Pssst – want to make an easy ten grand?

The ice is melting! Or is it? Pic: Supplies by the University of Tasmania

Believers in the science of global warming, you now have the chance to spread the word and at the same time make yourself $10,000 richer.

This has to be really simple, as almost everyone from PM Julia Gillard down, including much of our mainstream media, has been telling us it’s a fact - the science says so, anybody who thinks otherwise is a fringe-dwelling extremist, a denier who won’t accept the evidence and doesn’t deserve to be heard.

According to Ms Gillard, climate change is happening and the time is right for a carbon tax. This could cost Australian families $863 a year, according to a Treasury forecast, but then you might still end up making a profit.

It’s pretty much a moving target, so it depends who you believe and what they are saying this week.

The Treasury forecast was based on a moderate carbon price of $30 a tonne, but chief climate advisor Professor Ross Garnaut (an economist, not a climate scientist, certainly not a rocket scientist) seems to think we will get it all back at the end of a merry money-go-round where the “big polluters” pay, but you won’t; or not a lot, providing you are a low to middle-income earner.

The PM originally said it won’t lighten your wallet because all the tax proceeds would be paid back in compensation, but now Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says we will only get about half back, yet millions of us will actually end up with more in our wallet.

The other half will go to compensating the big polluters but ours will be permanent, theirs will be “transitional”, which probably means at least until the next election.

They haven’t quite figured how the compensation will apply equitably to pensioners, the unemployed, self-funded retirees or mature-aged workers who now pay little or no tax, but we can trust them to sort all that out by about July. And they are not saying how many will still be worse off.

Treasurer Wayne Swan initially claimed the new tax wouldn’t really be a tax because it won’t show on your payslip. But when electricity generators, oil companies, transport operators, food suppliers and major manufacturers pass on their costs, try telling that to your mortgage holder or landlord while you wait for your compensation package.

If all this sounds too confusing, that’s when the lazy $10k prize on offer could really come in handy. All you have to do is come up with empirical evidence that “increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning, drives global warming”.

Victorian locomotive engineman Peter Laux has pledged the prize in a statutory declaration witnessed by a police officer, and the challenge is open for 20 years .

Ms Gillard says the overwhelming evidence of “climate change” (I think she means the human-caused variety) is “accepted by every reputable climate scientist in the world”, so just hop on to Google and track that evidence down.

But wait, there are just a few apparent “disreputables” who don’t accept it, so perhaps you should check them out too: international scientists Profs Richard Lindzen, Henrik Svensmark, John Christy, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, Dr Miklos Zagoni, our own Profs Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Dr David Evans and many others including more than 30,000 scientists who signed a petition in the US stating that CO2 was not causing dangerous climate change.

Prof Carter and Dr Evans have written numerous articles on the topic, including one in Quadrant Online co-authored by Alan Moran, an economist specialising in energy policy. They debunk the government’s case for human- induced climate change and a carbon tax, point by point.

But don’t be put off, surely with the overwhelming scientific consensus we keep hearing about, the truth really is out there? Peter Laux just wants you to find it.

He describes himself as a “militant trade unionist” - a member of the oldest rail union in the world, the Locomotive Division of the Rail Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) , and vice-president of his local branch. He says:

I have watched over the past couple of decades as the so-called left side of politics has been easily duped, co-opted and corralled by the Northern Hemisphere elite over the issue of the Greenhouse Effect or Global warming or Climate Change or Climate Chaos or whatever new slick PR advertising spin they need to use today.

AGW proponents constantly claim “overwhelming evidence” and yet incredibly never show any….

For those who despise the source of their prosperous lives and wish to burden those who can least afford it with carbon taxes and cripple the development in the Third world, I offer you $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.

That won’t be as easy as we first thought, but are you up to the challenge?

193 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sarah Bath says:

      05:11am | 20/04/11

      I feel the need to correct some previous neocons views in relation to climate change and where there are successful efforts to achieve this.  I have been criticized but deniers and obvious Liberal neocon trolls that I just outline the problem and no solution. Well here is an excellent example of real democracy in action for the interests of the environment. 

      The Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network exists to show Australians the best practices of what revolution can achieve that not only transforms the lives of everyday Venezuelans but also that revolution can challenge the greed, exploitation and destructiveness that occurs due to global capitalism.  Grassroots democracy occurs due to workers input. Social missions, communal councils and communes have been set up. Production coops and communes free high-quality public health and education services, sustainable development projects and community controlled media.

      During a speech by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, he denounces imperial dictatorships and exclusionary practices by some neocon governments. When speaking of the great Copenhagen summit an innocent youth was arrested writing on a wall “Don’t change the climate, change the system consequently we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species”.

      He went on to say that,
      “The rich are destroying the planet. Do they think they can go to another when they destroy this one? Do they have plans to go to another planet? So far there is none on the horizon of the galaxy. We cannot reduce global material consumption if we don’t make the powerful go down several levels, and if we don’t combat inequality. It is necessary that to the ecological principle that is so useful at the time of becoming conscious, ‘think globally and act locally,’ Consume less and share better.’”

      The gap between the rich and poor also gets bigger despite the UN Millennium goals. The total income of the 500 richest individuals in the world is greater than the income of the 416 million poorest people. The 2.8 billion people living in poverty on less than $2 per day, representing 40 per percent of the global population, receive only 5 percent of world income. Today each year about 9.2 million children die before reaching their fifth year and 99.9 percent of these deaths occur in poorer countries.

      The cause is the dream of seeking happiness through material accumulation and of endless progress, using for this science and technology with which they can exploit without limits all the resources of the earth.

      The Venezuelan revolution succeeds to win justice for all people through the path of socialism. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. Empire.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      06:45am | 20/04/11

      How on earth does this get through? Not a single reader believes this person is genuine, (we all know it’s a spoof - like that clever fake lefty who conned the people over at The Drum - without the ‘clever’).
      It would be one thing if this spoof was funny, but it’s not, it’s not even clever… c’mon mods, what’s going on?

    • L. says:

      07:00am | 20/04/11

      “During a speech by the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez”.. the great man that he is, peace be upon him grin

      Seriously? Chavez..?

      The olny reason that country is still solvent with Chavez still in power is because it has oil, and lots of it.

    • Ripa says:

      07:07am | 20/04/11

      Dear Sarah,
      my cats did a shit this morning, and boy did it stink. If we compared your brain with their poo, im betting my cats plop, per square mm, would have more brain cells than you.

    • DJ says:

      08:05am | 20/04/11

      OMG ... You definitely are a goose Sarah. Please tell us where you recieved your education.

    • TimB says:

      08:06am | 20/04/11

      Lets revolt like it’s 1917!

      Viva la revolution!

      etc.

      *yawn*

      @LEftRightOut, agree. Come on Tory & co,  we’ve all had our chance to mock the troll, but isn’t it time you guys did something? She’s not helping the debate.

    • Icarus says:

      08:10am | 20/04/11

      I totally agree with LRO above. Apart from being completely ludicrous (Hugo Chavez a hero?? go figure!) Sarah’s comment is totally off topic.

    • mid says:

      08:12am | 20/04/11

      Hmmm, why do we never see Eric and Sarah Bath posting at the same time… coincidence? grin

    • papachango says:

      09:53am | 20/04/11

      @LeftRightOut

      Yep. Alene Composta lives on wink Not as well written as the original, however.

    • Troy says:

      11:10am | 20/04/11

      EricK, is that you?

    • Aitch B says:

      11:41am | 20/04/11

      @Sarah

      Hey….. let’s meet up!

      I’ve checked out STA travel and I’ve got just enough to pay for your one way ticket to Nirvana… er…. Venezuela.

      Or would you prefer not to accept money from a capitalist? smile

    • CD says:

      12:12pm | 20/04/11

      Article posted 5.55am…..

      Reply by troll 5.11am

      ICB and time for Punch to own up.

    • LC says:

      12:17pm | 20/04/11

      Not you again.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      12:19pm | 20/04/11

      That’s the one, Papachango.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      03:43pm | 20/04/11

      Ahh, Venezuela!  Paradise on earth.  Unless you are one of the 38% (2005) who live below the poverty line, or one of the people afected by the 30% (2010) inflation rate, or one of the victims of child sex slavery, given that Venezuela is on the Tier 2 watchlist (2008).

    • michael j says:

      04:05pm | 20/04/11

      @just saying—mate it may seem odd to you but 1/3 rd of Australian’s
      live below the poverty line,,what Australia’s true inflation rate is would be just anybody’s guess,,my rates,,water,,and power have gone up at least
      40% in the last 2 years,,fuel ,n , oils are only just affordable ,,as is the food in the shops,,and we are the big winners from the G.F.C. it hasn’t even hit here yet,,,but i do hope that child sex slavery is not a problem in this country now or in the future,,,

    • papachango says:

      04:23pm | 20/04/11

      @LRO - I think this one is actually a copycat.

      It lacks the subtlety and wit of the original, which started out almost indetectible as satire, but got steadily more and more outrageous, until in the end it was screamingly funny.

      ...or have I come in at the end of another Composta cycle?

    • LeftRightOut says:

      04:35pm | 20/04/11

      Agreed Papachango. I’m not suggesting that this is Alene, but a poor imitation of same. You summed it up perfectly.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      05:22pm | 20/04/11

      Michael J.

      I take your point, but using the same source as for Venezuela, Australia has an inflation rate of 2.9% (sure, 2.9% feels too low, but at least it’s from the same source).  Using a different source (Aus was not in the original), 10% of Australian’s are below the poverty line.  Too many, for sure, but far better than Venezuela.

      My point was never ‘Australia is perfect and Venezuela is crap’, but merely ‘Venezuela is crap’.  But thanks for the response smile

    • John says:

      05:56pm | 20/04/11

      You do know sarah that in Venezuela the rich live in luxry while the poor suffer and the large profits that are made by this country are from OIL the main thing you blame for global warming. Also note Venezuela supports a country that is harsh to gay ppl Iran. They have a agreement and also Iran is known for extreme racism against non muslim religions. U truely are a troll or just an idiot I dont know which one.

      I will be calling the fitzroy branch of the Greens party and having a few words with them

    • michael j says:

      06:42pm | 20/04/11

      @just sayin-yeah i was going on salvo’s-lifeline,or St vinnes ,,
      not a Morgan poll but reliable enough for me,,
      And for anyone to think Chavez is an idol to follow is a bad more for anyone
      supporting a Socialist ideal,,
      he will not last much longer,,
      NEWS FLASH George Nuges-just said one person dies of starvation every 3 1/2 seconds ,,,,,,,,,,,,,mmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    • michael j says:

      08:29pm | 20/04/11

      @ John- you do realize you are describing Capitalist Scum from all over the world,not just Fascist Scum,,
      Any one for a round of Cluster Bombs,,,,,,,,,,,,
      An all said an done they probably will come in handy when the Famine Invasion’s start,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    • Ryan says:

      11:47pm | 20/04/11

      If you people stopped replying to this obvious troll, they would stop doing this.

