By Chris Towsey, MSc(Syd) BSc (Hons) Dip Ed FAusIMM. July 2007.

The author is a geologist with 30 years experience in the metalliferous mining
industry. He is currently Chief Operating Officer of a public listed gold mining
company. Opponents of the following view will claim bias, but knowledge of, and
training and practise in, the subject does not equate with bias.

There are strident calls for the reduction and elimination of carbon dioxide (CO₂)
emissions, based on the assumptions that (a) increasing carbon dioxide emissions are
the cause of global warming and (b) that human activities are responsible for a rise in
carbon dioxide emissions. The conclusion is then drawn that restricting human
emissions of CO₂ will reduce global warming.

The basis of the scientific method is that a series of observations are made, a
hypothesis is drawn up to explain the observations, then a series of tests are made to
see if the hypothesis holds under all circumstances. If test results indicate the
hypothesis is flawed, then the hypothesis must be altered to fit ALL data.

The following data DO NOT FIT the assumption that human activities result in global
warming. It follows then that the assumption that anthropogenic CO₂ causes global
warming is fundamentally flawed.

View the complete document [PDF, 407KB]

On Monday 13 August 2007, the House Standing Committee on Science and
Innovation tabled its report on the inquiry into Geosequestration Technology
entitled Between a Rock and a Hard Place.

Dr Dennis Jensen MP, Hon Jackie Kelly MP, Hon Danna Vale MP, Mr David
Tollner MP have written a dissenting report:

“We do not believe the evidence unequivocally supports the hypothesis of
anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
“1.1 We dissent from some of the statements made in the report “Between a
Rock and a Hard Place” by the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation
on its investigation into the Geosequestration of Carbon Dioxide.
“1.2 We disagree with the report’s unequivocal support for the hypothesis
that global warming is caused by man-so-called anthropogenic global warming
(AGW).”

Dissenting report is available here:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/geosequestration-dissent.pdf [PDF 211KB]

Source: Inquiry into Geosequestration Technology Web page:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report.htm

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to all government promotion and subsidies for the domestic production of ethanol.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that all taxpayers, all consumers of food and most farmers will be harmed by the creation of an artificial industry producing subsidised ethanol.

“Subsidising the production of ethanol will waste taxes, harm the environment, cause sharply increased costs for everyone in the food chain, and do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or air pollution.
(more…)

A: No, we are opposed to pollution.

Pollution is the transfer of unusual or harmful matter or energy to another person’s property without their consent. Thus I should not allow smoke, ash particles, industrial effluent, noise, noxious gases, bad smells or light from my property to annoy anyone else unless we have negotiated an agreement.

Burning of carbon fuels has been part of the natural cycle of the earth since the first plant was set on fire by the first lightning strike. All the products of burning natural carbon fuels are easily and beneficially absorbed by the atmosphere, dissolved by rain and go to fertilise the soil.

However there are some emissions that are annoying or dangerous in concentrated amounts, for example nitrous oxide, hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxide. And others such as soot and ash that are not so dangerous, but visible and annoying. Bush fires produce all of these, but usually not in troublesome amounts.

Burning coal or oil in power stations can produce continual pollution in a small area, so modern clean plants remove almost everything from the emissions except water vapour and carbon dioxide, which are disseminated into the atmosphere via a tall stack. These two are normal beneficial atmospheric gases not pollutants. Taking them out of the emissions would be a silly and very expensive exercise for no benefit.