Spectator Australia Debate on Carbon Tax

POLLS show strong public opposition to the minority government’s policy of increasing the price of energy to combat climate change. Meanwhile, a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions remains elusive. In this environment, is the proposed carbon tax justified?

Join the Spectator Australia debate on Wednesday 3 August at Tattersalls Club, Sydney, between 6 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.

WE need a carbon tax to help combat global warming

FOR the motion:

• John Hewson, chairman of GSA and former federal Liberal leader
• Benjamin McNeil, senior fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales
• Mark Latham, Spectator Australia columnist and former federal Labor leader

AGAINST the motion:

• Lord Nigel Lawson, former British Conservative chancellor and author of An Appeal to Reason
• Ian Plimer, geologist at University of Adelaide and author of Heaven & Earth
• Gary Johns, associate professor at the Australian Catholic University and former federal Labor minister

$50 ticket
$40 for Spectator Australia subscribers

TO BOOK
visit www.stickytickets.com.au/6064

42 Responses to Spectator Australia Debate on Carbon Tax

  1. Ian Thomson July 8, 2011 at 7:02 am #

    Hi,
    Is there any broadcast ? Love to hear it out here in the scrub.

  2. John Sayers July 8, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    Apparently all the normal suspects were invited – i.e Flannery, Garnaut, Hamilton etc were asked to appear – all refused, some angrily.

    Why won’t these people debate their case??

  3. Neville July 8, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    There is zero we can do about the climate even Timmy says so and Garnaut backs him up.

    Just think says Bolt what this is doing for the intellectual culture of Australia. Who knows , but it is the most transperantly obvious CON in the last 100 years .

    I hope there is a direct video link or youtube link after the event.

  4. Geoff Brown July 8, 2011 at 8:41 am #

    John says: “Apparently all the normal suspects were invited – i.e Flannery, Garnaut, Hamilton etc were asked to appear – all refused, some angrily.”

    Not only that, John, the debate was framed in their favour ie They would speak FOR the motion. I believe this was done deliberately.

  5. cohenite July 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    That is pathetic, Hewson, McNeil and Latham; a spiv, urban elite and whatever Mark is I don’t want to upset him.

    You’d get more sense if I debated luke.

  6. el gordo July 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    Just googled Gary Johns and found a formidable intellectual, more than qualified to handle all three opponents on his own.

  7. TonyfromOz July 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    cohenite,
    you vs Luke.
    I’d go a long way to watch that.
    Trouble is I’d be laughing so loud, I’d miss the debate.
    Anyway, mate, fat chance Luke would agree to that.
    You haven’t been, er, ‘peer reviewed’.

    Tony.

  8. John Sayers July 8, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    Hewson’s become a media tart! McNeil is just another academic on the GW gravy train, I bet he claims man produces 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes and the cooling since 1998 is too short a time frame……ho hum….

  9. cohenite July 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Thanks TonyOz; actually I have been peer-reviewed on 3 occasions; luke is yet to present a list of his publications but he has been peer-reviewed, or at least peer-tarred and feathered, during his sojourn at Deltoid.

  10. spangled drongo July 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    “In this environment, is the proposed carbon tax justified?”

    Is it justified in this one, too?

    13 years and counting:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend

  11. spangled drongo July 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    New paper finds temps and precip higher 1,000 yago:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-paper-finds-temperatures-and.html

  12. Louis Hissink July 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

    “cohenite,
    you vs Luke.
    I’d go a long way to watch that.
    Trouble is I’d be laughing so loud, I’d miss the debate.
    Anyway, mate, fat chance Luke would agree to that.
    You haven’t been, er, ‘peer reviewed’.”

    I think he has – Cohenite met Mockton last year, so he has been peer reviewed.

  13. cohenite July 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    Very good Louis; and I met him again this Wednesday at his talk in Newcastle; he gave a dynamic performance and topped it off with a demolition of Adam Spencer next morning before breakfast; LM really knows his stuff.

  14. Luke July 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    Drool very drool.

    Monckers never goes up against anyone serious – except Deltoid who essentially took him out. It would take too long to do a serious debate anyway – hours.