    • Rick says:

      09:46am | 21/04/11

      Yeh….......tell the rich that they are the problem an hear them squeal like stuck pigs…...and as pigs do, they will consume everything until there is nothing ........then turn and eat each other.

    • Russell Luck says:

      09:58am | 21/04/11

      Sarah is correct in her assertion that greed is destroying OUR planet.
      All you savage venemous narrow minded hater mongers please curb your distateful trolling.
      Climate change is real, but it has been happening ... forever!
      A Carbon “tax” distracts from the real issues here.
      Environmental vandalism and poisoning ecologies.
      We are part of our environment, balance is important, not just on the bank books either!

    • themis says:

      06:14pm | 22/04/11

      We may not be perfect in a capitalist society but we do have freedom.
      I encourage growing trees to sequestrate carbon dioxide but don’t support a carbon tax.

    • realist says:

      10:37am | 26/04/11

      Communism has had its run and failed, Sarah. Get over it. Venezuela is a good example.
      Everything you suggest (and wish to impose on us) is against human nature.

    • BMJ says:

      05:12am | 20/04/11

      Simple fact is we can’t keep on living how we are. It’s not sustainable. When it finally hits home these little cheeky games won’t mean much.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      06:51am | 20/04/11

      Sure, oil will run out in a hundred years or so, coal too one day.
      This is what will drive innovation, not a tax.

      Was the wheel invented because they taxed walking?
      Was the car invented because they taxed horses/carts?

      The author of this piece is correct insofar as there is a large group of dissenters out there. The left demonise them as much as possible, and this demonisatin has become more shrill of late.

      What made me suspicious of this “scientific consensus” - was simply looking at who was sending the message - The Left.
      The realisation that this was a political cause was what did it for me. This is not to say that it’s all BS, just that there is sufficient doubt to question everything - this bloke’s put his money where his mouth is - I’m tipping he’ll not have to pay out any time soon.

    • BMJ says:

      07:16am | 20/04/11

      Look I’m not going to play the role of know it all scientist on the net.

      However, if there is a substantial, let’s say majority, opinion out there in the scientific community that our emissions are having an impact then what do you think a further 100 years of oil and coal burning will do? Maybe up till now we haven’t made any long lasting damage, but another 100 years could have a big impact? Just sayin’.

      The question about the wheel and horse/carts doesn’t do anything for me because the human race would have survived without them. IF these scientists are right the problems could be long lasting and have huge effects on the way of life.

      I agree, no one has done more damage to this subject than the political left. They bashed anyone that questioned this subject. That’s not to say the right were clever in exploiting it.

    • persephone says:

      07:47am | 20/04/11

      Yep, Maggie Thatcher, Angela Merkel - well known lefties.

      Thatcher - who has a background in science - was the world’s first leader to identify climate change as a future problem.

    • mid says:

      08:05am | 20/04/11

      LeftRightOut: “What made me suspicious of this “scientific consensus” - was simply looking at who was sending the message - The Left.”

      Yeah, that leftie hippie commie Margaret Thatcher, what a deadbeat. She needed a haircut and a real job wink

    • Newt says:

      08:15am | 20/04/11

      A good point left right out. Even if we accept that AGW is real it’s another giant leap of logic to believe that more taxes and more government is the answer.

    • Car Lover says:

      08:33am | 20/04/11

      LRO

      It’s not a tax if you use non-fossil energy - its a credit. The value of the credit is the same as the amount of the carbon price.
      THIS will drive innovation.
      You get credits that you can sell into the carbon market for developing and/or using non-fossil energy, AND you get to sell the energy into the grid.

      Plus if we’re talking cars, the future of automotive transport is already in production and available for purchase - the Honda FCX Clarity. And this isn’t even the first version of such a car, the technology has been around for decades.

      Problem was - “fuel hydrogen” used to cost about 3x the price of petrol to produce (volume for volume.. 1kg of petrol vs 1kg of hydrogen = 3x difference) - but the energy output of the 1kg hydrogen means the car goes twice as far on a tank than an equivalent petrol vehicle. In effect, the price per kilowatt, rather than volume, is roughly equivalent.

      Now… if I’m getting a $30/tonne credit to produce fuel hydrogen.. AND I get to sell the fuel hydrogen.. the cost of the fuel approaches the cost of petrol/diesel right there. Factor in economy of scale once it becomes more popular (as it must - it is the better option. A person’s political opposition to cheap reliable ENDLESS fuel will eventually wilt in the face of reality), and the increasing cost of extracting sand juice from holes in the desert, and the per tonne production price will equal and then drop below the $$/tonne price of oil-based fuel. Now the production price is lower and the energy output will conceivably go up, as advancement is made in its use.

      So. It will happen. It is an inevitability.

      Given that - the sooner you start using and developing a technology, the sooner it hits its peak potential. If a price/credit system encourages uptake of new technology, I say go for it.

    • Pink Lady says:

      10:19am | 20/04/11

      You are correct, BMJ - people do HAVE TO STOP living like they do - this has nothing to do with climate change!!!
      Just stop wasting money on things you don’t need - Don’t buy things until you have the cash.
      All the tax in the world will NOT affect the climate one way or the other either.
      However, no one can tell me that PREDICTED computer generated figures can be believed.
      I agree that this fellow who has put up the prize will not have to pay anything out any time soon.
      The funny part of it is all the brainwashed students from the 1980’s onwards know no better and have been conned by the universities and teachers who only know what they were taught.
      They seem to close their minds to anything other than what they have been brainwashed into believing. 
      Most deny any belief in a “God” but this is their own religion because “god” can be whatever or whoever you wish it to be.
      I do think some people are waking up to the con though - I sure hope so!!!
      JUggling money from the rich to the poor never has worked.

    • Seth Brundle says:

      11:15am | 20/04/11

      The stone age did not end due to a lack of stone.  It ended when superior technology (smelting of copper) became available.  When superior technology is developed, only then will we leave fossil fuels behind us.  All the rest is just political games.

    • Denny Crane says:

      11:17am | 20/04/11

      persephone - Thatcher’s cheif scientific adviser was Lord Moncton. Do you know what he has to say about Climate Change? Googlr him and see

    • persephone says:

      11:44am | 20/04/11

      Denny Crane

      no, he wasn’t. Monckton doesn’t have a science degree, whereas Thatcher’s scientific advisers all did. He provided policy advice.

      Thatcher herself, in her memoirs, talks of grappling with climate change and refers to her adviser in this area as George Guise.

      She fails to mention Monckton at all anywhere through her book, which suggests his role wasn’t as vital as his publicists like you to think it was.

      Monckton is known for inflating his CV, so that he has elevated himself from a policy adviser to Thatcher’s chief scientific adviser, above the heads of those who actually were, should be no surprise.

      That the anti climate change brigade continues to trot out such a discredited source as Monckton to support their cause only shows how desperate they are for spokespeople.

    • CD says:

      12:17pm | 20/04/11

      @Persephone Climate Change was also a past problem. What’s your point?

      You have a very big mouth. Prove how right you are and win $10,000z
      I dare you.
      If you can’t or wont for the second time today ICB.

    • LeftRightOut says:

      12:23pm | 20/04/11

      I love how the lefty types roll out the Maggie Thatcher argument - they know, as do we all, that Thatcher simply used global warming as a tool to break the [cola] mining unions stranglehold on the UK economy.

      C’mon people, let’s have some “real” arguments - strawmen not welcome here.

    • MarK says:

      01:11pm | 20/04/11

      Pers my questions from yesterday remain unanswered.

      Open thread.

      Yesterdays job application from Ged.

      I will repeat them in a new post below for you so it is nice and clean.

      You do have the answers and the courage to admit your spectacular fail on China don’t you?

    • persephone says:

      04:23pm | 20/04/11

      MarK

      I answered your questions yesterday. It was elsewhere on the thread, as Adam had already posed them as questions you’d asked the day before and he wanted to know my answer. So when you asked the same question again, I’d already answered it.

      I assumed you realised that.

      As for the China thing, the article you linked me to shut down my computer!

      I’m still trying to work out where the article came from, as it only says “London’ and, as far as I could make out, had no author or publication - but I’m a bit afraid to revisit the link, given the effect it had!

    • Paulb says:

      06:32pm | 20/04/11

      Good to see the Persephone comiittee ready to roll whenever the ALP’s latest turd needs a bit of a PR polish.  They never seem to have an opinion when the topics are a bit more apolitical I notice.

    • Adam says:

      06:53pm | 20/04/11

      @ Persephone - “As for the China thing, the article you linked me to shut down my computer!”

      You aren’t using the tired old excuse of blaming the links again are you? You were doing that yesterday. *sigh*

      And no, you never did answer the questions from MarK that were posed in that thread. You just waffled around the subject and were deliberately evasive. I love a great debate but you seen to be waning.

    • Adam says:

      07:03pm | 20/04/11

      @ Pers - Your computer wouldn’t happen to be running a JuLIAR processor with an ACTU operating system, a few MB of Wayne Swan incompetence and a Bob Brown hard drive would you? I hear they shutdown when presented with evidence that conflicts with the party line. Might be the problem you are having opening those links raspberry

    • Rick says:

      10:04am | 21/04/11

      leftrightout….......oil will run out in 100 years…............as will breathable air.

    • cry in my gin says:

      11:22am | 21/04/11

      @persephone and the other “Maggie Thatcherite” apologists. Please keep in mind that Maggie was/is a politician. She wanted to shut down the coal mines and introduce nuclear power. Voila, an argument that supported her cause was trotted out, as per political handbook 101. To top it off she OK’d the installation of 2nd rate, 1950’s design power stations, similar to the ones used in Japan. Hmmm. Once again trotting out a neo-con bogey man to support your argument blows up in your face.

    • lee says:

      10:45am | 19/09/11

      george neargass of lunchbox legend 60 minus was convinced there were 100 seconds to the minute.

    • thatmosis says:

      06:33am | 20/04/11

      The science is not in on climate change by any means and and we are being sold a pup or a pig in a poke to swell the coffers of a Government that has no idea of how to run its policies let alone a country. If people believe what Greg and the rest of the brain dead are saying then I have this great little bridge, great location, freshly painted and going for a song. Of course the usual Labor trolls will jump on this and call me names as is their want but the majority of people, those that can think for themselves realise that the whole thing is a government sponsored scam to lighten our wallets for no reason. As for the 50% compensation Hahahahahahahaha, that truely is the joke of the year and deserves a reward for the biggest furphy this century.

