, , , , ,

So the world is yet to cave in and we are three months into the Gillard Government’s ‘Carbon Tax’, which should really be called a carbon dioxide tax, we have not had an apocalypse so Mr Abbott must be, as Wayne Swan coined the phrase, “hysterically inaccurate” with his claims about the impact of the ‘Carbon Tax’.

I agree with Mr Swan there are “hysterically inaccuracies” with the C02 tax, however, the most of these glaring ‘inaccuracies’ lie in both the position of the current Federal Government and the manner in which many pro-climate change scientists measure temperature.

On the ABC’s Q & A program, Monday 14th March 2011, PM Gillard admitted:

“I did say during the last election campaign, I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That’s true and I’ve walked away from that commitment and I’m not going to try and pretend anything else.”

Her excuse for the ‘hysterically inaccurate’ declaration “There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead” is that if she were leading a majority government she would have an emissions trading scheme with no tax, but the hung parliament forced her “to work with others”.  Although should she not have sought your permission, a mandate, by going to an election? One may even say how did she not seek out MPs like Turnbull to not have to rely on the Greens? If she couldn’t make that ‘government work (it wouldn’t operate with the power-balance in the Senate) then a Double Dissolution would need to occur. The problem is she Labor wouldn’t get back into government. Now I know this blog is meant to be about the ‘Carbon debate’ but the reason we have a tax is because we, as the Australian Public, have not been allowed to vote or even consider this issue – where is the Citizen’s Assembly we were promised – instead it has become a political divider because Carbon (dioxide) pricing was used as a Labor-Green bargaining chip and as a result of this political alliance some are “more equal than others”. Whilst this is no different to any other part of life it isn’t fair democratically because we were lied to and every vote is worth the same…just some are more valuable than others. I leave you with Gillard’s rationalization of the move:


“I had a really stark choice. Do I act or not act, well I’ve chosen to act.”

Climate Science: Hysterical Inaccuracies?

Dr David Evans, a former full-time consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) during the period of 1999 to 2005, and part-time in 2008-2010, was charged with the task of modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, forestry and agricultural products.

Evans argues that alarmists (the opposition of the ‘extremists’ and ‘deniers’) argue, “the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable.” With their “predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 200…” all being much higher than what eventually proved to be true. But science is allowed to be wrong and they were ‘predictions’.

However, what they conveniently avoid revealing is that these ‘alarmist’ scientists keep “keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade”, which Evans deems as insulting because they then tell the public, “it’s worse than expected” when really it is a better result than predicted.

Evans states that this means “they over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.” Yet we are meant to believe them without question and as the time-demands on media, academics and consumers increases checking this information out becomes more difficult than before with access to the information just one of many barriers the public face in questioning such ‘science’.

The other misleading inaccuracy Dr Evans highlights is where the recording of temperature occurs. According to Evans the official thermometers are located in places like hot tarmacs at airports, in the warm exhaust of air conditioning units, at wastewater plants that are warmed by decomposing sewage or in hot urban cities**. Which Evans notes as extremely significant considering “global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important.” Although it gets worse, with Dr Evans stating, “…nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet (<http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf> or at his website <http://sciencespeak.com/>) Evan asserts that if you check these images out trusting government climate scientists again will be impossible as they define cheating by placing their thermometers in warm localities and calling the results “global” warming. So if we accept that 2010 was the warmest recent year, it may have only been extra warm at selected airports, outside air conditioners and in car parks.

**Disclosure: The Carbon Tax Myth does accept this does requires further checking but if one hundred percent accurate is damning about the science associated with this issue.

So this begs the question: What is actually happening to the Earth’s climate?

Well Dr Evans discusses the fact that the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age, which occurred in approximately 1680, with human carbon dioxide emissions being negligible before 1850 and many readings occur post WWII. Yet what is most telling is that according to the trend Pacific Decadal Oscillation “causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction.” Which leads Evans to the conclusion we should “expect mild global cooling for the next two decades” as a result of finishing a warming phase.

As to Dr Evan’s thoughts about the implementation of a Carbon Tax:

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. (Available at: <http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/carbon-tax-australia-welcome-to-futility-island/>). But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!”

(For a full-version of his online piece you can check it out at: http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/politics/item/694-govt-scientist-exposes-carbon-tax-as-a-scam )

However, what is really demonstrated by these two examples of deception is that there appears to constantly be something to hide, ‘spin’ or convey misleadingly in regards to both the amount of material and the selection of information that we, as the public, are given. Why? A rhetorical question we would all like answering; regardless of which side of the debate you sit on.

It hardly seems fair that a Climate Change Commission costs the government $3.5 billion in expenditure, when there was no ‘mandate’ provided by voters and the science is still inconclusive, but hospital services in your local area, the roads that lead to them and the doctors available to treat you are overcapacity, gridlocked in traffic and there aren’t enough staff to treat you. This may sound like I’m being dramatic yet this is the reality Australians are facing you, I and everyone else who occupies our great country.

For more lies, misconceptions and inaccuracies surrounding the ‘Carbon’ (or as we rightly know it to be Carbon Dioxide) debate: