More warmist lies

John Connor, the CEO of the Climate Institute, today wrote in the Herald Sun. Like many warmists, he loves to call carbon dioxide “pollution”, using it once for every dollar we will pay per tonne of emissions (23).

Despite the misinformation and scaremongering going around…

“Misinformation” and “scare campaign”. Remember these words are we progress through his column.

It’s the 500 heaviest carbon-polluting companies that will pay the price to make this happen, not households.

How can they possibly pay when they will just pass on the cost? Compensating the consumer doesn’t in turn punish them.

Australia has renewable energy resources from the sun, wind and waves that could be the envy of the world. But we are one of the most pollution-dependent economies on the planet.

We also have coal supplies that are the envy of the world.

We make 1.5 per cent of global pollution, which may not sound much, but it’s similar to the UK, Ukraine, South Korea and many other countries. If we add together our efforts to cut pollution, it will make a big difference.

Except China, India and the US dwarf these contributions. Any meaningful cut in emissions would have to involve them.

More than 30 countries from New Zealand to the UK have schemes to make business cut pollution and invest in clean energy. China, South Korea and the state of California are all implementing schemes soon and have strong clean energy targets.

Only some Chinese provinces, and California is the only US state with any political will on this issue. Without serious efforts from these countries, our efforts are meaningless.

Carbon pollution pumped into the air is overloading the atmosphere. All major academies of science around the world, the CSIRO and 97 per cent of climate scientists in a recent study say we have a problem.

“Overloading the atmosphere”? That is nothing but hyperbole. The atmospheric concentration is 0.039%. Yet, the best evidence he can provide is an argument  by authority including an inflated consensus figure?

Pollution traps heat, changing the temperature and weather patterns. The science says climate change is accelerating, creating more extreme weather to which Australia is so exposed. Our recent fires, drought and floods are examples of what a hostile climate will increasingly feel like if we fail to do something about it.

I’m confused. Is he now saying that carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide are greenhouse gases. He couldn’t be talking about carbon dioxide, because that’s not a bloody pollutant. On acceleration, this is derived from an entirely spurious statistical method (page 25 of link). Even the IPCC rules out climate change as a cause of these events. I thought he was head of the Climate Institute, not the Weather Institute.

If the world was to do nothing, by the end of the century the global temperature could rise by 7C. Currently, countries are doing enough to keep that rise to around 3C. This still falls short of what’s needed but shows what we can achieve by working together.

That figure is derived from climate models (the X Box 360s as Christopher Monckton would say) which have already been contradicted by real world temperatures. Does he seriously think that we have already forestalled 4C of warming. Did he use a different model for this figure.

Pollution cuts by China and the US will be crucial, but it doesn’t mean other countries can afford to do nothing. We’re all in this together. Not acting is not only risky, it is downright reckless.

No, the reckless thing to do is to not weigh the positives and negatives and to seek one-sided advice.

So what “do we get” with Australia’s proposed carbon pollution policies?

Economically raped?

This gives companies a very strong incentive to clean up and invest in technologies that don’t produce pollution.

An incentive is to not be taxed? What kind of world is he living in?

Our regions stand to benefit…in the Latrobe Valley…

Did he say the Latrobe Valley will benefit? Even after they shut down Hazelwood?

These costs will be fully covered by support and tax cuts for two-thirds of households, which will put extra money in the pockets of some.

“Fully” covered? When some has to go to the UN, some has to go towards renewables and some towards the new bureaucracies, that is not possible.

For those out of pocket, it amounts to a handful of gold coins each week.

I will hold you to that.

There’s been a lot of misinformation in the media in the past week, and sadly more to come.

Are you writing another article?

Such scaremongering is dangerous for our economy and grossly irresponsible.

What do you call 7 degrees then?

The pollution price and clean energy package isn’t perfect, but it gets Australia moving.

In the wrong direction.

To think, this was published in the Murdoch “hate media”.


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s