This question was received in response to the article “Government Gas Wastrels”

Re: “Government Gas Wastrels”

Well, Viv, Gas burns cleaner.

And Big Coal doesn’t need to be defended — it is capable of defending itself, or are you Big Coal itself… bought paid, signed sealed and delivered…?

B&T

Reply to B&T:

“Carbon Sense” does not defend or oppose any particular energy source. We will comment on their technical or economic advantages and disadvantages. We oppose government taxing some and not others for spurious climate reasons. And we oppose government forcing everyone to pay more for electricity because politicians have forced electricity companies to use unreliable and costly means of generating their power (via their market mandate schemes).

You should be free to buy gas energy, or solar energy, or coal energy, or cannabis energy, or cow pat energy as long as you pay the full cost, and leave me also free to make my choices on whatever basis I choose.

My personal position is clear. I do not represent Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Farming or Big Government. I have been chairman of a small oil and gas company, director of a coal producer, manager of a cattle grazing enterprise and a lowly public servant. I am presently a director of a small coal exploration company and I breed and graze cattle and sheep. I also use electricity and liquid carbon fuels. Does all that make me a vested interest schizophrenic? I have learned from all of these experiences, and I do not hide my continuing interests in mining, pastures, cattle, sheep and politics. Should we only listen to people who know nothing about the science and economics of the industries they presume to “Cap-n-Tax”?

My interests do not change in one whit what I think and say about the science, and politics, and economics of the Global Warming Scam.

In fact I am opposed to the weak policies of the industry bodies representing Big Coal and Big Farming. Both seem to think they can get special deals for themselves leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves (and thus pay their share of the increased costs of Cap-n-Tax). Far better to oppose the whole thing.

Unfortunately Big Coal does not support the policies of “Carbon Sense”. They support the emissions trading scheme with all the stupidities that brings. They also have conned taxpayers and shareholders to pour billions of dollars into Carbon Capture and Burial. They also lobby for exemptions from the Ration-N-Tax Scheme that they are content to see foisted on the rest of us. “Carbon Sense” has opposed all of these policies.

The Carbon Sense Newsletter has been funded sparingly by about 40 individuals who pay subscriptions for newsletters and advice. Another 1,500 or so get the newsletter for free. Like the government, our expenses exceed our income, so we are making our contribution to the Great Financial Stimulus Package.

Viv Forbes

Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, today released the report, “Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast” which estimates, by 2100, “a sea-level rise scenario of 1.1m”. (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/coastline/climate-change-risks-to-australias-coasts.aspx)

In the past, Ms Wong and Kevin Rudd have said they rely on the IPCC reports for their policy decisions. They also criticise those who disagree with the IPCC.

However, the IPCC report (2007) gives a high and low scenario for sea level rises. The high of the high scenario is a rise of 59cm for the 21st century. That is far less than the 110cm in this new report.

So is Ms Wong now saying that the IPCC is wrong? If so, why won’t she listen to the large number of sceptics who also disagree with the IPCC?

Interestingly, the report also says (p. 6), “Over the geological past this dynamism has been even more pronounced, with sea levels up to 4-6 metres higher than today and the shoreline in some places more than 500 kilometres inland.”

Clearly, those increases could not have been caused by humans, but I don’t expect the media, or Wong or Rudd, will make that point!

Bob Long

Dear Carbon Sense,

I had a spare moment, and for some reason it was spent pondering Climate Change.

Suddenly, like a bolt of lightening… bells and whistles went off… I’m onto something.

I need support, and confidently believe you will jump on board to back me with the following research into Climate Change.

I am preparing my own submission to examine a subject that has not been appraised: “The Damage Climate Change will make to Fashion (including associated industries)”. I will not be investigating the inconsequential slaughter of innocent wildlife within fashion, as this may well prejudice the findings. In fact, the fashion industry is saving these poor creatures from the scientifically proven Climatical catastrophe we mere humans are facing.

There appears to be a vital call for extensive funding before it is too late, as the Paris, Rome, New York and London Fashion industries will disintegrate due to predicted continuing seasonal uncertainties brought about by Climate Change. The complete loss of winter, spring, autumn and summer fashion releases together with the gala events accompanying these seasonal releases will bring about a Global Economic Collapse, causing millions to become unemployed. This widespread calamity will bring to an end the Asian, Mexican and African sweat-shops, forcing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of starving, emaciated, suffering humans to become Global Refugees, as they can not ALL survive by manufacturing only shorts, T-shirts and thongs (flip-flops) as the unprecedented rising temperature continues upwards.

We MUST act immediately to prevent the future misery that will be enforced on our daughters and their daughters… and their daughters… and in some cases our sons; sons who will never experience the understanding and self gratification of this season’s ‘new dress’, or the ‘new shoes, or the new Armani Jeans, watch or cologne.

We can NOT stand by and turn our backs on this forthcoming, predestined, inevitable tragedy. WE MUST ACT NOW!!

I wish to embark on this research with a round-the-globe trip to establish how Climate Change is having an effect on the natural physical and biological form of bikini-clad, young ladies’ nipples, and what affect, if any, the proliferation of Global Warming, due to anthropogenic CO2 escalation, will have on their natural rise and fall.

I am presently working on a couple of models… however due to privacy laws and the small matter of a restraining order, I can not advise you of their names at this time.

Are you interested in assisting in this research and how much funding do you think we will require?

All donations will be accepted and not accounted for.

Your future children saving friend,

Rick Gore-Flannery (changed name by dead pole so people would believe me)

Last Friday, I attended a conference for a multinational bank in Oman.

It is an annual event to update the region’s clients about the bank’s latest views on local and global conditions and, of course, to tell us about its latest products.

For the first time, I heard about the Chicago Climate Exchange (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/)

I had thought that “green derivatives” was just myth or bad idea, not something able to be sold. But I was shocked to learn that the volume of trades has reached to one trillion dollars!

It seems we are just creating another speculative industry, which will attract huge funds, the whole thing far removed from basic and essential social investments.

I am not against real green initiatives that reduce the pollution, make use of energy more efficient, offer cleaner/better water or improve the healthy environment that surrounds us. I am against the linkage between those useful things and “climate change”, which just seems to put restrictions and taxes on some industries just to fund something not real.

“Climate Change” is something universal. It will keep changing and is more powerful than any human actions. This is my own personal view.

The joke of the conference was this:

When one of the attendees asked the instructor: “What if the investment is lost, how I can justify that to my manager?”

The answer: “Tell him that your company was supporting the fight against global warming!”

I wonder if that answer would be enough to keep feed me in future, if I will lose my job, or will I blame the weather for my decision!

I wonder how the carbon taxes collected in past and future will be justified to the future generations, when they discover that they were used to fund unnecessary and non-productive expenditures like trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange?

R H, Our Middle East Correspondent

Mr Rudd accuses opponents of his Ration-N-Tax Scheme of “bowing to vested interests” (The Australian, 6/11/09).

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

The biggest vested interest is the ALP itself, hoping to harvest Green preference votes from their green posturing.

Supporting the alarmists are the gaggle of green industries already reaping dividends from the Rudd subsidies and market protection rackets.

Mr Rudd also tells us that his big business mates want the “certainty” of Emissions Trading.

A roll call of these people reveals domination by big firms of auditors and accountants, bankers and brokers, speculators and solicitors, touts and traders – all longing to get into the biggest trading lottery the world has ever seen – more snouts in the carbon trough.

The rest of big business merely wants the “certainty” of free emission permits or other special exemptions denied to Joe the Plumber and Fred the Farmer.

Sceptics on the other hand do not have a mercenary army of academics, bureaucrats and publicists who can be bribed or bullied to produce scary climate forecasts or doomsdays ads on demand.

Nor do sceptics have the power to silence or sack dissidents in their ranks.

Nor do they have the pulpits and power of the UN which, having failed at “peace keeping”, sees “climate control” as its new business model.

The climate realists have only one big vested interest – the desire to live their lives free from the “certainty” of new taxes on everything they buy and new controls on everything they do.

This is not about global pollution or global warming – it is about global energy taxes, global government and global redistribution.