    • Sherlock says:

      06:55am | 20/04/11

      Here come the climate alarmists. Watch and laugh. Hardly a sliver of science will be discussed but there will be plenty of vitriol. See them dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as “unqualified” or “compromised” or even “corrupt”. It’s far easier to dismiss your opponent that having to develop a cogent argument of your own.

      Read all about the conspiracies they concoct. See them accuse Tony Abbott of running a “scare campaign” even though they are the ones putting forward one apocalyptic prediction after another (yet never explain why none of them even look like coming through).

      Slander, abuse and madness, that’s what you will read. Science will be minimal

    • Rick says:

      10:01am | 21/04/11

      But Phony Tony is a believer…...... isn’t he?....or so he says….believe it or not

    • John Goslino says:

      05:56pm | 23/05/11

      As an antidote to the article by Mikkelsen, the references to the work of Collins, Evans and co and even help the $10k challenge, I suggest serious people take a look at the blog by Prof. Barry Brooks of Adelaide University who provides lay explanations for the rest of us.  The link below is a direct response to skeptics and I think puts things into a sound perspective.

      http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/

    • MarK says:

      07:07am | 20/04/11

      Those pesky empirical facts or lack thereof keep getting in the way of a good wealth redistribution campaign. Damn shame the computer models don’t actually work with known hindcast data to produce known results. Bugger.

      Ahhh well.

      Still waiting for an answer as to how much cooling the carbon tax of Gillard will bring to the world if implemented (snicker)

      And of course…how much will this tax cost Australia.

      Waiting for answers.

      Oh when will the carbon tax start to increase and what compensation will we get then? you know, so we are better off.

    • CD says:

      12:26pm | 20/04/11

      MarK I admire your persistence and take note of the fact none of the usual flock ever reply.

      Note how much you are now ignored by the tribal beings? Waffle waffle waffle is what they all do but simple replies are never forthcoming.

    • Coach says:

      03:24pm | 20/04/11

      MarK, I think the idea of cutting emissions is to slow down the warming.  I haven’t heard that it’s supposed to start cooling straight away but I’ve seen a lot of people asking about it so you might be confused.
      Other than that you raise good points, I’m not sure what the answers are.  You are against the carbon tax, but don’t both major parties have polices to combat climate change and are committed to the reductions by 2020?

    • Kevin says:

      04:54pm | 20/04/11

      “Still waiting for an answer as to how much cooling the carbon tax of Gillard will bring to the world if implemented”.
      What a stupid question.  No wonder no-one has bothered to answer it.
      Have a bit of a think Mark and imagine what would happen if everyone applied that sort of logic.

    • John says:

      06:13pm | 20/04/11

      Funny part is Mark both labour and Greens have used china as “look they are lookin at green technology and implementing it” but forget to mention that China is looking at building over 10 new coal stations and also nuclear power stations. If the Govt truely cares about stoping coal minning then why not put a sales tax on the export of coal to china the biggest consumer of coal and also allow Oz to build a nuclear power station that will produce more power then coal and allow the closing of dirty coal stations.

    • MarK says:

      06:21pm | 20/04/11

      Stupid question Kevin eh.

      Tell me why please.

      Applying that sort of logic is what business people, politicians, thieves, kids, teenagers, people and all sorts of animals make every moment of evry day.

      Why is it now stupid.

      Show some cause Kevin….lets go.

      Coach we had to tackle carbon pollution to cool the planet. the goal posts keep shifting.

      It is the pertinent question because if our reductions do nothing to stop global warming or even to stabilise the worlds temperature why do it?

      trust me I am not confused. You have sicophants of the religious cabal that run this scam such as peresphone cowardly hiding from answering the basics. They even tell lies about China reducing emissions. China will put out BILLIONS of extra tons of CO2 per annum from current levels.

      We are at about half a billion tons now.

      Puts it into perspective eh.

    • N.Kelly says:

      07:06pm | 20/04/11

      Recently you said that the world’s temperature is going to change, MarK.

      By how much ?

    • TChong says:

      07:15am | 20/04/11

      “mature aged workers pay little or no tax” -WTF?  are you talking about.?
      Despite my eternal youthful good looks , I’m a mature age worker ( whats the definition BTW?) and I like most , pay tax.
      John, maybe you hang around a part of society that uses tax shelters , and the like to minimise what they pay ?

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      10:05am | 20/04/11

      Fait comment TChong but take the entire quote “pensioners, the unemployed, self-funded retirees or mature-aged workers who now pay little or no tax”. You say you are “mature age” and you pay tax. No doubt you are not alone but I did not say “all”. There are also many self funded retirees and mature age workers (especially part-time workers) who qualify for the seniors’ tax offset, low income benefit, funds from a superannuation pension scheme, who now “pay little or no tax”. Maybe you need a good accountant smile
      I haven’t seen anything about how they will be compensated.

    • Randal says:

      12:11pm | 20/04/11

      Thwwwackkk!!! Copt that Chongy!

    • Bill09 says:

      07:31am | 20/04/11

      Ring Sarah Hanson -Young or Christine Milne..I’m sure they’re on top of the detail..

    • Paulb says:

      06:34pm | 20/04/11

      Yep, it’ll be whatever they say it is.  Milne so reminds me of that phrase “useful idiot”.

    • Jb says:

      07:36am | 20/04/11

      Totally agree, this govt has spent the lot and by all the announcments thus week about tough budgets and less income coming in Swan and the prime mugger are desperate to get a tax through so they can fill the coffers…
      They are in trouble and the boat is sinking fast let’s just see how fast!

    • Rick says:

      05:13pm | 21/04/11

      Dont hold your breath JB it’s not as if the other mob didn’t bring a tax on everything is it ..................oh thats right a little thing called the GST….....well fuck me the sky didn’t fall in then and it wont fall in now…...anyway women, children and Labor voters to the life boats….....leave the Liberal losers and the Nats behind.

    • Andrew says:

      07:49am | 20/04/11

      At last an article that makes sense and is not written from a Labor/Green staffer. MOre articles like this is needed!

    • Karly Abrahams says:

      10:06am | 20/04/11

      Agreed! There is a serious lack of balance in the debate. And also a lack of critical thinking - I am yet to hear a climate change supporter come up with an original idea that has not been spoon fed to them by the media or pollys. Any real scientist knows that any credible debate should be backed up by evidence from a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal.

    • Pete says:

      10:26am | 20/04/11

      @Karly ” I am yet to hear a climate change supporter come up with an original idea that has not been spoon fed to them by the media or pollys”
      Probably could be said of both proponents and opponents of climate change. It seems to be an argument divided down political lines.  Opponents say show us the science that it’s our fault and proponnents say show us the science that it isnt our fault.  quiet frankly, neither side has definitive proof.  Having said that, we can either sit on our hands or err on the side of caution

    • CynicalGoat WA says:

      12:01pm | 20/04/11

      Pete…sit on our hands or err on the side of caution….like that last great con that was foisted on the populace, the Y2K bug. Remember that one? Planes were going to fall out of the skies mid flight, elevators were going to stop between floors, all our electrical appliance were going to cease working forever yada yada yada unless all those computer programmers worked their magic and saved us all!!!! And the end result?? A whole lot of Caribbean Islands changed owners just after Jan 1st 2000, and now are home to the cast of Revenge of the Nerds.
      The entire global warming fiasco is, with respect, the greatest conjob that the world has ever seen (in my humble opinion). If that makes me a “denier’ then…............whatever. But sticks and stones…..

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      02:11pm | 20/04/11

      @CynicalGoat
      While the potential effects of the “Y2K Bug” were over dramatised, the actual problem wasn’t a fake. A LOT of work went into ensuring systems were fixed before the roll over date.  If those fixes weren’t carried out, we would have had problems in the financial & retail sectors to name a few.  So it wasn’t a sacm, it was real.

      Off topic, I know, but it annoys the crap out of me when people sprout “Oh look at Y2K, nothing happened!!”  Nothing happened for a reason.

    • Chris L says:

      03:01pm | 20/04/11

      It’s true you run the risk of being ripped off, but I think it’s a risk worth taking. The Y2K bug was overstated, but it would still have caused a lot of problems if it had not been dealt with ahead of time. You might point and say “nothing happened” but that was the point of all that preparation.

      Even if pollution is not changing the climate it would still be a good thing to deal with it. If we act and are wrong, we lose money. If we fail to act and are wrong we lose a lot more than money.

    • Karly says:

      03:25pm | 20/04/11

      @Pete try looking up “Global warming and carbon dioxide through the sciences” Published in the journal Environment International. It’s a nice evidence based review of a whole base of evidence that does not support global warming. These peer reviewed articles are the only type of authority we should be respecting.

    • Ruby says:

      11:53am | 22/04/11

      @Karly Abrahams. I remember her - that silly questioner on Q&A who claimed she was a ‘scientist representing the scientific community’. Don’t think a bachelor’s degree in neuroscience really qualifies you to speak on behalf of the scientific community, or on climate change. Cherry picking articles that suit your point of view and disregarding the majority of other peer reviewed articles that dispute it is not helpful. I have searched and searched (in vain) to find a scientific article that disputes global warming that does not have financial interests in big energy/mining companies. At the moment, the majority opinion is that man made global warming is occurring, and that drastic action needs to be taken. The precautionary principle indicates that the onus is on the minority dissenters to prove that it is not happening and justify not doing something about something that could have significant negative effects on the earth.

    • Jimmy Franco says:

      07:49am | 20/04/11

      Any chance the Punch could have some actual experts in this field write about such an important topic. A former hack for a local rag in a mining town does not exactly take me as the most informed climate change analyst.

    • bubles says:

      09:39am | 20/04/11

      Jimmy F, your comment contains no information that can be added to the debate, rather it seeks to demean & vilify; a tatic only too often used by the alarmist camp.

    • Brian B says:

      12:00pm | 20/04/11

      The author does not claim to be “the most informed climate change analyst”.

      He is merely commenting on the debate, which to this point has not shown the evidence to support the warmists case.

    • Jim says:

      12:45pm | 20/04/11

      Jimmy F, a few weeks ago we had a music review writer for an inner city paper, who was all of about 19 years old, write a piece for The Punch about how real AGW was. No qualifications other than she had been to a ‘couple’ of seminars.

      I know who I’d take more seriously.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      08:06am | 20/04/11

      Another stunt from a denialist scribbler looking for attention in his retirement.  It almost deserves the rubbish trolling from “Sarah Bath” above.

      Ho hum, nothing to see here.

    • Thommo says:

      09:49am | 20/04/11

      Another example of a sheep being lead by the nose. I wonder how many of the alarmists even understand the science let alone the basic rules of debate - like, you cannot appeal to authority. You cannot say, other people beleive it so it must be true. That’s called a logical fallacy. Why don’t the warmists understand logic?

    • Karly says:

      10:10am | 20/04/11

      @ Thommo, so true. This ‘he said’ ‘she said’ business is really getting tiring. Can no one think for themselves or back their arguments with real evidence?

    • Peter says:

      08:18am | 20/04/11

      It still amazes me how so many gullible fools are still following the Global warming bandwagon.We keep hearing that 90% of scientists believe that it is really happening yet the world as a whole has not responded.I wonder why that is? I am sure that if a huge meteor was hurtling towards the earth and had a 50% chance of impact we would have every world leader unanimously agreeing to do whatever it takes to divert or stop it.Obviously the Global Warming threat is not as serious as what many would like us to think and perhaps there is a hidden agenda ..(me thinks)

    • The Original Oz says:

      09:29am | 20/04/11

      Oh yes Peter the much vaunted 97% of reputable scientists agree about AGW. The big problem with this is that the warmists refuse to mention where this magical figure came from. It was the result of a Masters Thesis research project where the candidate surveyed over 10,000 earth scientists with a two question survey. Many of the responses didn’t meet the hypothesis of the project so were discounted from the survey. Through further whittling down of the numbers they cam up with 77 accepted responses - 75 of these agreed with the project hypothesis - thus they got there 97% of scientists agree, which was picked and trotted out by the IPCC as “proof” of Anthropogenic Global Warming and now that AGW is discredited is still used as the proof of consensus on Climate Change. See the full article at http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

    • nossy says:

      08:29am | 20/04/11

      Giv tony Abbott a ring John - “Climate Change is Crap” says Tony summing up his “great” debating skills in one short sentence ! Cant be much longer before the ambitous Turnbull stabs him in the back huh viewers ? Does anyone think Turnbull would let a hack like Abbott become PM before him - not likely sports !hahahahhahahahaha

    • Erick says:

      08:43am | 20/04/11

      That’s a bad cough you’ve got there, Nossy. Have you seen a doctor about it?

    • Markster says:

      09:42am | 20/04/11

      Diversion! ICB!  Should be looking in your own back yard Nossy that’s the real story not your fantasy one!  As for Abbott he got Turnbull and he got Rudd and is looking very likely to have got Gillard too!  Some hack huh?

    • Icarus says:

      08:33am | 20/04/11

      Great article, which sums up the whole sorry mess of the AGW Industry’s attack on true, not-politically-driven science.
      As an ........ ahhh, ‘mature’ science graduate in a very relevant discipline with respect to the arguments over anthropogenic CO2 - driven climate chnge, I am not aware of a single reputable sceptic (let alone any scientist within their ranks) who denies the reality of ‘climat hange’. Or of any scientist who denies the Greenhouse Effect (vital for life on earth), that CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas (much less effective, or prevalent in the atmosphere than those good old H2O molecules), and as such that it plays an important role in the vital greenhouse effect.
      The dispute is all about the extent to which anthropogenic CO2 emisions have a role of any significance at all in driving Climate Change / AGW;  genuine science shows conclusively that it is absolutely, cumulatively, totally negligible. But it’s hard for governments to tax solar events, orbital factors and other well - studied, long cycle events which really drive the ongoing cycle of climate change, isn’t it?
      Meanwhile, our current Australian government’s politicians lead the world in continuously spouting that sceptics ‘deny climate change’. What a lot of rot. Surely this out and out lie should be pummelled by the media for the the fraud that it is? Let’s focus more on truly understanding the climate cycles, what drives weather, adaptation and mitigation!
      Go Peter Laux, You Good Thing!!

    • Woof Woofsson says:

      08:42am | 20/04/11

      “But wait, there are just a few apparent “disreputables” who don’t accept it, so perhaps you should check them out too: international scientists Profs Richard Lindzen, Henrik Svensmark, John Christy, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, Dr Miklos Zagoni, our own Profs Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Dr David Evans and many others including more than 30,000 scientists who signed a petition in the US stating that CO2 was not causing dangerous climate change.”

      I’ve just downloaded and signed that petition too and will post it. With a tick for my new PhD! I’ve also sent off cards to get my scientist (new) friends to sign it too. I feel really useful - we’ll soon have 50,000 scientists on it and the climate will all be fine. Thank god.
      I’ve just remembered reading that more than 50% of the people doing an undergrad science degree in the US believe in creationism too. Hey, we’ll start a petition against evolution. Then we’ll never ever have to worry about a species becoming extinct either. That’s a relief.
      I wonder what else we can solve like this?

    • John Nethery says:

      09:10am | 20/04/11

      Woof Woofsson, I wonder how you managed to get your PhD. You sure don’t know how to answer a straight-down-the-wicket scientific question, but you certainly have a lot of bluster. Actually you have all the skills to to be a politician. Sure you haven’t missed your vocation in life?

    • Christopher Sauvarin says:

      06:59pm | 27/04/11

      Woof Woofsson - My dog ate my PhD.

      Plimer caught-out Heaven+Earth – ‘The missing Science’ – Plimer’s science is missing.
      http://tiny.cc/PlimerHeavenEarthDebunked
      Oops!

    • Sony B Goode says:

      08:44am | 20/04/11

      @sarah. A quick lesson in reality. There is no gap between rich and poor. There is only a distribution of outcome which is a pareto curve. Look it up on the internet.

      The socialist and communist jealousy and hatred of success is telling.

      In a market small advantages and differences in products produce vast differences in outcome and it shows markets work. It’s healthy its normal and it can’t be stopped. The “rich” generate jobs, prosperity and drive innovation with capital investments and concentration. Sarah’s mob have only driven poverty on a global scale and they are back one more time with global warming hysteria to push more poverty down everyone’s throat.

      The irony is that some of the socialists have become the super-rich they despise, but thats ok as long as you spend $7b funding every crackpot leftist organisation you can find.

      @Sarah is just pareto-phobic. She refuses to accept that the only equality is our rights, not our hopes, abilities, opportunity and outcomes.

      Blind socialists have been railing against reality for the last century and have failed at every attempt to create, as verity firth cries for: a “truer and juster” society.(cue violin) Just as chavez is destroying venezuala so marxists have destroyed everything they have touched in pursuit of some egalitarian utopia when we can run around naked like adam and eve in a world free of difference and property and now also to be free of poluting CO2. ...Hang on… bzzzt. Stop the music. Where are all the plants?

    • Deny everything says:

      08:52am | 20/04/11

      And while we are at it, lets overturn the ban on chlorofluorocarbons.
      There’s nothing wrong with the ozone layer and I really like the way those chlorofluorocarbons pushed my deodorant out of the can.
      Human induced ozone depletion is crap is what I have to say and I’m not alone.

    • HH says:

      09:18am | 20/04/11

      Good point about the chlorofluorocarbons.

      In those days, we didn’t have the internet where right wing haters and nutters could get together to spread their paranoid nonsense and undermine sensible environmental policy.

      CFCs were banned and things improved. Oh for a return to those days.

    • Chris says:

      09:35am | 20/04/11

      Chlorofluorocarbons have been band because they were dangerous to the ozone layer. CO2 ins’t dangerous to the atomosphere.

      And as a matter of interest, we didn’t need to tax anybody to stop using chlorofluorocarbons did we. We just found something else. As we will do with everything else we do, its called ingenuity. You don’t tax tour way to ingenuity.

      As somebody pointed out earlier, we didn’t tax horses and carts to create the car, or tax walking to create the wheel.

    • The Original Oz says:

      09:38am | 20/04/11

      Noron - your very poor attempt at sarcasm adds absolutely nothing to proper debate about the veracity (or lack thereof) of the science that is pushing this big new wealth redistribution tax (oops that should be Carbon Price - or should it be a surcharge on the air that we breath). Come back with some irrefutable facts and maybe then a logical and sensible debate. BTW - have you yet posted in the Multicultural/immigration article calling everyone who has concerns about unfettered migration Rascist rednecks. No - then get on your bike bucko you’re missing an opportunity to spit some more bile at people who can actually think for themselves ratehr than follow the PC/Party line being dribbled to you.

    • bubles says:

      09:54am | 20/04/11

      HH, an oversimplification to push everyone who raises a question over to a far right extremist box. Makes it easy for you does it to cope with a new age where information can be shared amongst the unwashed masses and the exclusive leftist intellectia have lost their self declared right to control thought.
      BTW chlorofluorocarbons are off topic, an attempt to throw in a red herring. Have a go at claiming the 10 grand.

    • GC says:

      08:54am | 20/04/11

      Come On, let’s take our scientific lead from a semi literate hayseed from the deep north. Banana benders are so smart.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:03am | 20/04/11

      Wow “semi literate hayseed from the deep north. Banana benders are so smart. “

      You’ve added nothing except a vitriolic spray of sarcasm.

      And I’ll put my First Class Science Honours degree against your arts degree any day sonny.

      How does this shit get through the mods?

    • shenanigans says:

      09:47am | 20/04/11

      sarcasm makes the world a better, more tolerable place.

      I’ll take your first class science honours degree and raise you a pikachu

      i thought mods were here to prevent overtly racist remarks and not stop retards from posting there opinion.

      on a completely unrelated note, i like my climate warmer, stop trying to change it. or was that colder…i can never tell these days, why not tax it and find out…

    • GC says:

      09:47am | 20/04/11

      ooooh the stay at home mom has a degree or so he says.
      Too bad he can’t take his “degree” and get a job and be a real man.

      Maybe the reason is the degree came in a cheerio’s box along with a decoder ring.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      10:23am | 20/04/11

      Don’t worry Joel, GC, CJ and their like are always good for a laugh. Obviously the truly intelligent, totally-literates are all confined to the deep south or the big cities or the hippie communes. The challenge is pretty straightforward but they’ve got zilch to offer, which was totally expected. But never mind they’ve got 20 years to come up with something.

    • The Original Oz says:

      09:20am | 20/04/11

      If human activity is driving Climate Change then please explain why the climate on Mars is doing exactly the same thing as the climate on earth? No people there, no industrial activity pumping the “noxious” (according to the believers) Co2 into the atmosphere there. The following from a post yesterday:

      National Geographic News quoted a scientist in 2007 that, “Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause.” Mars’ ice caps had been diminishing for three years in a row, and the scientist, “Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”
      He further stated that, “changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.”  A NASA study in the same year also reported that Mars warmed since the 1970s, “similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period,” which, they conclude, “suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.”  A study in 2007 on climatic changes on Earth and Neptune suggested that, “some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.”

