 82%, following only Qatar (202%) and China (86%). Vietnam's coal use has grown faster than any other country. Over the past decade, coal consumption in
Vietnam jumped by 175%, outstripping the percentage growth in Indonesia (134%) and China (128%). And nearly all of that coal is being used to produce electrons.
Over the past decade, Vietnam's electricity generation increased by a whopping 227%, the fastest growth on the planet. Again, the total amount of electricity used in Vietnam -- about 100 terawatt-hours -- remains miniscule when compared to US consumption of 4,326 terawatt-hours. But the essentiality of electricity to modernity is incontrovertible. The countries that can produce cheap, abundant, reliable electricity can grow their economies, educate their citizens and pull their people out of poverty. And those that can't, can't. And that's why all of the past -- and all of the future -- meetings of the UNFCCC have and will result in failure to put a hard cap or effective tax on global carbon dioxide: the developing countries know that limiting their access to hydrocarbons will necessarily retard the growth of their economies.
Look at Asia. Even if we forget for a moment about the 2.1 billion people living in China and India, we can see countries like Indonesia, where electricity generation has increased by nearly 64% over the past decade. Or consider Thailand, where electricity use has jumped by 55%. Or consider Egypt, where electricity use is up 79%.
That has meant big increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Over the past decade, Indonesia's carbon dioxide emissions increased by 40%, Thailand's jumped by 51% and Egypt's grew by 53%.
Need another reason for why the just-five-months-away climate meeting in Durban will fail just as all of its predecessors have failed? Coal use is soaring. Over the past decade, global coal use is up 47%. That's faster growth than what was seen in electricity generation (up 36%), natural gas use (up 30%), and oil consumption (up
13%). Environmentalists around the world love to vilify coal. But for countries like Vietnam, Pakistan, China, and others, coal keeps the lights on. That's certainly true here in the US, but over the past decade, domestic coal consumption has fallen by 5%.
Thus far, I've given you a lot of percentages. But focus, please, on these two: 27% and 28%. Since 2001, global energy use is up by 27% and carbon dioxide emissions are up 28%. Put another way, over the last decade, global energy use increased by about 51 million barrels of oil equivalent per day; that's equal to about six Saudi
Arabias' worth of daily oil output. Energy use is soaring as more people from Hanoi to Hangzhou move into the modern world. And that means that huge cuts in carbon dioxide emissions -- by 80%, as Obama claims the US must -- simply will not happen.
Like it or not, the world economy runs on hydrocarbons -- coal, oil, and natural gas. And that will remain true for many decades to come. Energy transitions happen over decades or centuries, not years. Countries like Vietnam, China, and India, will never agree to any tax or limit on carbon dioxide. Nor does it make much sense at all to impose heavy levies on the US, and other developed countries. Why? Well, over the last decade, US carbon dioxide emissions fell -- by 1.7%.
Every once in a while, we need to focus on the numbers and put aside the hype. The scale of current global energy use -- about 241 million barrels of oil equivalent per day -- is the same as 28 Saudi Arabias of energy production. The great cities of the world, whether it's Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, or Durban, run on highly processed forms of energy: electricity, ultra-low-sulfur motor fuel, and natural gas. And they need lots of it.
Global leaders should give up their fixation on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Significant cuts will not happen voluntarily anywhere. Instead, leaders should be focusing on providing as much cheap, abundant, dispatchable power to their citizens as possible. And to make certain political leaders understand the need to eradicate energy poverty, the UNFCCC should hold its next meeting in Hanoi.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
fort said...
Climate change came early last night when minus 2 degrees was some how not what I expected from the government or their green weather forecasters and No I do not want to pay extra taxes,so the greens and labor can promise something else which does not come true, what a con, fraud to some, but then there are some who will go along
with this con and see what is in it for them. The ABC in Brisbane then reported this news briefly and then went on to celebrate, what a wonderfully sunny day we can expect! And,the heat turns down in Tropical Darwin as well,What timing! Hyper - Hypocrasy in spades.
The weather bureau says Darwin residents are experiencing the coldest June on record.
Senior forecaster Graeme King says minimum temperatures have dropped into the teens every day this month.
"It has been a great start to the dry season," he said.
"It is the coolest June ever recorded in Darwin.
"We have now had 42 nights in a row below 20 degrees Celsius.
"To put that in context, last dry season we only had 20 [nights] for the whole season."
About 85 per cent of weather stations across the Northern Territory recorded their coldest June on record.
Overnight temperatures north of Alice Springs have been between 4C and 6C below average.
Maximum daytime temperatures have hovered around the 27C to 30C mark.
The next record in weather watchers' sights still has almost two weeks to go.
The longest big chill-out in the Top End capital is 54 consecutive nights below 20C, set in the 1960s.
- ABC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad as hell said...
This is nothing but a money making SCAM for the communist one world government aficionados (Bob Brown wants it)
In Europe there is wide spread greed and corruption and the benefit to the environment? ballpark zero in terms of 'climate Change', the convenient vehicle. I am mad as hell and will probably bring up my breakfast with the lot at my local tomorrow morning. What a pleasant experience that will be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know this is a tax grab. However, we will find that it is not so much of a grab as a grope. Jullia Gillard says that it will bring in $11 bln.
Now let us list how this $11 bln will be spent -
55% to the needy = $5.5 bln leaves $4.5 bln
$1 bln to United Nations " $3.5 bln
Compensation to some industries unknown
Operating cost of complex system
depends on how much you earn, how
many children you have. etc.
