Why say YES to a CARBON TAX when it makes NO SENSE?

I wish to refer to the current post by JoNova at her website  http://joannenova.com.au/  It commences with criticism of the current attempt by the Australian Government to con the public into accepting a carbon tax which we do not want nor need. In fact it is an imposition based on false science and false motives and it will be seriously detrimental to the Australian economy.  Her information is copied below.

Her post also includes several references to other articles from various experts, they are briefly mentioned with occasional comment further below.

Let’s say “Yes” to real science

Let’s say “Yes” to real science, the way it’s meant to be, science that relies on  measurements from things like thermometers, ice cores, and satellites. Real science is about observations of the real deal, not “simulations” on a computer. 28 million weather balloons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 ocean buoys, and 30 years of satellites tell us that rising CO2 is not much to worry about.

Let say “Yes” to helping the environment by looking at real problems instead of fake ones. Let’s do practical things to stop our soil being eroded, to save our flora and fauna, and to stop real pollutants like soot, ozone and sulfur dioxide. We all know that a tax won’t solve salinity, or change the weather.

Lets say “Yes” to using our tax money wisely. Who are we kidding? Solar panels, windmills and funny light globes are not going to stop droughts, floods and nasty storms. Why put more money into the hands of people who’ve spent around 4 billion dollars putting Chinese solar panels on roofs, and pink batts in houses.  We can’t control the weather and we can’t export second hand solar panels. Let’s say NO to pork barrelling, and pink-batts-that-kill, and solar panels that send us broke.

Say “Yes” to the free market. Rather than foist a fixed, fake carbon market on us, listen to what the real market it saying — it’s telling us that no one wants to buy carbon credits if they have a choice, and hardly anyone wants current renewables at current prices. Stop the subsidies, get the government out of the way, and give us a real free market.

Let’s say “Yes” to a real debate, where the government, public funded scientists and ABC stop denigrating anyone who tries to raise a scientific point they don’t approve of. We pay for these institutions, we deserve the whole truth.

Let’s say “Yes” to getting news instead of propaganda from the ABC. Did you know that in the ice cores, temperatures rise and fall first? That’s 800 years before CO2? Don’t they think voters ought to know that? Did you know market gardeners pay to pump the carbon dioxide into greenhouses, because plants grow faster, stronger, yield more fruit and need less water? Did they forget to tell you that plants prefer a climate with three times as much CO2 in the air as we have today?

The other relevant items: (The appropriate references, the complete items and associated discussions are included on JoNova’s site  http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/lets-say-yes-to-using-our-tax-money-wisely/).

Climate Scientists who were right 30 years ago?  (Ref Stephen Goddard)

Drs Leona Libby and Louise Pandolfi projected world temperatures in 1979 for the next 70 years and got results that, 30 years later, appear to have been broadly correct if out by 5 – 7 years. Ironically, they used, of all things, … tree ring data (going back 1,800 years). The critical difference was they assumed that the climate changes in natural cycles.

There is much debate about the use of tree rings as a proxy for surface temperature, yet correlations can be sound. The failure to continue their use beyond 1988 in the IPCC evidence has been criticised as ignoring evidence that conflicts with the desired AGW trend.

Climate Commission Report Debunked

Scientific audit of the Climate Commission Report

“The Critical Decade – Climate science, risks and responses”       May, 2011   Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth

This declaration establishes two things. The first sentence signals that the report is committed to repeating the conclusions of the 4^th Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)[3], conclusions that are essentially reliant on computer modelling and lack empirical support. And the second signals that the report is long on opinionated analysis and political advocacy but devoid of objective risk analysis.

This deserves attention as the Commission Report does nothing to prove the need for a carbon tax.

Only an Eco-dictatorship Will Save the World! Democracy be Damned!

Now is the time to force the carbon legislation into being, to take action, and help those who cannot or will not think for themselves!

This is THE MOTIVATION made clear. A must read! (The theme and its reference article are also provided elsewhere on this site, ref https://tgrule.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/agw-controls-fraudulent-and-political/)

AND the articles continue, offering more and more convincing evidence that Carbon Trading, Taxes, anything to do with the misleading claims of CO2 requiring controls, is unsustainable, in fact fraudulent.

Related articles

• Carbon Tax (radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com)
• The Climate Commission report is full of it (thepunch.com.au)
• Qld’s LNP won’t support carbon tax: Newman (news.theage.com.au)