Viv Forbes

I am the President of the Wooster Street Branch of the Australian League of Simpletons.

We simpletons do not believe that carbon dioxide has any adverse effect whatsoever on the climate – none. On the other hand, we believe that carbon dioxide is beneficial to all plant life everywhere through the marvel of photosynthesis.

Plant life in turn benefits all mammals as it releases oxygen. All decent scientists agree with us, as they are appalled at a decision of The Australian Society of Vandals, (otherwise known as The Labor Party), to inaugurate an ETS which will tax us into industrial oblivion.

On the other hand we have the Leader of the Australian Society of Dills, (also known as The Liberal Party), who want to install their own brand of inauspicious anti-industrial EMS. The leader of The Dills could not win an election even if they were the only party for whom we could vote.

Then we have the Australian Society of Rationalists, (also known as The National Party). They share the views of we simpletons. Their chief spokesman is Barnaby Joyce and a few other rational politicians. They are the only ones we simpletons would feed.

Ronald Kitching

What is the real agenda behind the proponents of an ETS, a tax on thin air which will do nothing to alter the climate for better or for worse? They have successfully recruited large numbers of useful fools who have been brainwashed into believing they can ‘save the planet’ by doing petty things such as this claim at the bottom of an invoice received recently from a supplier: ‘We’re Green. We have saved a total of 0.5143 trees since January 2005 by using paperless invoicing for 4287 invoices’.

It would have taken less effort to simply plant a tree, for all the good even that would have done in the vastness of things. And what is a tree? What is 0.5143 of a tree? How much carbon dioxide does it contain? Questions, questions. This is the sort of Garbage In – Garbage Out that we can expect if any form of an ETS is introduced. How many lawyers, accountants and regulators will waste their lives measuring, auditing, accounting for and policing thin air? And to how many decimal places? And how are we going to feed them all while the producers of real wealth sink in a tidal wave of paperwork even if the forms are paperless.

Prosperity is the key to eliminating real pollution (particulate matter, rubbish, sulphates etc) on a global scale. An ETS will introduce a new pest into this country more destructive to our prosperity than the rabbit, and our ability to deal with natural climate change will be greatly diminished if our politicians continue down this yellow brick road, at the end of which they will find only smoke and mirrors.

John McRobert

When the world was first formed it was all water until the mistake was seen and rectified and space was made available for carbon based activities like hop growing, barley growing, vineyards, cricket grounds, coal mines and other life enhancing activities.

Another carbon material is diamond crystal, the basis of sound relationships between the male and female human organisms on planet earth.

Together with several other elements carbon dioxide plays an absolutely essential part in maintaining all life forms, including plant and fish life.

But we have anti-industrial lunatics, especially in Canberra, who want to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, when in fact, it would be advantageous for all life to have up to 12 or more times CO2 than what we now have in the atmosphere.

Anybody who doubts this can see 11,800,000 essays on carbon based life in Google.

Ronald Kitching

There is now a special magazine called “Carbon Capture Journal” devoted to carbon capture pipe dreams.

But despite all the hype, there still isn’t any commercial scale power plant (1000 MW) operating anywhere in the world that captures and stores CO2.

There are gas and oil rigs that pump it back down into reservoirs, there one small 200 MW pilot/demonstration generator in Germany that captures the CO2 and then trucks the CO2 halfway across Germany to an injection point (but is it a real commercially viable plant anyway – or just a heavily subsidized exercise in PR?).

All a big fronted farce designed to gather lots of Government funding (our tax money!!)

JB, NSW, Australia

We are responsible for pollution but not for climate change.

Half the people in the world believe that we control climate, but climate change has gone on for the millions of years of Earth’s existence. The drivers are the vast powers of the sun, the moon, the oceans and earth’s continental drift and concomitant vulcanism. To say we can stop it is nearly as silly as crossing to the other side of the street in order to stop continental drift which has gone on for the same time. That big handsome American fraud Al Gore got a Nobel Prize and makes millions by persuading some people that he can control climate.

What we humans are responsible for is pollution, which we must stop for our own good.

John de Teliga