      Take the time to Google Habibullo Abdussamatov and read some of the papers he has written (which are acknowledged and confirmed by NASA observations of the surface of Mars). This man is a reputable scientist, the Head of a major research institute and has much more credibility than the economist Professor Gumnut, or the paleontologist Flim Flammery or evn the ultimate Fairies at the Bottom of the Garden Australian Climate Change Guru de-facto PM Bob Brown.

    • mid says:

      10:24am | 20/04/11

      Hmm, I thought the ‘temperature change measurements’ on mars were extrapolated from changes in martian albedo over the last 30-40 years, not direct measurement. My bad.

    • Chris L says:

      05:17pm | 20/04/11

      So much for those martian nuclear reactors. Might as well have stayed with coal!

    • Thommo says:

      09:46am | 20/04/11

      Sarah, james and the other intellectually bankrupt watermelons shoudl take a basic course in debating rules. You CANNOt use any of the following logical fallacies in an argument or debate and hope to win on the basis of logic:
      argumentum ad antiquitatem
      argumentum ad hominem
      argumentum ad ignorantiam
      argumentum ad logicam
      argumentum ad misericordiam
      argumentum ad nauseam
      argumentum ad numerum
      argumentum ad populum
      argumentum ad verecundiam
      circulus in demonstrando
      complex question
      dicto simpliciter
      naturalistic fallacy
      nature, appeal to
      non sequitur
      petitio principii
      post hoc ergo propter hoc
      red herring
      slippery slope
      straw man
      tu quoque

      For fucks sake learn these rules and never ever break them - especially the appeal to authority.

    • The Original Oz says:

      10:25am | 20/04/11

      Don’t forget the Dopeler Effect - whereby if you repeat something often enough and rapidly enough the majority of dopes will believe it. Seems to be a guiding principle on the warmist side of the argument.

    • Ted says:

      01:11pm | 20/04/11

      Minor correction TheOriginal Oz, the Dopla effect is actually the Goebbels effect (A Labor/left habitual technique), “Tell a lie BIG enough and often enough and the people will believe it!”

    • Dave says:

      01:33pm | 20/04/11

      You wrote the rules and just broke them buddy.

    • Richard says:

      06:20pm | 20/04/11

      I disagree with the appeal to nature one. For me anyway, I hold the way of nature as my highest moral standard. It is a personal values choice I have decided to make, so it may not be relevant for everyone, I accept that, but my whole conception of good and evil, right and wrong, correct and incorrect rests within the observable and deducible processes of nature.

    • Dean says:

      09:55am | 20/04/11

      Dear Baby Boomers,
      I refer to you, because that is what most climate change sceptics are. I have read many what you have to say about climate change and if the possible consequences where so bad it would be funny. Not just little chuckle funny, but side splitting rolling around the floor funny.
      Here is a case in point, while those of us who believe in climate change can quote research done in places like Princeton,  Cal Tech, Cambridge, Oxford ect. The people who work here are the best and the brightest .The sceptics will quote research done by independent researchers employed by Think Tanks. While Universities are open a transparent in what they do and are funded, the think tanks are a lot lest clear, especially in areas of funding. With a bit of looking you find that they are not so independent at all, the finances are supplied by oil companies and grubs like the Koch brothers who own companies that are the most polluting in the world.
      How do you feel now? These people are exploiting your anxieties to make more money.
      This is not t new tactic it was deployed in the 80’s and 90’s by tobacco companies to prove that smoking wasn’t harmful.
      Another tried tactic of the sceptic is the quoting of a YouTube videos and bloggs to support your claims. “I read it on the internet, it must be true.’  I know it’s hard to believe not everything on the internet is true. Bloggs are not facts, they are opinions and opinions are bias especially when they use information exclusively from Independent think tanks. They have as much creditability as the graffiti in a public toilet. ( this goes doubly for anything that comes out of Alan Jone’s mouth and from News Corp)
      Baby Boomers I understand that you feel threaten by the idea life hasn’t turned out the way you wanted and I know you just want to retire and spend the kids inheritance. I just wish you spent in a way that you left the planet in a better way instead on stuff and the caravan to traveling to Kakadu.
      The final point I want to make is that I am not a leftist, pinko, tree hugging commie, I am someone doesn’t take things on face value and looks beyond, even to people I disagree with to form my opinions . You can write nasty stuff about me, but you won’t change my mind because in a two horse race I going with the best and the brightest not the ones who prostitute themselves for money.

    • The Original Oz says:

      10:34am | 20/04/11

      I’m surprised you could find the time to tear yorself away from your mobile phone and Facebook to actually post on this forum.  Now, are you actually going to present some cogent arguments to support your religious belief in Climate Change and the need to impose a tax that will impact on the price of everything or are you just going to continue with your incoherent “generation Gap” ramblings that add absolutely nothing of worth to the debate?

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      10:39am | 20/04/11

      Dean thanks for your input which is at least above name calling. Yes, it’s funny how many climate scientists and meterologists on reaching retirement age and no longer dependent on government research grants suddenly become “sceptics” or climate realists now able to say what they really think. But I’m confused over who you say is paying them - Big Tobacco or Big Oil smile

    • bubles says:

      10:51am | 20/04/11

      Dean, your comment lost credibility as soon as you came up with the old porky that “the finances are supplied by oil companies” for the scientist that don’t support the concept that AGW has a dramatic affect above the worlds natural warming & cooling. Are the scientists listed in this article living in mansions & demand high speaking fees? No!
      And the attempt of assassination by association to the big Tobacco companies of old….Oh please.

    • Icarus says:

      11:02am | 20/04/11

      Well, aren’t YOU a smart little cookie. Picking up Peter Laux’s easy 10 grand should really be a cinch for you. But hold on, you might need to present a fact or three. None seen yet ....... Maybe that’s a problem? Perhaps you should consult some of your learned friends before moving right along..

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      11:08am | 20/04/11

      dean, please see Thommo’s post above.

      When you have done that, look at the semi-literate drivel you wrote. A rather poor effort on your part.

      Yur teecha mus be sew prowd ov u

    • Joyce P says:

      01:07pm | 20/04/11

      Dean,
      The point of this story is to win the prize for proving that Climate Change is real.
      NOt one of you opposing John’s story has come up with that yet.  Lots of name calling which is surprising because you are all supposed to be so smart - like been to unit and know-it-all - isn’t that so?
      As was said above the reason why most sceptics are ?possibly in the older age group (who says so though?) may be because they are much more experienced in real life.
      Maybe they didn’t have the brainwashing referred to by someone above from the University trained gurus.
      I have scientists in my family who depend on handouts to do more research and each time the fight comes up for the slice of the cake for money, there is much biting of nails to know whether they have a job again or not, dependeing on what subject they are doing.
      Again don’t forget the purpose of this as I read it, is to win the prize.
      Doesn’t look promising that anyone will.
      Oh and that is nasty to denigrate Queenslanders.  We just see things more clearly as we are not as polluted as some southern districts.
      Nice easy living, clean air etc.
      And we all breathe too.

    • The Original Oz says:

      02:14pm | 20/04/11

      @Joyce P - “And we all breathe too.”

      There you go Joyce you have just given the warming alarmists a reason to diss Queensland. You all breathe so you must be exhaling that naughty, naughty, naughty greenhouse pollutant C02. There you go Queensland is the cause of Global Warming - do I get my $10,000 now ????????

    • Troll Doll says:

      03:22pm | 20/04/11

      How about we just introduce the tax. If no innovation comes of it or the climate cools all by itself then we can lift it. It’d be no worse than introducing the GST after all.

    • Godfrey Zohn says:

      08:56am | 21/04/11

      Dean - Sarah’s love child perhaps?  How very grown up and intelligent of you to overgeneralise to an entire “generation”.  Have you considered the possibility that those of us who have been alive for more than ten minutes have developed a better understanding of such issues?  You claim to “understand that BBs are threaten(ed) by the idea life hasn’t turned out the way they wanted”.  Perhaps that feeling is strongest when their partially educated children spout the kind of secondhand dribble we see in your post.  Rightly you fear your inheritance will be compromised if / when you grow up - but that will be largely due to the effects of the Great Big Tax.  Now hurry up, you’re late for “skool”.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      05:50pm | 21/04/11

      hey the kid’s young and he displays a lot more intelligence that CJ, GC and one or two others who are probably a lot older and still haven’t seen thru the great global warming scam. Maybe he will learn the truth one day but his comment is better than some of these others who just sling mud.

    • Peter Laux says:

      06:14pm | 21/04/11

      Dean, being a troll does not convince the unsure nor your opponents, it only reveals your frustration, pettiness and mental defeat, as that is a truism for all who indulge in ad hominum attacks instead of using logic and reason to win the argument.
      Your need to try to put down and humiliate others makes it clear you possess little character and even less intellectual ammunition.
      Although incorrect in regard to Baby Boomers, (im X), perhaps the BB’s are not so slavish and willing to doff their cap to authority as your generation or at least yourself.
      Remember you are simply an opinion on a blog, just another anonymous ego and nobody feels threatened by anonymous insult, especially one stemming from your fear that life may not turn out as you want and the neurotic need for others to conform to your mere belief.
      If not,  then perhaps you can stop hiding and put an argument and claim the $10,000 ?
      Can you even form one, (without ‘cut and paste’) argument that can explain your supposed miracle of how mankind’s four or so molecules of CO2 per MILLION other parts of atmosphere can DRIVE our vast, chaotic climate system.
      It must be some powerful ju ju in the odd CO2 molecule that dominates and DRIVES the stronger atmospheric H2O, oceans, ocean currents, cloud cover, Sun spots, Irradiance, magnetic fluctuation, cosmic radiation, Milankovi? cycles etc that we know influence climate.
      Im “all ears” Deano and eagerly await the sword of your devastating intellect and wit to capture my $10,000.
      Perhaps your delusion that Boomers have made the planet worse or that coal and oil are evil is railing against all that has made your life secure and comfortable - this clip is not about AGW, its about our progress from short lives of disease, lice, tooth rot, consumption, filth, worms, shit and tyranny to now that you take for granted.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

    • Peter Laux says:

      09:49pm | 21/04/11

      Oops meant 14 parts not 4.

    • ardy says:

      10:29am | 20/04/11

      It doesn’t matter if you want it or not, you are going to get it and get it good. The Brown - Green government supported by Gillard, will ensure that this stupidity will roll on for 7 bloody years until a new senate can be voted on.

      Still heaters, you all know that we are the biggest polluters in the world and deserve the maximum pineapple don’t you? If it wasn’t so hypocritical and full of mixed messages, lies and political science one or two self effacing humans could laugh at it.

    • Liars are deplorable says:

      04:52pm | 21/04/11

      Ardy, one thing we have to learn and that is we don’t give up. People power will win in the end. It won’t just be the end of the carbon tax, but eventually the end of the Gillard government.