More bureaucrats, offices etc. unknown
Easily rorted
NOTHING LEFT yet Julia plans to spend $3bln on renewables - where from?
The cry will be "sorry we have run out of money - no more compensation." And how can any details be worked out when as Julia said the tonnage price will go up and down.
Just how much has been wasted already on this ideological dream that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Her words are that by 2020 16 mln tonnes of carbon dioxide will be saved from polluting the atmosphere. And then there will be 16 blns of plants and trees gone for lack of food.
Australia could become a wasteland.There will be a big shock coming when as NASA and thousands of other well known scientists predict that a maunder effect (cooling) is on its way. This is the most ridiculous wasteful policy ever invented by man. And
it is not being enforced on the citizens of the most industrial nations - China, India, USA and rejected by Canada Japan and even recently France.
Julia Gillard is showing her real socialist colours in proposing such a tax that will do absolutely NOTHING to stop the changing climate which has been with us since day Saving the planet??? Julia Gillard, and all men are as grains of sand on the seashore and Julia Gillard should wake up to this before all Australians wake up to
find themselves in deep trouble with our economic future in doubt especially as a GFC2 is predicted in the not-too-distant future. We cannot afford to lose our trade as our debt is enormous and will be even so with this tax and another GFC.
Wake up Austrllians before it is TOO LATE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes is all this government thinks about. How can we squeeze more money out of the hardworking taxpaying citizens of this country. They are the backbone of our economy and if the spine is broken so will the body.
This seems the object of the labor/Greens.
Where is the transparency promised by Julia Gillard. We don't know how the flood tax has been spent. We do not know how much all this travel and living it up costs. We do not know the costs of the illegal immigrants debarcle, the pink batts debarcle, the BER debarcle and the cost so far of this iniquitous carbon tax, the inquiries, commissions, "watches", $900 to dead people and people overseas, pets, etc. and the debarcles go on and on. The waste this government has incurred has never before seen in the history of this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are now realizing that they tossed out the best government we had in decades under Howard. Be assured they won't make the same mistake twice as they size up your red headed liar and her equally traitorous sidekicks. The three Amigoes are dead men walking. Under her leadership democracy had been sidelined and trampled. Not one Australian voted for this TAX - the cow has no mandate to plunge this country into
unchartered waters and jeopardize this countries economy, and ruin peoples lives. How arrogant and smug she was on TV tonight........one word: SICKENING!
=------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to this story the "Climate Institute" say the tax could be as small as $2.45 per week. If so, why all the resistance to this measly sum, If only it were true. A carbon tax on fuel alone will amount to between 5 and 8 cents per litre and we all know when you put a tax on fuel then you also raise the price of everything we use, eat, wear, watch, drive, sit on and live in, nothing will be spared and this is before we are bent over by the power companies.
Compensation promises will not be sufficient and they will not last and the price per ton will not stay at the introductory level. This PM has shown she is not concerned about lying to the Australian people and we should remember this when details are finally revealed. Until the worlds major emitters commit to engage in this issue we are doing nothing more than engaging in national self flagellation with no hope of changing anything and they know it. Also what happens to the other 50% of the tax that Juliar says she is giving back in compensation, there never seems to be anything said about that Are they serious, do they honestly expect people to believe that Juliar can save the planet by taxing us all only $2.45 per week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a lot of bullshit Gillard tells, she must be living in disneyland. Her arguement goes like this;
if an industry doesen't stop carbon polluting the atmosphere, they will be fined [ doesn't that happen anyway ?] but her idea is to tax ALL carbon pollution with increased tax for increased pollution, thus industry will think smart and find ways to reduce their pollution. God save us all from people who think they are living in
utopia.
Most of the, so called, carbon is emmited by power companies. There is no way on earth that these companies are going to suddenly find other ways to generate base load power from coal fired power stations that use coal. Since the world runs on electricity, the only option is ignore the tax, pay it and pass the tax to consumers, who MUST run on electricty.
If I was PM, the first binding federal law I would pass would be that:today, electricity is classed as an essential for life and the country's stability.So all electrical power shall never be intentionally disconnected because of financial concerns either by the supplier or the reciever of that power to maintain their standard of living. In other words, make it a CRIMINAL offence to disconnect
electricty under any and all circumstances, to a reciever of that electricity which would otherwise cause irreprable harm.
Actually I thought that this law was already in place since electricty is classed as the TOP essential services. You don't see councils disconnecting water supply if you don't pay your water bill; they simple sue you for the money or reposses non essential items to pay for the bill. In the worst case scenario [ which I have yet to hear of ] they simple take a lein on your property to pay for the bill later at exhorbatent interest rates. 2 things are classed as essential for 'life' in our western civilisation.
Number one is electricty, number two is water. Without these items you simple cannot live. So you think that the coal fired power industry is going to magically find a way of cutting 'carbon' from the generating stations ?.
Coal is nearly pure carbon and if you can find a way of making it disappear after it's fired, you have just done what Einstien couldn't do; you get the nobel science prize.
How can any sane person believe this bullshit ?
The electricity suppliers have NO OPTION on the planet but to pass on the tax to consumers and I'm talking about hikes of up to 400% in the next 4 years. People will just give up, live like paupers in their own houses but instead of a morgage, they will be burdened with electricity bills which soar out of sight.
total and unmitigated madness of the first order.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment