The carbon tax explained

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by dumbanddumber, Mar 15, 2011.

  1. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ladies and Gentlemen of Australia, I came across this paper by accident, its explains in plain english what the Goverment will be taxing.

    How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

    I strongly urge you all to read this article as it explains everything that the media DOES NOT...

    We are faced with our Government trying very hard to introduce a CARBON TAX ...find out exactly why it's all smoke and mirrors..just a money grab...and we will be paying forever..

    Hitler said, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think, look what that SoB got up to before he was stopped”.

    How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

    Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following.

    Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
    Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
    Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
    Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
    Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
    Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

    I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.

    The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

    On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.


    ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    Q1. What % of the air is CO2?
    Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

    The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%.

    As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

    Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this.

    Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts.

    For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere ... omposition


    Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
    Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’

    Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

    Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

    The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

    Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

    Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

    The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air.

    That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.

    We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!

    Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories.

    Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.
     
  2. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

    Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

    The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas.

    It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are.

    It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.

    Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air.

    CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not.

    CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants.

    This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.

    The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam.

    A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre.

    It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays.

    The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.

    Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

    Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

    The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all.

    The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.

    • It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics.

    All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions.

    That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.

    • Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability.

    With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated.
    The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.

    1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.

    2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.

    3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.

    4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.

    5. Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2.

    Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.

    6. The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C).

    As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.

    7. Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun.

    These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is.

    Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls.

    The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time.

    But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page.

    The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one.

    Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then.

    The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period.

    Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural.

    There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.
     
  3. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate

    It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy.

    There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle.

    It became cooler from 1940 to 1970.

    This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle.

    The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been.

    By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started.

    The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are experiencing now.

    From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age.

    The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.

    For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/s ... -24-update and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/c ... n-minimum/

    The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.

    Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened.

    There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006.

    This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s.

    There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate.

    The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2.

    (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.

    Polls on Climate Change

    Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change.

    The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception.

    Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!

    Popular beliefs are not fact

    The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere.

    We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed.

    Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong. (

    Mohammad said, a terrorised people are easier to control).

    A Carbon Tax

    Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners.

    Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage.

    It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards.

    Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.
     
  4. Adultmale

    Adultmale Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well said Dumb. Unfortunatly talking to believers in man made climate change is a lot like talking to religious fantatics, they just KNOW it is true!
     
  5. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This explains nothing about the Carbon Tax. :omg:
     
  6. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Most pathetic post ever. I started reading it and then just tuned out. It's just idiotic.

    I tell you what, take this nerve toxin thats 0.01% of your body's volume and die. Oh wait, it's only 0.01% :rolleyes:
     
  7. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry Guys and Girls

    But it was in plain english, so if you can't understand that then i'm afraid there's little more that can be said or done.:mrgreen:
     
  8. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It was a good post, but wasted on those who believe in AGW.

    They just don't get it, and probably never will.

    The Cold War is over and Y2K turned out to be the hoax we all thought it would be.

    The governments of the world need new fear campaigns to scare the masses, and AGW is it at the moment.

    In a few years it will die down, and governments will find another scare tactic. And sadly, the weak will fall for it.
     
  9. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What i will do is assume that the bulk of science is correct. Whereas you boys assume the tiny minority of the science is correct.

    People rarely answer the question of why they choose to believe the very minority scientific view. Yes, it's simply a choice because no one here has a clue about the science unless they've studied and have been researching this for a decade or two or more and had their assumptions and theories tested by others.

    I've asked this twice in just a couple of weeks, and not one of the climate sceptics on this board has challenged themselves, or at least revealed it publicly.

    Science is a rigorous process and sure, sometimes theories are eventually proven wrong, or revised. But trotting out this crap when you're as ignorant as the next guy is just embarrassing. Move on like i did. The rational question is rather more why you believe 10% of the relevant science/scientists over 90% (or whatever the % is).
     
    ryanm34 and (deleted member) like this.
  10. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No, you just don't know what you're talking about and you don't even bother to provide citations to claims regarding popular opinion. I'd like to see some of these polls you refer to.

    Oh, and in one sentence you say that more people don't believe it now to somehow boost your argument, then go on to say "belief isn't fact". Ugh.
     
  11. Stormbringer

    Stormbringer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'assuming' is where you are going wrong

    i'm not 'assuming' anything

    i'm analysing the facts

    including those facts presented by scientists who don't have any sort of grant

    possibly because it's an ignorant, loaded question

    i'm not ignorant, i read as much of the the research as i can

    all of it (not just the research from funded scientists)

    not sure if you know what 'ignorant' means

    i'm very well informed, thank you

    i tend to believe scientists who provide good evidence

    scientists against the AGW theory currently have the best argument

    it's not a matter of how many there are, it's all about the legitimacy of the evidence for me
     
  12. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED! (are you?)

    Geeez.

    Do you understand how that because you believe something, that if i present an even-handed report with exactly the same number of supporting and rejecting arguments that you will come out MORE convinced of your view. This is because people discard information that doesn't agree with them. Studies have shown it. I can't remember what the effect is called right now.

    You are not using science, you are choosing science. When you study for years, then produce something and then have it reviewed i'll listen to your ramblings. Until then you are irrelevant.
     
  13. Stormbringer

    Stormbringer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no qualifications required to analyse evidence

    you got anything else?
     
  14. Stormbringer

    Stormbringer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you seem to have no knowledge of what science is

    you seem to think that the general public is not allowed to have an opinion

    you seem quite troubled

    you also seem to ramble on about nothing a lot

    i think i'll leave you to your ramblings
     
  15. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Are you frakking serious?

    OK, i'll just go and read a couple of reports about virus transmission and decide that they're all wrong except that dude who said that that viruses aren't transmitted, they just 'happen' in our bodies - that we always have them and sometimes they just cause problems because of lifestyle and whatever else. Now he's in a minuscule minority view - but it is out there. I'm not qualified to agree or not - so i go with the overwhelming view. Feel free to believe the other guy without having a clue one way or another.
     
  16. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Thank you. You have just demonstrated exactly what i was talking about. I'm asking you why you believe a tiny minority and you can't answer it except by saying that you're more qualified, informed and intelligent than the thousands of scientists whose job and passion it is to study and dismantle this stuff.
     
  17. Stormbringer

    Stormbringer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    absolutely

    you obviously don't understand what 'analysis' is

    hardly surprising, judging from some of your previous posts
     
  18. Stormbringer

    Stormbringer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and i'm answering you:

    • they have the most compelling evidence
    • it contains more common sense
    • they don't use smoke and mirrors
    • above all, i value quality over quantity
     
  19. Adultmale

    Adultmale Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The bottom line is Gillard's carbon tax will not have the slightest effect on the climate. It will not have any effect on the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere.
    If the amount of man made carbon in the atmosphere is causing climate change, then obviously if you want climate change to stop or be reversed, you have to take carbon out of the atmosphere. That is not what is being proposed, in fact the only process which does take carbon out of the atmoshere permanently, that is activated carbon, the Labor government has refused to back.
     
  20. Stormbringer

    Stormbringer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    that's right

    CO2 makes up 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere

    humans produce 3% of that very small figure (0.001%)

    australia produces 1% of that even smaller figure (0.00001%)

    0.00001% of the earth's atmosphere is CO2 produced by australians

    gillard'a tax will have no effect whatsoever

    people are being conned
     
  21. Adultmale

    Adultmale Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,197
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It's a con all right. Her stupid carbon tax will not reduce the amount of fossil fuel burnt. They talk about the electricity producers but people will still use the same amount of power, they will just pay more for it. We are paying prices for electricity today that have risen enormously over the last few years but people use more electricity today than ever. The same goes for petrol and diesel, people are driving bigger and bigger vehicles and using more and more fuel despite the huge price increases.
     
  22. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    YOU. ARE. NOT. QUALIFIED.

    If i may, what are your qualifications and profession?
     
  23. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Finally, a valid point in this topic. Thank you Adultmale.

    The tax does, however, give the government money to direct at subsidies for renewable tech or even nuclear in a few years. Of course, they could just drop some of the subsidies and low tax rates given to the polluting power sources, but we saw how well that went down.

    Maybe the mining super tax might have been better for a reduction of co2 than the carbon tax. But we'll need more details and analysis by suitably qualified people before (if) we'll know.
     
  24. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    YOU. ARE. NOT. QUALIFIED.

    If i may, what are your qualifications and profession?

    =======================================
    EDIT (time had expired, apologies for the new post):

    Oh, and you're not explaining why you believe in the minority, you're attempting to justify it. Tell me why you believe it's more compelling to you. Explain why is it more common sense to you. Explain why you think the small minority view isn't smoke and mirrors, etc etc... Someone who believes in the climate science can prattle off the same thing you just did.

    Think (hard) about what makes you believe this view over another, much more accepted view.

    Are you simply a contrarian? Do you just not believe governments anymore? Do you think scientists are evil? Were you raped by a climate change believer? Are you a believer in free-market economics (which runs contrary to regulating pollution)?

    What is the source for your choice? You may have to look deeply, or maybe not.
     
  25. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The part of the atmosphere we're looking at is greenhouse gases, the stuff that traps the heat in. Carbon dioxide and Methane are the ones we're worried about, probably methane more than carbon dioxide to be honest. But we're hardly all going to turn vegetarian so the focus is on carbon. Water vapour, bugger all we can do about that 'n it's supposed to be a reaction to the warming from the other gases. Ozone, well we need some of that so cause it does other things too.

    More greenhouse gases = more warming. As far as I'm aware this is factual?

    Whether or not humans emit enough greenhouse gas to cause any significant warming or not is the question. I think we do and we will, but that's just me.

    Even if we don't emit enough carbon/methane to have an effect. There are so many other arguments to get away from using fossil fuels that for me the issue of global warming is largely redundant.

    A diverse energy market is a good thing imo.
     

Share This Page