    • Jason Smith says:

      10:41am | 20/04/11

      I cant believe people are still arguing about this.

      “A pollutant is a waste material that pollutes air, water or soil, and is the cause of pollution.”

      I wonder how many ‘free thinkers’ would argue pollution is a conspiracy theory.

    • hagee says:

      11:02am | 20/04/11

      Thatcher was on the right fools, she cleaned up the lefty loonies

    • SomeBloke says:

      11:04am | 20/04/11

      Forget global warming as an issue the world should be shitting themselves over.  People should be asking their governments what solutions they are putting in place to maintain our quality of life for when the decline and inevitable run out of easily accessible oil happens and is realised.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      11:55am | 20/04/11

      solutions? socialists have bankrupted just about every western government, who are all printing money with which to bail themselves out. Greece even participated in its own bail out, absurd. When Investors do it, its called a ponzi scheme and is a serious offence, when governments do it, there is only a get out of jail free card for politicians.

    • t13vom says:

      11:15am | 20/04/11

      I’m a boomer, and have heard any number of scares over the years, and they all sound roughly the same. They all have authority as their basis and all the usual sycophants get behind them, look at the ozone hole thing.

      Arguing from authority is pointless as it so often fails, e.g. the guys who discovered that stomach ulcers were from bacteria, not foods, or stomach acid - which was the prevailing “truth”. The two scientists were regularly laughed at and generally were a joke, they both got Nobel Prizes.

      Sticking with the crowd feels good, but does not make it right.

      Now you cite all these scientists, how many actually do direct research into climate and how many use it as a secondary to the own research? So R&D like Lions of the Serengeti, and the effects of climate change, is someone using AGW as a crutch to prop up the grant application .. most of the reseach is similar.

      The research used by the UN, originates from several tiny groups, who are now known to be corrupt.

      So Dean, you feel really good about how right you are now?

      When you are older, and have seen more, you will have a chance to have a more open mind and consider more things, rather than picking one camp, and declaring it the WINNER!

      What we need to do is adapt, stop the stupid folly of trying to change or alter the climate and adapt, it’s more use to us all and a better use of resources.

    • Jeff T Hutcho says:

      11:18am | 20/04/11

      @ Dean,
      Possibly you should check out the membership of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
      http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168&Itemid=136
      Where you will find Shell, BP and other fossil fuel suppliers, and power generation companies as members. A bit both ways ???
      Then you should go back a bit in history and look into the Enron connection to carbon trading, including linkage to the Gore machine and Generation Investment Management. ( you can find that on Youtube, as a video on the Waxman-Markey inquiry on the “Hill”. See Sen Steven Scalise give Gore the heeby-jeebies with questions about his connections to Ken Lay and Enron )
      Yes it IS on the internet, but it is also official footage.
      You can also find video of Dr Tim Flannery making yet another faux-pas, such as his ” going to carbon zero won’t have any effect for 500 to 1000 years”  on Youtube. - Now ain’t that the Truth ? Thanks Tim.
      Alan Jones does live interviews with scientists such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy, both well known and respected scientists.
      And even if you don’t like the Bolta (Herald Sun ), he does link to valid items.
      Just love your references to Big Tobacco.- so passe.
      Two horse race eh? You must be backing the one with blinkers.

    • Tim says:

      11:45am | 20/04/11

      I’m completely against the Carbon tax because I believe it will achieve nothing and the government is using it for wealth distribution, but this article really is a poor attempt.
      I’ll personally put up $10K of my own for the first person to prove that climate change isn’t man made.
      But no-one will take up that offer either because what you ask is impossible and you know it.

      Most objective climate scientists believe that climate change is real and they believe through collected evidence that we are the major cause, so surely being cautious and applying a risk management strategy to climate change is the way to go?

      Rabid green supporters are just as big an obstacle to real action as rabid right wingers because of their inability to listen to logic and their need to tack on other issues to the climate change debate.

    • Ruby says:

      12:08pm | 22/04/11

      Agreed. The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy (eg burning fossil fuels) has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action (people in denial of global warming who would like to continue burning fossil fuels at the same rate).

      The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

    • Duff says:

      12:55pm | 20/04/11

      My first post on this didn’t seem to get through, so apologies if I double post.  A quick google on “empirical evidence climate change” and the very first hit is an article entitled “Empirical Evidence that Humans are Causing Global Warming”.  Here it is http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm.  Does this qualify for the prize?

    • neil says:

      03:24pm | 20/04/11

      A perfect example of the kind of junk science that alarmists try to pass off as evidence. Thats exactly what the author is talking about.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      07:56pm | 20/04/11

      Umm, if all that is true Duff, why the sudden flurry of IPCC affiliated scientists and the infamous emails including the self-incriminating, “Let’s use Mikey’s trick to hide the decline” (with emphasis on the last three words). See what Berkeley Professor Richard A. Muller has to say about that here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BQpciw8suk#at=31

    • Peter Laux says:

      02:43pm | 21/04/11

      Duff, submit your “empirical evidence” or perhaps you could get John Cook to finally have a crack as ‘cut and paste’ arguments are generally a waste of time.
      Though either way is fine by me but you will have to submit it with your real name though, it’s the site moderators, “Denis Rancourt’s” rules.

    • Paul C says:

      01:07pm | 20/04/11

      I’m confused - do I believe 20000 scientists or our own completely honest prime minister ?  Sounds more like revenue raising to me.

    • Paulb says:

      06:39pm | 20/04/11

      Sounds like a re-arranging of the shrinking tax-base to me.  The rest of the Western world is watching to see if they can get away stiffing their people with the same manufactured scare campaign.  Funny how this comes on the back of the great global bankers currency destruction and taxpayer-funded bailout experiment.

    • GOVT@FAUX.CITIZEN says:

      02:50am | 21/04/11

      It’s all about the money, Gillard knew she had to make a false promise, first a Snow job, now a Con job, and now she’s willing to Blow the economy with her last roll of the cursed dice, I wonder what we’ll call that?

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      01:07pm | 20/04/11

      Oh Tim, so the science really isn’t settled, the evidence isn’t in, maybe cutting all our emissions will change global temperatures by one-thousandth of one degree and maybe it will take 500 to 1000 years to have ANY effect such as that (the latter admission from climate advisor Tim Flannery). Julia says the evidence is in, maybe she could submit it and claim the prize for herself or her cash-strapped government.

    • Cooko says:

      01:32pm | 20/04/11

      Come on then, this is tailor made for the likes of iansand or that weapons grade nimrod “James” to finally put this to bed. Anybody seen them?

      Instead all I’m seeing is people behaving like their religion has been insulted.

    • TQS says:

      01:39pm | 20/04/11

      He should add on evidence for:

      1. That any warming will have a net adverse effect (as compared to benefits) on Australia, and if so,
      2. That net adverse effect will be greater than the cost of Australia radically decreasing CO2 emissions, and if so,
      3. That the cost of decreasing CO2 emissions is less that the cost of adapting to net adverse effects.

      That’s the real public policy issues of a Carbon Tax regardless of climate sensitivty to CO2, or the wishful thinking that a global agreement will ever come into being.

      He might want to define what he means by “drive”. What climate sensitivity threshold meets that definiton? Do net feedbacks count? The failure of the world to warm over the past decade, whilst CO2 emissions have continued to increase, is as close to a falsification of a high CO2 sensitivity as you’re going to get. More observation over time will help make that call.

      Otherwise a theory of CO2 “driven” warming is indistinguishable from similair short periods of warming in the recent past that can not be attributed to anthropogenic causes. Hence a similair natural causes theory to explain this short period of warming, being simpler, is preffered per Occam’s Razor.

    • Saskia says:

      02:08pm | 20/04/11

      You cannot ‘prove’ a religion.

      His money is safe.

      I just wish the climate ghouls would STFU about this AGW BS for more than a day!

    • michael j says:

      02:17pm | 20/04/11

      IF Climate Change was a bad thing one of those 30.000 scientist who are no doubt vastly underpaid would have said there’s a problem, i like them no fu—-ng Carbon Tax,,

    • Unbeliever/skeptic/denier/flat-earther/free-thinke says:

      02:45pm | 20/04/11

      There are no such things as “Believers in the science”. There are people who agree with a study’s findings and those who don’t. There are people who agree with the study’s conclusions and those who don’t. There are those who agree with the proposed solutions to the problems concluded in the study, based on the findings…and those who don’t. Nobody BELIEVES in science.

      Belief is best left for church.

    • Knemon says:

      03:10pm | 20/04/11

      Start preparing yourselves people, regardless of your views on climate change, we are going to get a carbon tax and there is absolutely nothing the conservatives or anyone else can do about it. Even if Abbott or whoever is leading the LNP win the next election they wont scrap it…because it’s a tax, no government of any colour scraps a tax.

    • simon says:

      04:32pm | 20/04/11

      Gee you seem to know more about the future than everyone else does, where do you get this incredible foresight and psychic ability from??

    • majority says:

      04:41pm | 20/04/11

      have you seen what business and the unions have been saying this week?  Balancing business demands, unions demands , voter demands and loony Green demands would take a much better government than this one which basically hasn’t successfully delivered anything.

    • bubles says:

      05:07pm | 20/04/11

      Knemon, Not too long ago it could have been said that we are going to get an ETS “and there is absolutely nothing the conservatives or anyone else can do about it.”
      But a couple of political leaders didn’t give up & more importantly the people mobilised & said NO! It claimed the leadership of Turnbull & Rudd. Watchout PM Gillard history is about to repeat.

    • Sophie Spillane

      Sophie Spillane says:

      04:15pm | 20/04/11

      This is a test comment, do not approve please

    • Geoff Brown says:

      10:22am | 21/04/11

      Looks like the moderators are doing their job well.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      04:22pm | 20/04/11

      China and the US have no intention of taxing carbon dioxide so this voluntary self-crucifixion has to really be strongly questions in this light.

    • Happy Jack says:

      04:42pm | 20/04/11

      Unless we are all going to learn off Amazonian forest dwellers how to live sustainably, we are all stuffed.  Not seen a prediction that shows anything other than increases, so all you pro and antia stop your bleating and welcome oblivion.

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      05:44pm | 20/04/11

      Maybe those predictions you’ve seen are all based on computer modelling where you feed in the data to get the answer you want, Jack. Amazing how they can tell us the climate will be x degrees hotter in 100 or 150 years unless we act now to cut a natural trace gas, but they can’t predict with any certainty how hot it will be or how wet in one week’s time. Of course climate change is real, anyone who thought otherwise would be an ass but it will keep changing cyclically as it always has since Gondwana Land was connected to Asia and where I live was 50m or more under the sea. CJ and GC and co can hold their breath to save the planet but I think it will survive and adapt with or without them and a carbon (dioxide) tax.