    You guys confuse entertainment with science all the time. Monckton is a show man – the crowd get what they pay for.

    BTW Spencer’s interview was lousy – he should have simply let Monckton talk on some leading questions – when he does it says it all for any intelligent punters out there.

  15. John Sayers July 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    like the avatar change Luke – much more appropriate.

  16. spangled drongo July 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm #

    “like the avatar change Luke – much more appropriate.”

    Yeah John, quaffing CO2.

    Hopefully having a similar, calming, effect to putting your head in a plastic bag.☺

    But are you tax exempt, Luke, or just trying to qualify for a credit?

  17. spangled drongo July 8, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    This carbon tax is the thin end of the wedge which can be used to drive home the 2020 targets.

    We will progressively export our emissions to China like the EU has done and world emissions will increase even faster as we all become poorer and less able to seriously address coming energy problems.

  18. Mack July 8, 2011 at 9:45 pm #

    Luke’s either quaffing CO2 or Koolaid from his mug.
    Considering the fact that the earths surface is covered by 71% ocean and that the oceans temp. is fundamentally what is directly associated with or related to the global climate; Luke believes that some trace invisible gas wafting around in the air above the waves, somehow by means of some “backradiation”, warms the water beneath more than it should be.
    Looooonnnieeee.

  19. Mack July 8, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Your mug’s coloured white. Luke.
    Nice clean white, Very much like the interior of your padded cell.

  20. kuhnkat July 9, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    Luke,

    which one is supposed to be you in the newest thumbnail??

    Yes, Monckton is so terrible virtually none of you lot are willing to stand up and take him down mano a mano in front of an audience!! As far as who won, all I have to do is see how many people DON’T think I am loony for disagreeing with your consensus now!! Been a SEA change Luke!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh Luke, while I have your attention, any comments on the following posts:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/paper-shows-climate-models.html

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-ipcc-has-lost-trust.html

    Sounding pretty shabby Lukie old man.

  21. kuhnkat July 9, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Oh and Lukie,

    y’all always tell us deniers and sceptics that the mistakes and BS don’t affect the basic science. The Forster-Gregory paper was about the basic science and the IPCC had to fraudulently present it to get it to agree with YOUR view!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  22. Mack July 9, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    You’ve changed your avatar again ! Luke,
    Is that Science of Doom having a word in your shell- like ?

  23. Louis Hissink July 9, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    Luke,

    Deltoid didn’t and your side refuses to engage him, so stop writing nonsense here. Perhaps you should visit John Quiggin and ask him to confirm your delusionalism, JQ is an expert on this.

  24. Luke July 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz – more gish galloping by KookyKat

    Monckton should go and give a lecture at CSIRO or BoM. I’m sure they’d enjoy. Meanwhile instead of loitering around RSL clubs scaring pensioners and signing old ladies autograph books (swoon – ooooo he’s utterly soooo wonderful and a Lord too !!) they’re doing what’s called “research” and doing another thing you’re also unfamiliar with called “publishing”. (and that’s not E&E or Quadrant).

    Reality is that you guys well Monckers is simply about vaudeville. Don’t you find that crest on his slides creepy and the SPPI link dodgy – well nuff said eh? Disinformation centrale ! Then he’ll give a little rev for the audience about fighting in wars together and overcoming fascism. Well fuck off – as if some pommy poseur is going to lecture us on this stuff. How sickening.

    Really the science mainstream simply isn’t interested – is a big thing for your little incestuous sceptic clubs replete with secret handshakes (and hairy sweaty palms too) and conspiracy theories but his visit I’m afraid doesn’t rate a mention by anyone serious. Yawn.

  25. debbie July 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    ROFL!
    Luke!
    Who is ‘anyone serious’?

    his visit I’m afraid doesn’t rate a mention by anyone serious.

    Is it these people?

    they’re doing what’s called “research” and doing another thing you’re also unfamiliar with called “publishing”. (and that’s not E&E or Quadrant).

    ROFL…good one!

    So by your own admission the only people who are ‘serious’ or should be taken ‘seriously’ are those who are being paid by ‘the gummit’ to research and publish?
    Nobody else at all has a right to be heard????? Or if they are heard they can’t be taken seriously by the serious people??????

    Seriously?????
    ROFL!
    Seriously…you are too much!

  26. debbie July 9, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/09/3265461.htm?section=justin

    So what are we actually attempting to do here?
    Are we really trying to do something about the weather (oops…sorry…the climate) or are we witnessing a masterful PR stroke at income redistribution via yet another sodding bureacracy?
    My money is on option two.
    I can’t see how this tax will achieve any of their stated climate goals….not one!
    It’s going to end up as part of the global ETS anyway….that’s already starting to unravel in a rather ugly manner. There really isn’t a market value for CO2, it’s only an artificial value decided by some rather dodgy political decisions and will only work if it has the backing of tax payer money.

  27. Mack July 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Monckers might be the only thing between you and this senseless, quixotic, socialist, robin-hood tax Luke.; which, as you correctly point out,after it is passed ,won’t be abolished by Abbott if he takes over . He knows there is too big a % of brainwashed voters out there and besides who wants to suffer the barrage of abuse of being labelled a denier and look like a dummy who dosn’t understand the true “science”.

  28. debbie July 9, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Sorry for 3 posts in a row.
    Catching up on my reading re carbon tax and just spotted this one:

    “In any case, science depends on facts, not credentials. And just a single fact can shoot down a truck load of qualified, published and credentialled scientists. ”

    Aint that the truth!

    Luke, at the end of the day, AGW is a theory and it must be tested against reality before we can accept it as truth.
    Ironically we have a ‘truck load of qualified, published and credentialled scientists’ who have (very sadly) been forced to defend a theory which has not been sufficiently or successfully tested against reality.
    I don’t necessarily blame them for the original blunder but it is becoming painfully obvious that reality is not matching up with the theory.
    I do blame the ‘establishment’ for trying to rework ‘reality’ to match up with the theory! No amount of ‘publishing’ will absolve that sin.
    The science is extremely useful but it MUST be dynamic and adjust to REALITY! If the emerging facts are disproving the theory, then IT IS THE THEORY THAT IS DEFICIENT…..NOT THE EMERGING REAL DATA! You can’t argue with factual real time data no matter how ‘serious’ you are about your ‘research’ and your ‘peer reviwed publishing’.
    Same thing is happening out here in the MDB. The predictive, theoretical models are being updated and are now telling a very different story. At least the ‘establishment’ are slowly but surely starting to listen out here.
    They’re not listening at all when it comes to this CO2 AGW and therefore we have to have a ‘carbon tax’ policy.
    Science should be dynamic and adaptive shouldn’t it? Otherwise it becomes something else entirely doesn’t it?

  29. Mack July 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Oh dear, (thanks Debbie)
    Looks like the independents have fallen in line.
    What now Luke?

  30. Johnathan Wilkes July 9, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Luke

    Thak God you are all right.

    I was worried there for a minute, but no problem, seems, you are back to your old, reliable, abusive self.
    Facts or meaningful content are as foreign to you as ever, well done.

  31. Luke July 9, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    Alas Debs the truth is unpalatable – AGW is real. Carbon tax is too but won’t help.

    Wilkes-machine – yo’all only get content if you deserve it.

    Anyways I’m off to see his Lordship at Noosa – might do some heckling.

  32. cohenite July 9, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    Noosa, eh? There are 2 sessions on the 16th with LM and Bob Carter, both at The J, at Noosa Junction; one at 3pm, the other at 7pm. Luke, let me know which ear you are going to wear your frangipani and I’ll tell security to keep an eye out and let you in.

  33. Jennifer Marohasy July 9, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    Luke, Your setting a good example by attending. Thanks, Jen xo
    PS I’ll let Bob know your coming, do introduce yourself after the event.

  34. Jennifer Marohasy July 9, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    PS Please arrange for Bob and Monckton to give that seminar at CSIRO and B
    BOM. They will be there. Jen xo

  35. Luke July 9, 2011 at 11:09 pm #

    Well Jen I have no special influence. I would have thought the sceptics would have been asking for a match ? Postmodern warfare requires calling in fire close to your own position 🙂

    And its costing me real $ to attend too ! I’d better be really incensed and VERY angry to get my money’s worth. The Brissy Watts show was a limp lettuce and Ove wouldn’t be quiet.

  36. Robert July 10, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    Just watched the press conference because the Sunday Roast was shortened. Those words: “design”, “modelling” “mechanism”…gawd. She didn’t use her fave word, “certainty”, but there were lots of intricate figures with zeros and decimal points concerning things which are certainly going to happen as a result of all the design, modelling and mechanisms.

    A socialist government with a huge electoral war-chest; a cowering and divided business sector; giant corporations given pet-treatment; an opposition pandering to the doctors’ wives with mass tree plantings…

    Let a thousand flowers bloom!

  37. el gordo July 10, 2011 at 1:17 pm #

    Comrade Luke, I expect nothing less than a full report in your usual colorful style and your excellent observation of humanity.

    Shake hands with Bob Carter and tell your grand kids, this fellow is a Postmodern warrior.

  38. debbie July 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm #

    Alas Luke, the truth is unpalatable- AGW is a developing theory!
    Unfortunately your fatalistic attitude about Carbon tax is real. It certainly won’t help anything, that’s for sure.
    No one with any sense would try to argue that human activity does not influence weather patterns and the environment. That part of AGW has some tenuous basis in reality. BUT…and it’s a big BUT…the remainder is purely speculation and theory and we will not know if it is real or not until the projective theories are updated with real time data.
    I would argue from a historical and scientific perspective, that in the big picture and on the positive/negative ledger Australians have generally influenced their environment and their local weather more on the positive side. That doesn’t mean we’re perfect, we’re far from perfect. We’re not too bad at fixing up mistakes when we’re given the opportunity however.
    AGW and it’s supporters are claiming that human activity is the over riding factor and that humans can control the weather by changing their behaviour via CO2 emissions. They also rely heavily on scaring people and claiming that our behaviour has been largely negative, destructive and detrimental. It also uses highly complex projective modelling to try and predict climate many decades ahead and claim that they are “REAL” also.
    That’s why it’s not REAL Luke. It’s just a theory.
    Forgive me my homespun wisdom but….
    My definition of real is quite simple…..
    If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck and walks like a duck, I’m reasonably confident that it is a duck.
    You might want to change the terminology and call it le canard or even give it a scientific name and a species number…but at the end of the day…..no matter how clever you are with terminology….it’s still probably a duck! That’s after all only a label for the ‘concept ‘ of a duck.
    AGW theory definitely quacks like a duck, but it looks like a goose at the moment (and the gummint are still trying to tease out that golden egg) and it is definitely walking like a chicken…a big yellow livered chicken that scratches out incomprehensible terminolgy in an attempt to appear superior and knowledgeable.
    Alas Luke, while maybe having some links to reality….AGW IS DEFINITELY A THEORY!
    Like all theories, it MUST stand up to the test of real time data….or as Jen puts it, evidence and facts.
    To argue otherwise would be just as silly as arguing that humans don’t affect weather and environment at all.

  39. cohenite July 10, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    With brown’s carbon tax now unveiled by his sock-puppet perhaps people would care to vote in this poll:

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/cast-your-vote-in-national-plebiscite-on-carbon-tax-hosted-by-news-ltd-websites/story-e6freooo-1226091387866

  40. el gordo July 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Joolya uses Sceptical Science as a primary reference.

    http://www.carbontax.net.au/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

    Surely this can be discredited?

  41. el gordo July 17, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    Scafetta and West (2007) say NH temperature reconstructions show that approximately 50% of the ob-
    served global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.

    Now all we have to do is prove the other half has nothing to do with AGW.

  42. Mack July 19, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Probably easily discredited EG but you reach a stage when you just can’t be stuffed.
    In any case Joolya will only find another hockey-stick to clout your head with.
    Like any salesman or politician she knows that the sun is the big elephant in the room in her “science” so she tries to blind you with bs about the elephant to make it go away or maybe seem less obvious.

Website by 46digital