    • Glen says:

      10:29pm | 20/04/11

      I concur with Sarah Bath. Chavez for World Emperor.

    • Ray says:

      12:15am | 21/04/11

      Who is Wayne Swan trying to con? The carbon tax is an indirect tax that will adversely affect every industry in Australia, except the inefficient, unreliable, high-cost renewable energy industry which will be assisted.

    • Geoff Brown says:

      10:12am | 21/04/11

      Don’t forget, Ray, the Magic Pudding tax is all going back in compensation!
      At least, at first they said all. Then Paul howes and also the CFMEU said they wouldn’t back it if industry wasn’t compensated otherwise jobs would be lost! Oh, and Climate Hoax Minister Greg Combet promised a proportion of any carbon dioxide tax raised to the UN Green Climate Fund starting with $597 million. See The Magic Pudding:
      http://tiny.cc/kepx8

    • Jenny says:

      10:01am | 21/04/11

      We need to organise a tax revolt like Englands Poll tax that was overthrown by the will of the people.

    • Wanting answers says:

      10:26am | 21/04/11

      Doesn’t the ice melting have something to do with the tilt of the earth? Melting at one pole and growing at the other? Or so I heard on the radio from someone who might know.

    • Ugh says:

      01:54pm | 22/04/11

      Don’t lean over too far, you might fall off

    • Xio Ling says:

      11:24am | 21/04/11

      Can any of the warmists explain why the global temperature anomoly for March was -1c ? According to your beliefs shouldn’t the world be getting constantly warmer as the insulating layer of co2 traps heat in the system? where is this trapped heat, where is the so-called hotspot?

    • Geoff Brown says:

      11:42am | 21/04/11

      The game is over. The hypothesis that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming (AGW) has been falsified.

      Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

      However, with the AGW hypothesis, it’s not a single experiment but multiple experiments that have proved the hypothesis wrong, ie falsified the hypothesis.
      See:  http://tiny.cc/ohxv8

    • Col. of Blackburn says:

      02:47pm | 21/04/11

      For all those who believe we should do something, ‘just in case’, while we are waiting for someone to claim the $10,000, I am a member of the Honourable Corps of Sappers and Miners, if anyone wants some help in installing an anti-meteorite shelter in their back yard, please let me know. We haven’t had a meteorite crash into Australia in recent history, but you never know, we should act according to the ‘Precautionary Principle’! wink

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      05:53pm | 21/04/11

      Col, cut off your nose or part thereof to spite your face cause that pimple might turn malignant one day. Can you not see that?

    • Maj. of Glenrowan says:

      06:25pm | 21/04/11

      meteorites fall in Australia all the time.
      You get your climate change information from the same wonky sources you get your meteorite information?

    • Unimpressed says:

      07:34pm | 22/04/11

      Amazing. Yet another example of professional timewasting. We pay a tax and then get it back again. So? What has that achieved? Nothing! In fact it would be a waste of time. Big polluters pay the tax and raise the price of their product so now we are not only paying their carbon tax ( when we buy their product)  but also our own small mandatory contribution. This is a fun game for the Government if you bugger around with these things you dont have to worry about social unrest, wasted federal funds, pensioners & kids getting a raw deal, out of control immigration, urban sprawl vs natural environment, natural disaster relief, as all these things will just melt away wont they? Sure they will Juliar said so…..
      The science is not settled and is a tangled mess! If anything the current struggle to work out what the weather is doing has highlighted one very clear fact. Humans are nowhere near as smart as they think they are and Mother Nature has them over a barrel! How about 10K for the first weatherman to get it right, then we’ll work on the other info.  Another 10K may be needed for the first strong evidence of why Wayne Swan gets out of bed in the morning, its not like he works.

    • Marylou says:

      10:50pm | 22/04/11

      Oh I just read your post, Unimpressed.
      Re Rudd - that is exactly what we are saying right here in the north of Qld at present.  He is supposed to be working while Julia is globe trotting!!
      Fancy the Swan coming up here when the weather is so fine - he is supposed to have set up an office over this Easter WeekendTO RUN AUSTRALIA from that office (!!) at one of the top accommodation places in Cairns.
      He said on TV people were so envious that he was coming back from USA to be able to visit the Barrier Reef and all the lovely spots in NQ.
      You are so rght - he is just rubbing salt into the wounds at present.
      I totally agree with your take on this stupid tax.  We will be paying all the way in more ways than one.  Every single mortal item will have extra taxes added - flour, sugar etc. etc. as explained by one of the bakers who has already seen big increases before any carbon tax being added.
      People just don’t understand what they are being conned into though.
      I wonder how long it will take for someone to come up with a reason to collect the $10,000.00????

    • Lunatic Les says:

      01:03pm | 23/04/11

      Combet and Gillard continue to say ‘the science is settled, there is consensus’  but how many scientists does it take to make a consensus? 75, that was through a lot of manipulation as far as who answered what survey. It is all lies and the government cannot tell the truth on anything in relation to this carbon price or climate change.
      Is there a real Julia, or Greg Combet for that matter? We don’t know as so far we haven’t seen them and I believe Julias has forgotten who the real Julia is.

    • Unimpressed says:

      08:54am | 24/04/11

      Theres been a few comments on here about the tax being a credit if your not using fossil fuels, and the evolution of mankind and his tools. But seriously what happens if we have the carbon tax and theres no change to the climate? Has Juliar picked up a cool 10K? Then what? Ok so we’ve saved some oil, changed all the light bulbs, ummmmm now what? What is the money used for then? In fact what will the money thats not pointlessly recycled be used for anyway?
      How will trading bits of paper help the climate. Of course the government was distracted by the bright a shiny things for Australia and made themselves very popular ( abit like bringing home easter eggs) and then realised there was no real “food in the fridge” Oops, so their rounding up the kids ( read our) pocket money to go back and buy food. Smooth…...............or not!

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      12:17pm | 27/04/11

      Wow, that sounds horrific, let’s hope they can get all that sorted and positions re-instated.

    • MichaelDSmith says:

      03:31am | 27/04/11

      Yawn…  JunkScience.com offered $100,000 a few years ago for someone to offer empirical evidence of Global Warming.  No winners.  It’s pretty hard for $100k to compete with $90,000,000,000 in research funding global warming (climate change advertising), evidence or not.
      Good luck.  I’ve been trying for 5 years to find evidence.  Thousands of hours searching, I finally concluded there isn’t any evidence of anything linking mankind to rising temperatures, decreasing hurricane strength, floods, droughts, acne, whatever.

    • Christopher Sauvarin says:

      07:22am | 27/04/11

      Anyone who knows anything about science, knows that absolute, cast-iron proof isn’t possible in science. In science only disproof can be achieved. Such proof is possible in mathematics, but the person who offers this reward will never pay-out.
      Anthropogenic climate change is like gravity or evolution, these aren’t likely to be disproved any time soon, especially as they are constantly being confirmed by new research and discoveries, but actual 100% proof isn’t possible.

      This is a dishonest tactic to fool the public.

    • Peter Laux says:

      06:23pm | 27/04/11

      Christopher, having trouble reading or comprehending or just being a good apparatchik for your betters ?

      “Cast iron proof” and “100% proof”  - you have invented that to then criticise it .
      You said that certainly not me - and you dare call me dishonest ?
      Why did you invent that and try to imply its what I ask for ?
      If I wanted that - I would have asked for it !
      Are you naturally this dishonest in order to try to fool the public ?
      You are either ignorant or dishonest.

      I want and ask for “empirical evidence” , which is not only reasonable but a scientific necessity!
      Where is the evidence that mans minuscule contribution of the trace gas CO2, DRIVES our vast chaotic climate system as the silly AGW hypothesis claims.
      If you are ignorant of the difference between your “cast iron proof’ or “100 proof” and my “empirical evidence” then go away and learn.
      If you do know the difference, then you stand condemned of deceit.

      A honesty test for you - 1/ Al gore in his horror/comic/shock doco “An inconvenient truth.”, try’s to imply with a giant graph of Vostock ice-cores that temperature increase follows CO2 increase.
      This is not correct, science knew for 2 years that CO2 increase FOLLOWS temperature by 800 years. Temperature leads - CO2 follows.
      Do you agree AlGore was wrong ? Do you agree that Vostock ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature increase by 800 years ?

      2/ Do you believe that calling CO2 “Carbon” is deliberately deceptive as a dishonest tactic to fool the public or is at least scientifically ignorant ? Do you agree CO2 is not carbon.? (If you do you must believe that H2O is oxygen.)

    • Christopher Sauvarin says:

      10:18pm | 27/04/11

      Peter Laux
      Your response is confused and you obviously do not understand what you are talking about.

      There is loads of evidence about the role of CO2, your inability to understand it says absolutely nothing about CO2 and a very great deal about you.
      There are numerous examples where something small is definitely not insignificant. Just try sleeping with a mosquito, especially one that carries Malaria or Yellow-fever. If it does carry one or the other and it bites you, belief that it can’t hurt you will be of no use and without treatment the outlook is dire.
      Malaria and yellow-fever not dangerous enough? Perhaps you like to dice with Ebola? After-all they’re viruses, what harm could they do?

      I have no idea why you refer to Al Gore – he is, or was a politician, who made a movie, not a scientist. When I want to learn about things scientific, I don’t go to Gore, I look at the science – yes S-C-I-E-N-C-E! Strangely, there is an enormous amount of it (and yet you appear to have read none of it):
      You can find some here (it’s in the references):
      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html

      CO2 lags temperature
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

      You can choose any phoney argument you like. The common ones are debunked here (science in the references):
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
      As Richard Feynman said: ‘Nature cannot be fooled’ – even if humans can be.

    • Wild Violet says:

      05:10pm | 28/04/11

      “Anthropogenic climate change is like gravity or evolution, these aren’t likely to be disproved any time soon, especially as they are constantly being confirmed by new research and discoveries, but actual 100% proof isn’t possible.

      This is a dishonest tactic to fool the public.”
      And in those few little sentences Christopher, you have successfully explained the manipulation of data from the IPCC! Well done!
      To further elaborate on ” is like gravity or evolution,” what goes up, like the IPCC scientists wages, will come down, as they are shown for the fraudsters and manipulators of data that they have been successfully shown to be.
      For the “evolution” of - yes, we have evolved from corruption, and now to the truth being exposed! Wonderful news.
      Peters $10k is still safe in his pocket, and will remain so. The truth will prevail buddy - and you can bank on that!

    • Peter Laux says:

      05:14pm | 28/04/11

      Chrissy, nice hissy -  enough homespun analogies about disease and cut and paste - mate really John Cook - ill see your apparatchik and raise you with reason ! http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html as for the IPCC, I thought you claimed to be interested in science not politics ?

      You disease analogy, though risible enough to cause amusement has the intellectual depth of an earnest and frenzied teenager.
      Mate, the AGW claim is that our puny emissions of the trace gas CO2 DRIVE the planets warming ! Thats MASSIVE !!!!

      Its just CO2 mate, it’s not only trace but in comparison to water its effect is puny. A better analogy would be -
                                            “You believe a few drops of petrol (CO2) when added into a 44 gallon drum of high grade methanol (H2O) will somehow be the main power to increase the performance of the fuel ! “
      And better still cant show why, except that you BELIEVE it !

      You really need to show how a climate is driven by our portion of this trace gas that absorbs a narrow IR band then immediately disperses it .
      It cannot of course reheat the earth only slightly delay cooling - so you show me how thats done and $10k is yours. So how does sooo little do soooo much ? Enlighten us ?

      Opinion, even if high and mighty and even “peer reviewed” by fellow hacks just doesn’t cut it. So stop using theirs, grow some, and put a challenge.

      Now why didn’t you say whether you think Gore was wrong on a matter of SCIENCE or that calling CO2 “Carbon” is wrong ? Why didn’t you just answer, it certainly would have been briefer for all of us instead of a “high horse tirade.”

      Remember you called me dishonest and I am calling you out as the hypocrite you are. Was Gore wrong ? and Why didn’t you answer on the perversion of the use of the word carbon?
      It’s a simple enough question. Cant you answer honestly ?
      Cant depute the “party line”? Have to defend the lie hey ?
      And then you expect anyone to take anything you say as true ?
      So mate don’t call others what you are, thats hypocrisy.

    • Berthold Klein says:

      07:23am | 27/04/11

      A satire
      The great danger of increasing CO2 and the every dangerous methane!

      With ever increasing concentration of CO2 and Methane (CH4) in the atmosphere we are in a death spiral to wildly increasing temperatures that will allow the farmers in Georgia to plant two crops of rice and many crops of carrots each season. The concentration of CO2 has gone from a mire value of 320ppm to the unthinkable value of 390 ppm. This tremendous increase has caused a tremendous temperature increase of o.6 degree F over 100 years. We are in great danger. Children will die of heat strokes walking to school. The old will die from insufficient Oxygen. They loose consciousness and grasp for breath until they succumb.
      This fairy-tale is what the “green world “want you to believe. This is not the end , this is only the beginning. The next chapter is that Methane that is released from the bottom of the ocean, lakes, streams, rice patties, under every pile of wet leaves, every compost pile, every garbage land fills, the tundra of Alaska, Canada, Russia ,where ever there is anaerobic bacterial action. Now with all these sources there are only 3 to 4 parts per billion and there is no data that this value is increasing. There are fantasies that if the global temperature increases there will be great releases of Methane from the tundra.  What has happened to all the methane that has been released over the last million years?
      Robert Howarth, the Cornell scientist(?), has the intelligence of a pond frog. There is no creditable experimental data that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect” It is a fairy-tale.
      Now this does not matter as Dr.R.H has met the woman of his dreams.  A fair young co-ed that is just as unintelligent as he is, an active member of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, a proponent of the “STOP coal generator power plants”
      When Dr. H.R. kissed the young innocent unintelligent maiden they both turn into pond frogs.  They were so happy that their “carbon foot print” reduced to almost zero. They hoped off to swim in the nearest scum covered pond where they disturbed the sludge in the bottom to release CO2 and Methane (Ch4)

      Their great love for the environment leads them to be the flower children for the Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism and Promoter of the Fairy-tale of “greenhouse gas effect”
      Now this is a fairy-tale.
      The disaster is that 90 % of the world has swallowed this Fairy-tale hook line and sinker. They are willing to put the financial system of their countries into total bankruptcy. That bleeding heart do gooders are willing to send all their saving to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, to save the world and the polar bears that have increased in population by 25 to 30% in the last 10 years instead of becoming extinct.
      The extent of these frauds and the ignorance of people is illustrated by the Bernard Madoff ponzie schemes and so many other fraud we learn about everyday sometimes every hour.
      Mann- made global warming and the “greenhouse gas effect” has been shown by physics and thermodynamics to be unreal but the general public has been so convinced by liars like AL Gore –the Pied Piper of Gorezillaism, Michael Mann, James E. Hansen, Joe Romm, Lisa Jackson, the UN IPCC, Barrack Obuma, Naomi Oreskes and dr. Steve Chu and many, many, others that they will go to their graves still believing in the Super lie!!

      The fact that astrophysicist are showing by real data that we are going into an ICE Age will not have any effect.
      As P.T Barnum and Bernard Madoff said There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute”
      It is now the moral duty of the Royal Knights of the Round table and the Joan s of Arc of the Holy Land of Skeptics to take up their Swords of Physics and the Shield of Thermodynamics to Destroy the Sky Dragoon and rescue the children of Hamlin and the World from the mind destroying Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism.
      The Super Hero’s of the Twentieth Century must join the fight for fact and and truth.

    • Christopher Sauvarin says:

      06:29pm | 27/04/11

      “There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute” How true!

      As Søren Kierkegaard once said: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

      The science is clear as it has been for decades, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and too much of it is bad. CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and we need to stop burning fossil-carbon. Or in other words too much of anything is bad. Water may be vital to life and while insufficient is bad, too much is also bad. Just try drinking a bath-tub full. It will most likely kill you.

    • Christopher Sauvarin says:

      10:39pm | 27/04/11

      The trouble with cherry-picked and over-simplistic science and pseudo-science relied-upon by pseudo-sceptics is that real science which describes the real world is a great deal more complicated than fairy stories promoted by the agents of the denial industry and there will be more and more increasingly unpleasant surprises. Anyone who says ‘increasing CO2 is universally beneficial, or words to that effect’, is lying to you. There can be no doubt there will be winners and losers, but we are seeing the highest CO2 levels for at least 800,000 years and the most rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 in the palaeorecord for at least 55 MY. Natural ecosystems are likely to be stressed to breaking-point or beyond, and whatever you may think, humans need those ecosystems. We are burning fossil fuels at over a million times the rate at which they were laid-down. Just think about that.

      Example:
      Increasing CO2 levels are killing Koalas.
      [In-fact it’s not just Koalas, but greater glider, common ringtail possum and common brushtail possum – in
      eucalypt forests.
      ] “The future of the koala, perhaps Australia’s best-loved animal, is under threat because greenhouse gas emissions are making eucalyptus leaves - their sole food source - inedible….”
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10502412

      The question is: do you value your wildlife and want to preserve the natural world, or not?

      Continued:
      Uncertainty concerning the future is genuine reason for caution and scarcely an excuse for rushing headlong into burning more and more fossil-fuels, which is what we have been and continue to do. Remember many of the prominent pseudo-sceptics have a vested interest in spreading falsehoods about the climate. For example: A long-time US skeptik AKA pseudo-sceptic, who has been employed in various roles defending the undefendable (tobacco, asbestos and now CO2) who received >US$143K= for just one report! Not bad for a work of fiction!
      http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/hard-times-s.html
      http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/541/645/2007-541645372-042274c3-9.pdf

      Background reading

      For more about increasing CO2 and its complex effects on plants see:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-is-plant-food-too-simple.html
      Warning contains links to science!

      This Wood for Trees graph shows rising global temperatures from HadCrut3vgl;GissTemp; RSS and UAH, together with CO2 levels. http://tiny.cc/WFT30HdcrtGisstRSSUAHCO2
      It may not be obvious from that graph, but the rate of CO2 increase, is itself increasing.

      Time history of atmospheric CO2 - ‘Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years before present until January, 2009’
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4

      You will note the hockey-stick shape of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which unsurprisingly follows the hockey-stick shape of the growth of the human population and the enormous growth in average per capita use of fossil energy.

      How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

    • John Mikkelsen says:

      04:05pm | 28/04/11

      The famous so-called “hockey stick” graph was debunked years ago but that didn’t stop Gore from using it in his science fiction movie and it also inspired one of the “Climategate” emails: Let’s use Mikey’s trick to hide the decline.
      But you’ve got this bit right in one of your comments: “As Richard Feynman said: ‘Nature cannot be fooled’ – even if humans can be”.
      I think King Canute really knew that too and his act with the sword was just an act to show sycophantic followers even a great king could not control the forces of nature. You think Julia Gillard and her carbon tax can?

    • Roy Everett says:

      07:24am | 28/04/11

      I think the $10,000 is safe. The CAGW fraud was exposed a few years ago, and only a few die-hard politicians, mostly in the Southern Hemisphere, seem to think there is any mileage in it. In essence it was the same as the Halley’s Comet cyanogen poisoning scare but a lot more people fell for it and it longer to build up and then burst.  Norfolk police are investigating the fraud, so come back in a decade or two.

    • Cactus says:

      10:36am | 28/04/11

      To Christopher Sauvarin above:

      I am really interested in your statement:

      “Increasing CO2 levels are killing Koalas” and have read your link to the newspaper article.

      This lead me to try to find the published research by Dr Ivan Lawler of James Cook University which apparently shows the link between carbon dioxide level and protein in eucalypts. I can’t find it and would appreciate the link which I guess you may have, please?

    • Spotty Maldoon says:

      05:21pm | 03/06/11

      What happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Is it still there? I could google it but I cant be bothered. All I know is I still get sunburt everytime I go to the beach..

    • mojo says:

      10:09pm | 05/06/11

      Yes, the ozone hole’s still there, but getting smaller. Apparently we have another 50 years or so until it is repaired.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

One must absolutely read this as soon as is snootily possible (it's about the mad family sueing Geelong Grammar) http://t.co/YnWgqcfi

Malcolm Farr

Sydney criminal barrister has advised Craig Thomson on phone cloning. Expect a mention in his Monday speech to Parly.. http://t.co/XC4FW8bq

Malcolm Farr

@michellegrattan Shorten has an ability to be aggressive and positive w/o being shrill. Not a skill all his cabinet colleagues share.

Daniel Piotrowski

@ACCAN_AU @ThePunchHQ thanks!

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

An insecure workforce makes for an insecure society

It’s usually best to avoid putting too many statistics in a post but reading the ACTU’s report…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: The greatest ending to a football season ever?

Dave B says:

Congratulations & well deserved win! I've been a Utd supporter from 7 years of age, even stuck with them when they went down to the 2nd Div. However, despite the X-town rivalry & even as a devout MU fan, I can say that I truly admired the determination, courage & skill shown by the Blues - What a spectacle,… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter