I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:
1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;
2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.
We have a fundraising target of A$30,000 and already we have already raised just over $11,000 from donations. So we need another A$19,000.
The campaign website will be designed to help build a large online community; providing a place for action as well as information. Those who log on will be able to source information quickly as well as find their local MP so they can send him/her a message.
The website will be designed so that more than one campaign can be running at a time – and old campaigns can be archived. The campaign opposing the ETS will be just the first. The Australian Environment Foundation wants to be able to take a stand, and importantly help its members and supporters be heard, when decisions are being made against the weight of evidence.
So far donations have ranged from $25 to $2,000. Please make a contribution.
If you can make a financial contribution, please go to our website and donate through the PayPal facility using your credit card. http://www.aefweb.info/ .
If you prefer to use Internet banking: Australian Environment Foundation, BSB No: 013 308 Account No: 4978 00416.
Alternatively, send a cheque to the Australian Environment Foundation, PO Box 274, Deakin West, ACT 2600.
There is nothing honest or clever about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. It is just another tax and more politics.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
$30k for a website?
The website itself is $10K.
“1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;”
I just spotted a mistake.
SJT, Where is the mistake?
There is no such thing as a global temperature.
Wow…..$10K for a website?!?! Someones doing well out of that.
Where’s the other $20K going?
Nexus,
It will cost money to get a professional site up and run the campaign professinally – even though much of the hard work will be done by the team of volunteers already assembled.
Budgetted costs are as follows:
1. Website design and build $10,000 (We have already given the go ahead for this)
2. Website maintenance $5,000 – including updating the site during the campaign, harvesting and collating of key statistics etcetera
3. Advertising Production $5,000 – creative development
4. Media and Publicity $5,000 – including an initial launch and key media events
5. Office Administration $5,000
I have already made a donation of A$1,000.
The more money we can raise for the campaign no doubt the better and potentially higher profile the campaign – but not necessarily.
“1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;”
But I thought global temperature didn’t exist, and if it does it’s not rising, and if it’s rising that’s good. Help me out here!
“2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas”
Ah yes, because industries that don’t produce much CO2 are especially burdened by a CO2 trading scheme. Wait, WTF?
“3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.”
Like us you mean? Here and now? Well I guess we’d better do something now then! Oh wait, but that will make us… hang on. You’re not making even the least bit of sense, are you?
To summarise:
Richer nations are the only ones who can protect the environment, but doing so will make them poorer, thus unable to do so any more. Therefore no matter how rich you are, you should do nothing and the (in any case non-existent) problem will fix itself, or somehow be fixed by poorer nations. Or something.
Also, an emissions trading scheme will adversely affect those enterprises which do not emit very much, for some reason. Thus forcing them offshore where the rules of competitive advantage are turned upside down. Bizarro-world, perhaps.
Shouldn’t you be spending that $30,000 on saving lives in the third world by ending malaria and giving people fresh water?
Protection against decisions made against the weight of evidence? Who checks the scales? Do I hear who needs scales – this is about beliefs and bucks in the truck. Anyway the 3 ‘statements’ about ETS are all wishful independent outcomes so in true Australian spirit you could treat them all as horses in a race and your donation could be nominated as a bet on just one of them. I hope it is still a tax deduction in that case. This would recognise that the reason why Australians are such great punters is ( pick only one of) they understand risk and believe form matters, or they don’t. (The three possible outcomes being independent could also be seen to be in the spirit of independence of this website). But I have got a problem with the first one – could be a ring in. Some mug punters will think an ETS cant change global temperature because the good citizens of Australians can not reasonably influence anything global (except denying All Blacks a world cup), others more celestially or even worse inclined, will think the first one means that not even the good citizens of the planet have or can influence global temperature. Is that two bob each way or what? Some will even refuse to bet because just how will global temperatures be measured and how do you stop the big punters or the bookies buying off the stewards? The second one about the clean and green going overseas is more straightforward to measure – just check how many clean green donate before they leave compared with dirty non-green industries. As for the last one there is a revised form guide on what makes rich nations poorer and anyway it looks a bit like either chicken and egg or it is putting the cart before the horse.
“There is nothing honest or clever about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. It is just another tax and more politics.”
Jim Hansen agrees:
“Jim Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard space centre and a renowned critic of global measures to combat climate change, believes carbon trading is a “terrible” approach. “Carbon trading does not solve the emission problem at all,” he says. “In fact it gives industries a way to avoid reducing their emissions. The rules are too complex and it creates an entirely new class of lobbyists and fat cats.””
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5257602.ece
I don’t know what alternative Draconian measures he would rather put in place, but this is clear evidence that even the supposed “green” politicians have taken this movement and twisted it to their own benefit.
A straight tax on emissions would be far simpler, and far easier to remove if this AGW windbag deflates in a few years time.
Hello Jennifer,
I’m prepared to make a donation – and I will – $100. Its not much, but you can throw it in the pot. What I would really like to see though, is a national site where people can sign on and register themselves as personally rejecting the entire AGW fraud.
That way, at least in 12 months time when the whole thing is comprehensively debunked as the fraud that it is, we can all know who fought the good fight in rejecting this scientific travesty. [The rest of them we can hunt down. Sorry – just joking.]
Regards
Greg
Much thanks for your donation, Greg.
And we can probably add a page to the new site where individuals can register their opposition. What do you think the words should be?
SJT
Right on about global temperature. Deniers claim there is no global temperature in the 1st place. Notice how Jennifer didn’t respond to you (following her question to you). Sheonly tried to justify costs.
FDB
You have made it easy to understand where Jennifer is coming from.
GregJ says:
“I’m prepared to make a donation – and I will – $100. Its not much, but you can throw it in the pot. What I would really like to see though, is a national site where people can sign on and register themselves as personally rejecting the entire AGW fraud.
That way, at least in 12 months time when the whole thing is comprehensively debunked as the fraud that it is, we can all know who fought the good fight in rejecting this scientific travesty. [The rest of them we can hunt down. Sorry – just joking.]”
I’ll give you 100 to 1. How can we arrange this?
DAvidK,
Given how much I have written on global temps I assumed SJT’s comment was disingenous. As an example, not so long ago I wrote this:
“IT is my prediction that in not so many years time weather station data will be collected more for fun, a sense of history and for site-specific information, than for serious regional and global climate statistics. In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends.”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/temperature-data-from-satellites-inconvenient-but-accurate/
Indeed Bazza has suggested he is bored of me posting that graph of global temps from Roy Spencer’s website.
I’ll make a donation too, if only to help ensure the future of my children to live in a land free of the AGW witch hunt.
The amount of carbon “pollution” that Australia emits in a year is roughly what China produces simply due to NEW expansion of its economy. Thus, if a plague wiped out all 20-something million of us tomorrow morning, the C02 monitor station on Mauna Koa might register a down tick for the month, but not the year. China creates a new Australian CO2 contribution each year.
Australia, if you include the oceanic exclusion zones, absorbs more CO2 than its tiny population produces each year. Can any other nation on the planet claim anything close to having emissions in balance with absorption? Net atmospheric CO2 contribution from Australia is essentially zero.
Myth: That several billion people of China, India, Indonesia, North America and the EU can and need to be led to a moral high ground by the heroic sacrifices of the wee people of Australia. Rudd is even more morally pompous than the last bloke. Someone dropped a white feather at the feet of the Rudd Government and now we are rushing off to the latest war to end all wars, this time against the weather.
Myth: This one isn’t so much a myth as a type of mass socio-pathology: The belief that through taxation, designed to suppress economic growth, a political bureaucracy can mandate the weather, control drought, calm the seas and bring climate towards an optimum stasis. In the entire history of this planet what evidence is there for political authority being able to control anything much more complex than a mob with pitchforks and torches?
Perhaps we should test run our latest bout of global bureaucratic hubris on something simple–like eliminate child malnutrition and starvation on the little continent of Africa before we deed control of the Earth’s climate to the technocrats. Or building a four lane highway between Sydney and Brisbane?
I will most certainly be making a contribution to the The Australian Environment Foundation.
Right now, in fact.
Later, mates.
““IT is my prediction that in not so many years time weather station data will be collected more for fun, a sense of history and for site-specific information, than for serious regional and global climate statistics. In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends.””
It is hard to know exactly what it is you do think.
Could you just state if you think there is a global temperature?
If you do, why would you post topics that deny there is a global temperature? Just to confuse the issue?
SJT,
Whoah Boy, Ah say, Ah Say, to whom are your addressing your post to?
Yourself? Are youall the Elmer Fudd of the climate clowns?
Boys is as much fund as a sack of wet bagels.
Will; how much does Gore donate to real environmental problems such as the 2 you mentioned and many others which Lomborg has listed despite being hailed down by AGW thugs eager to protect their ego/ideology/moola?
“There is nothing honest or clever about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. It is just another tax and more politics.”
But it is “clever” enough to convince a lot of dills that “Kevin is here and he’ll save ya”.
The cheque’s in the mail.
Hi there S.J.Thick: Jen has always decried the concept of a global mean temperature, but when she mentions it in the context of the Rudd-Wong-1/2Garnaut ETS, clearly it is their ludicrous belief in it that she is targetting. For example, if we average the temperatures in Poznan and Darwin today, it is summer in Poznan and winter in Darwin, so may we hope to see our Penny in her swimsuit there as she announces her ETS targets, while Kev Ludd is snapped wearing wetsuits on his next visit to Darwin? It is you, S.J. Thicker, whose whole life is built on global mean temperature. And, S.J. Thickest, when are you going to wake up to the fact that reducing atmospheric CO2 will create global famine, or is that what you want, like Jim Jones of Jonestown, probably your favourite pin-up? Sorry to be rude, SJT, but while you hide behind your anonymity to be abusive to the rest of us, I am sure you will not mind.
Be as rude as you like. I tried being civil here, but quickly realised what the tone of the place was. When in Rome.
It is confusing though. How can one constantly refer to every wiggle of something one doesn’t believe in. As someone once said, reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. A global temperature is a construct of our making, but a very useful one, if defined well.
As for cohenite, Eli has the measure of his piety. The planned malaria and water expenditure would be something like 50 billion. It’s a pitiful false dichotomy, especially in the light of the trillions that have magically appeared around the world to save the banks and economies.
Exhibit A, Louis.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/clarifying-the-role-of-the-sun-and-global-temperature-trends/?cp=11#comments
There it is, right before your eyes.
SJT “I just spotted a mistake”.
were you shaving at the time?
FDB “But I thought global temperature didn’t exist,…”
FDB…you really must pay closer attention. 🙂 There is a global ‘average’ temperature, not a global temperature. The question being raised is what does average mean?
Common IPCC logic informs us that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 C in a century. What they didn’t tell us was that parts of the globe cooled in that time, and that other regions, like the United States, went through uncommonly warm ‘average’ temperatures between 1920 and 1940. They also haven’t explained, for example, why the US and the Arctic went through an uncommonly warm (from a modern perspective) year in 1920 yet the rest of the globe remained cool.
Then again, the IPCC did not explain (completely overlooked) good research done by creditable professionals that showed CO2 levels have been as high, or higher, than at present since the Industrial era. I’m afraid you’ve falled prey to rhetoric and propaganda.
Joel “A straight tax on emissions would be far simpler, and far easier to remove if this AGW windbag deflates in a few years time”.
Taxes are punitive. The sole purpose of them is to punish people for driving and heating their homes. It would be one thing if alternative fuels were available but they are not. Without fossil fuels, we’d be absolutely screwed at this time. In light of that, a tax is calling you a bad person for daring to survive. In fact, it’s akin to a religious sin tax.
In a recent election campaign here in Canada, the Liberals tried to introduce a form of taxation they claimed was neutral. We told them where to stuff it, at the ballot box.
cohenite “how much does Gore donate to real environmental problems…”
I don’t know about donations but he sure has a good carbon emissions scam going. He buys carbon credits from his own company.
That’s all this carbon trading is…a scam. It’s a loophole to let the big polluters off the hook and for politicians to reveal their stupidity and corruption. When they run us all off the road by taxing gasoline to the hilt, the wealthy will still be driving.
Ermmm……. Jennifer…. Uhmm.
You say in the title to this that an ETS for Australia is a tax – ‘Another tax and more politics’.
Why is an ETS a tax? Permits for CO2e emissions are auctioned aren’t they? Isn’t this the same as, say, selling e.g spectrum and a way of dealing with the so called, ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (unless our friends from special interest groups get their paws on free permits)?
And what about the reasons for having this internet campaign that you list:
i.e. ‘1. An ETS will not change the global temperature’
I have never heard that any of the various bodies setting up and administring the various ETS’s around the world claiming that an ETS in various forms will lower temperatures, e.g New Zealand’s, The North American RGGI, Europe’s and our own little proposed scheme etc. Isn’t the idea to reduce CO2e emissions?
Do you have any evidence for this claim from the various ETS bodies or else who is saying it and why? Or is this statement just a false negative?
‘2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas….’
What clean and green industries – what do you mean by ‘clean and green’? I see in the media now and again a number of groups threatening to take their industries overseas when faced with externalities arising from their activities (surely our marvelous AFP should act on such threatening words rather than going after doctors on the Gold Coast who speak with funny accents).
Let me offer up some suggestions as to why industries may not act on such threats (and I am happy for people to tear these apart on evidence based grounds as I am not giving much evidence).
i. They are are on too good a wicket in Australia from subsidies us tax payers pony over to them (Kim Beasley Senior’s truism comes to mind) and they may not get such nice tax payer lolly in other countries
ii. Their thinking about other countries being welcoming and offering more conducive environments could be based on ignorance and a patronising attitude about so called third world countries (what I call Australian Exceptionalism. ‘What moi! but I’m from Australia the centre of the universe’) and that instead maybe the following conditions may apply:
– Operating standards may be higher in so called third world countries than in Australia
– Other countries may quite likely resent being regarded as inferior in dealing with externalities and quite rightly give em short shrift
– Other countries just may do such industry better than us, in any case, and on their home turf blow our brave business boys and girls out of the water
– It will cost a lot to shift and during that process they will lose any competitive advantage and if they say they are going to go then the cosy atmosphere here may suddenly change
– They might not like living with people with funny accents
– If they do go then if at a later stage they want to reestablish themselves back in Australia they may have found things have changed and that other, smarter people have capitalised on such changes that they will not have the means to re-enter.
(Now I am making a few assumptions with the above and so am happy for those to be be shot down but when I hear about such threats my response is to want to offer to drive them to the airport)
As to your point no three.
‘3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment’
i. Despite the propaganda might such industries form only an insignificant part of our GDP?
ii. As an engineer this sort of statement above has always seemed to me to be, at best, inductive reasoning (dodgy stuff you would have to admit) but mostly more like superstition. I have never believed this idea as no one has ever given me a good argument for it or good evidence. Protecting the environment is about choices not the abstract concept of wealth. Rather its a straight statement of faith. You could come up with lots of examples from history that contradict it.
Anyway my own opinion is that we are relying too much on the idea that an ETS will reduce CO2e emissions especially if we give into special interests.
OOPS,
Angela Merkel turns her back on green dream of EU, the German premier will insist carbon offsets are FREE until 2020 to safeguard German industry, UK Times 11th Dec 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5321469.ece
“Then again, the IPCC did not explain (completely overlooked) good research done by creditable professionals that showed CO2 levels have been as high, or higher, than at present since the Industrial era. I’m afraid you’ve falled prey to rhetoric and propaganda.”
If you are referring to Beck, even McIntyre doesn’t want to know him.
Surely this is all too late Krudd sees we must make a futile gesture and put it in his election platform. The electorate voted for it by electing the Labor government. The electorate has to experience the fact that the ETS will be designed to reduce the use of energy by raising its cost. So I hope it comes and is extreme as only by a shock will these delusions be questioned. The opposition should see it as an opportunity but they don’t.
“I have never heard that any of the various bodies setting up…the various ETS’s..claiming that an ETS in various forms will lower temperatures. Isn’t the idea to reduce CO2e emissions?Do you have any evidence for this claim…Or is this statement just a false negative.”
Either you’re a really daft engineer just released from 3 years of solitary confinement or disingenuous or both. I suspect both. What’s the point of lowering levels of atmospheric CO2 if its not an attempt to direct climate towards cooling? (Not that it’s remotely possible that ETS taxation can even slow the growth in global CO2 emission, but that’s a another issue.)
The only point of loading a new tax for carbon “pollution” upon our economy is a faith that through legislation Canberra can manipulate the Earth’s climate to avoid the false prophecy of a impending climate apocalypse.
Quite clever, if you thinking about it, since to avoid what’s not going to happen anyway is well within the capacity of our government’s competency.
Jeremy; an ETS can be either a cap & trade or a straight tax on emissions; the C&T is the more restrictive since it replaces the market place completely by setting a limit/cap; the trade which occurs in that framework is highly artificial and will be an immense revenue earner for the gov’t (and certain middle-men spivs), at least theoretically until they wake up that industry has departed because the gov’t has offered compensation for CO2 reduction and the biggest reduction is always going to be stopping altogether; this is already occuring with farmland being designated sinks and farming activity being banned on it; although in that case there is no compensation; people will pay in either/or direct tax increases to cover more expensive but dwindling services, or to prop up ever increasing deficits due to an expanding bureaucracy to adminster the tax and a rapidly reducing tax revenue stream.
OT Gordon; some time ago you did some calculations about FIG 7.3, p515 of AR4; the FIG shows CO2 fluxes; there is a red arrow for fossil fuel emissions and a value of 6.4; in your post here on August 27, 2008 at 03.37 PM you note that the otal of all the red arrows is 218.2, presumably for total flux, giving a 6.4/218.2 ratio of 2.93% which is close to Spencer’s 3% and DOE’s same figure for the amount of ACO2; could you drop me a line or converse here about how you got that 218.2 total? Thanks. Barry Moore did something similar.
So, no response to my pointing out the glaring logical inconsistencies in your “position” Jen?
Anyone?
*crickets*
Gordon – “Taxes are punitive. The sole purpose of them is to punish people for driving and heating their homes. It would be one thing if alternative fuels were available but they are not. Without fossil fuels, we’d be absolutely screwed at this time. In light of that, a tax is calling you a bad person for daring to survive. In fact, it’s akin to a religious sin tax.”
I agree entirely.
Which is why I prefer transparent taxes to cap and trade. Average Joe on the street wouldn’t stand for it.
Cap and trade will still punish people for driving and heating, but in a less obvious way. (i.e. We know the exact value of the excise tax on petrol, but if a fuel company has to buy permits for CO2, what percentage of the bowser price will be permits and which part profits?)
FDB,
Sorry for not getting back to you quickly… I have been sleeping, eating, and chatting with my 19-year old daughter.
And I think Gordon has now more-or-less answered your question?
Cheers,
FDB,
“But I thought global temperature didn’t exist, and if it does it’s not rising, and if it’s rising that’s good. Help me out here!”
This needs a response? Pfft. Gordon answered that fine.
“Ah yes, because industries that don’t produce much CO2 are especially burdened by a CO2 trading scheme. Wait, WTF?”
Green doesn’t necessarily mean “doesn’t produce CO2”. We have many green industries in manufacturing, processing, and energy production compared to their Indian and Chinese counterparts. (i.e. more energy efficient, fewer environmental pollutants, less smog).
“Like us you mean? Here and now? Well I guess we’d better do something now then! Oh wait, but that will make us… hang on. You’re not making even the least bit of sense, are you?”
This is an articulated argument? The fact is richer nations do take better care of their environment in regards to air quality, water quality, land management, wildlife preservation, etc, etc. If you would like to argue against this point then go for it.
You’re not even remotely trying to understand Jennifer’s arguments. In essence, Australia trying to be “green” by introduing an ETS, will effectively make us poorer and less able to deal with real green issues that Jennifer campaigns for.
Will; what in blazes do you mean by “eli has the measure of my piety”; piety?
Louis; I note Deltoid has given you pride of place on a new thread; as Haughty Houghton says, don’t give them traffic, discuss it here.
“The only point of loading a new tax for carbon “pollution” upon our economy is a faith that through legislation Canberra can manipulate the Earth’s climate to avoid the false prophecy of a impending climate apocalypse.”
We are already ‘manipulating’ the earths climate, due to the law of unintended consequences. This is just an attempt to stop that ‘manipulation’.
Wes,
I’m sure I’m a daft engineer as you say but I was trying to point out its a bit of a throw to state an ETS will lower temps or as FDB rightly says inconsistent especially if you are coming from a denialist stance. To be blunt people might question the motives behind such a statement. I haven’t seen a statement saying ‘ETS will lower temperatures’, there could be one but if there is then again its another thing where AGW supporters and denialists will be on the same side of the fence.
On emissions reduction, there are plenty of arguments about whether an ETS will do such a thing effectively or not or when compared with Complementary Measures. The trading scheme in North America for Sulphur and NOX emissions from power stations has apparently worked well (instituted during the Bush senior administration) but its amongst a limited group and a national emissions trading scheme is more complex so Jennifer will have to demonstrate first of all that Australia’s ETS will not work before she makes any sort of declaration. If from the start lots of vested interests are given free permits then its likely not to work. Remember that in Europe they gave lots of free permits and the companies went out and made lots of lovely free money from passing on the supposed permits costs to their customers.
Cohenite,
Umm….. a tax is not cap and trade and vice versa. Why you ask. Well you can’t trade a tax but I’m sure the ATO will be interested if you try. If you go and look at the Playschool episode on Emissions Trading Mr Bear buys permits from Russell the Peacock so that Mr Bear can keep on breaking wind having used up all his permits after a Friday night curry (and he paid GST on his curry but he couldn’t trade it away). But you are right an ETS a completely artifical free market something those religious folks at the Productivity Commission don’t seem to have got their heads collective around.
Sorry to make sense the last sentence should’ve read…
But you are right an ETS IS a completely artifical market something those religious folks at the Productivity Commission don’t seem to have got their heads collective around.
Just to re-state my summary of the apparent arguments in the post:
“Richer nations are the only ones who can protect the environment, but doing so will make them poorer, thus unable to do so any more. Therefore no matter how rich you are, you should do nothing and the (in any case non-existent) problem will fix itself, or somehow be fixed by poorer nations. Or something.
Also, an emissions trading scheme will adversely affect those enterprises which do not emit very much, for some reason. Thus forcing them offshore where the rules of competitive advantage are turned upside down. Bizarro-world, perhaps.”
Apologies for the slightly snarky tone, but the above is what’s been said as I see it. Does it make sense to anyone? What are the premises? Are they justified? On what basis does the reasoning proceed from the premises? What is the conclusion?
These are basic structural problems that must be addressed for any argument to be given the time of day.
GregJ: That way, at least in 12 months time when the whole thing is comprehensively debunked as the fraud that it is, we can all know who fought the good fight in rejecting this scientific travesty. [The rest of them we can hunt down. Sorry – just joking.]”
DavidK: I’ll give you 100 to 1. How can we arrange this?
Greg, Dont take that bet. these people wil never pay up. They have spun this thing out without evidence for a decade so what’s another year to fiddle the numbers?
SJT: What was your pledge? You’re obviously eager to contribute. Just think, as a paid up member, you could attend the AGM and call points of order every two minutes and disrupt and filibuster to your heart’s content. Come to think of it, that would be the same modus operandi as you adopt on this blog. So come on, dig deep.
“Greg, Dont take that bet. these people wil never pay up.”
Ah, the mating call of the loser.
FDB, you must have missed my response.
Basically the flaw in your argument is that you equate “green” with “low CO2 emissions”. If one doesn’t believe in AGW, then these things can be separate.
The green Jennifer is talking about is all the environmental things rich countries do that ISN’T CO2 related.
SJT “If you are referring to Beck, even McIntyre doesn’t want to know him”.
I don’t quite recall McIntyre putting that way. I think he said something more to the effect that CO2 densities were not in his field and he didn’t want to get into discussing stuff like that.
Someone on climateaudit actually knew Beck and pointed out that Beck was only trying to collate existing information. It’s not Beck’s fault that Nobelists did work that refuted IPCC claims.
Gordon,
Beck actually collated the data which Keeling and others rejected for various reasons. Pseudoscience always rejects inconvenient data. Actually I published Beck’s first paper on this in the AIG News a couple of years back.
As for SJT’s slur on Beck, your recollection about Steve McIntyre’s attitude was correct – SJT simply does not understand what McIntyre is doing. Statistical analysis of proxy data is slightly different to statistical analysis of CO2 measurements but when you are part of the climate change circus, it’s necessary to play the clown and show all how really little you know about science.
cohenite “could you drop me a line or converse here about how you got that 218.2 total”
I just added all the up arrows for emissions and all the down arrows for absorption. I am refering only to the up and downs between land/ocean and atmosphere, not the arrows under the ocean surface.
On the AR4 drawing, from left to right, you have 119.6 + 1.6 + 70.6 + 20.0 +6.4 = 218.2.
Actually, I messed up by not including the 1.6 from land use change as anthropogenic. So, the total anthropogenic should be 6.4 + 1.6 = 8.0, giving 8.0/218.2 = 3.67% anthropogenic. I’ll get back to that in a minute.
They have differentiated pre-industrial natural emissions as the black arrows and anthropogenic as the red arrows. That’s a load of crap, however, since the graph is for the 1990’s. How could pre-Industrial emissions be happening in the 1990’s? Besides, the only real anthropogenic emissions are from fossil fuels and land use (like farming), so where do they get an anthropogenic value of 20 from the oceans?
The other source is table 3, page 26 from the Department of Energy at this address:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf
Note that the human made CO2 is 23,100 and the natural is 770,000 and 23,100/770,000 = 0.03 = 3%. The explanation below the table tells you the figures in the table come from TAR.
Also, if you take the absorption = 781,400 and divide that by the total CO2 = 793,100, you get 781,400/793,100 = 0.985 = 98.5% reabsorption. Compare that to the AR4 graph, which BTW is for the 1990’s as well, and you get a total absorption of 0.2 + 120.0 + 2.6 + 70.0 = 215. And 215/218.2 = 0.985 = 98.5% reabsorption.
So, both emissions are in the 3% range while both absorptions are 98.5%.
As if that’s not confusing enough, here’s another DOE source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
See Figure 2. Global Carbon Cycle (Billion Metric Tons Carbon)
Note the source at the bottom of the graph pointing to our good old Figure 7.3 in AR4. Instead of all the confusing arrows, the good old DOE has broken it down for us into one-line arrows that don’t quite agree with the IPCC but are right in the ballpark.
So, absorptions = 119.6 + 1.6 + 90.6 + 7.2 = 219.0 and the anthropogenic portion is (1.6 + 7.2)/219.0 = 8.8/219 = 4.01%. I don’t know why they use 7.2 for fossil fuels while the IPCC uses 6.4.
reabsorption = 120.2 + 92.2 = 212.4/219 = 96.9%
The significant thing to me is that the last DOE graph lists only two sources of anthropogenic CO2 as being from fossil fuels and land usage. The IPCC has really confused the issue by introducing that red emission arrow in the oceans. Whereas the DOE has lumped it as 70.6 + 20.0 = 96.6, the IPCC, for some reason, insists there is an anthropogenic source in the ocean.
It seems to me the IPCC is doing everything in its power to create a case for anthropogenic warming. On the previous page to their AR4 graph (p. 514), they make this statement: “Although the anthropogenic fluxes of CO2 between the atmosphere and both the land and ocean are just a few percent of the gross natural fluxes, they have resulted in measurable changes in the carbon content of the reservoirs since pre-industrial times as shown in red”.
They admit the anthropogenic CO2 is just a few percent of the gross natural fluxes, yet they muddy the issue by throwing in a value from the oceans that isn’t anthropogenic. Right after that statement, they claim, “These perturbations to the natural carbon cycle are the dominant driver of climate change because of their persistent effect on the atmosphere”. That statement is simply not true. Water vapour is by far the dominant driver of climate change, if there is any, yet it hardly gets mentioned in the AR4 report.
The IPCC has a fetish about CO2. You have to be very careful when you read their reports. They are talking carbon cycles and making claims within that context which they infer to the atmosphere in general. It’s too obvious to be unintentional. I think they are obfuscating the dominant effect water vapour has on the climate and warming and misleading readers into thinking CO2 is a major driver.
sorry…I should have included the source of the IPCC graph for anyone trying to follow along. It was listed in cohenite’s post to which I am replying. The IPCC graph is in Chapter 7 of AR4 WG1 at page 515. Here’s the link to Chapter 7:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf
takes a minute to download.
Joel:
“The green Jennifer is talking about is all the environmental things rich countries do that ISN’T CO2 related.”
Okay, that addresses one of my points. So what Jen is arguing for is a similar penalty/permit scheme for other kinds of pollution or environmentally damaging activity? Sounds great to me!
Wait, that’s not it at all. She’s arguing for nothing. She’s against the scheme because it will apparently (it isn’t explained how or why) force these high-CO2 but otherwise wonderfully green businesses overseas. Can she, you or anyone else name a single business that would fall in this category?
I take it nobody wants to touch the other part of what I said. The bit where it’s the rich countries (like us) who should do something, but doing something will make them poor, so they shouldn’t do anything; so they can stay rich and be in a position to do something, except if they do they’ll become poor, so they shouldn’t do anything…
FDB,
I don’t actually agree with many of your assumptions – including that we are particularly rich or developed relative to countries like Indonesia or China.
Consider Indonesia, with a population of just over 200 million, its middle class is arguably richer, more sophisiticated, and considerably larger, than the entire population of Australia.
The name is a bit strange fighting the radical greens with an inviro name is confusing and will be as you will find ,those who oppose this scam for taxes will hardly be falling over themselves to get to an inviro company ,your agenda is good but i also find that confusing too ,its a bit like saying i want you to quit smoking and my name is philip morris ,This is really about people that are fudging the data in order to make money ,lots of money ,there is collusion with news an tv stations leaving data out and not telling the true facts including that it is impossible for any model to predict anything in 100yrs let alone the weather ,clean and green going overseas ,i dont get that at all ,its about time someone questioned the non facts with facts but im not so sure you have the right approach ,sorry if i offended you but i just tell it like it is .
Great idea Jennifer.
Donation made.
This is badly needed. These AGW clowns are giving science a bad name.
Thanks Gordon.
Jennifer, most people are brainwashed and do not understand the POLITICS OF MORE TAXES, regarding climate change. Have a look at at what is happening in Poznan kiddies
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Jennifer, having said that, the $30K for the website is very expensive. I am sure a website could have been put up for next to nix and maintained for next to nix
We are in the BIGGEST financial crisis of global proportions and all governments are all looking at getting more of your tax dollars (the ones that will still have a job in the next few years) to support their BIG FAT Bureaucracy through people’s fears!
To all the people here who are rubbishing Jennifer, people who believe in man made climate change do some research and actually look up Climate Change Scams? Look them up.
Keep an open mind and do your own research, don’t just blindly follow like sheep. Look at the many sites that say it (Global Climate Change due to Man) is a scam and then research to disprove them, if you are so smart!
The evidence is starting to turn AGAINST man made climate change. Check it out. You are being conned. Governments are looking to SCARE YOU, and they will not only TAX you for that priviledge, but, reduce you freedoms as well!
AL Gore has made millions and is still jetting around the world (don’t you find that a teeny weeny bit disconcerting?) to warn of the perils of man made climate change!!!
Kevin Reign (Rudd) signed Kyoto and has been THE MOST TRAVELLED PM in Australian history in his first year! (don’t you find that a teeny weeny bit disconcerting?) Don’t you find that hypocritical?
Wake up! I have children who I love more than life itself, I would not risk them. I have researched and researched and I smell a RAT!
The old saying, Follow the Money. For that matter, have you ever known a government to work efficiently with YOUR MONEY?
We are more in danger of man made pollution of our water and our soil and you can do your bit!!! Recycle, PROPERLY. Get a composite bin. Flatten paper and recycle, don’t buy things made out of plastic, try to buy glass products, and for gods sake, turn off the light when you are not in the room!
AND lobby the government to fine the polluters, BIG BUCKS. I am talking MILLIONS. That will certainly make them clean up their act FAST. (ps just a little hint, governments won’t go hard on BIG POLLUTERS because they donate BIG BUCKS) Corruption!
We can’t save the world, and if you really want to and are passionate about it, like SJT “Shouldn’t you be spending that $30,000 on saving lives in the third world by ending malaria and giving people fresh water?” go to the 3rd world and educate them!
Dont believe everything you are fed. You are the luckiest generation as far as information is concerned and you are too busy believing tv and the newspapers. THey Lie! They have agendas!
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, WITHOUT WHINGEING ABOUT WHOSE FAULT IT IS! (ok I stole that one from JFK, except for the whingeing bit, true Assie there :))
Form your OWN opinions, not those that are fed to you by people with agendas!
Please see here the ULTIMATE INSANITY of the ETS. (TAX)
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/protesting_against_gassy_greens/#commentsmore
‘Consider Indonesia, with a population of just over 200 million, its middle class is arguably richer, more sophisticated, and considerably larger, than the entire population of Australia’
If this is accurate then perhaps they will turn up their noses at Australian businesses wanting to relocate and who can blame them.
But Jennifer I don’t feel you have answered FDB and my questions, or given evidence, on why an ETS won’t work e.g. why its going to force industries off shore (and if it does will that matter as us tax payers might save some money) and finally the idea that only rich countries can choose to look after the environment etc.
I haven’t seen on this set of postings much evidence that people actually have an understanding of the aspects that make up the design of an ETS. I am skeptical about the worth of an ETS but thats because there are many things that can dilute its design e.g. handing out free permits or mis connecting the number of permits with the amount of emissions across a period of time. Thats why I think you can’t just have an ETS or run it in isolation from Complementary Measures (howls of protest from the religious fundamentalists at the Productivity Commission). One of the problems wrt to an ETS in Australia has been that lots of people have thought its is a silver bullet and its not, even Garnaut and Stern state separately that its not.
So what would you say on your proposed website that hasn’t already been said as per the above and as people become more realistic about Emissions Trading as they come to understand it then what purpose will your website serve?
I wonder how much the Internet Campaign site http://www.getup.org.au cost to set up. And I wonder how much it costs to run.
They raised A$30,000 in just one day not so long ago –
“Political activists GetUp have raised over $30,000 in less than a day to support their fight against the Government’s plan to censor the internet, a response the group has described as “unprecedented”.
The money will be put towards an advertising blitz designed to inform the public of the consequences of the plan, which experts say include slower internet speeds, significant false positives, failure to stop people from subverting the filters and the risk that the blacklist will be expanded to include the blocking of regular pornography, political views, gambling and pro-abortion sites.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/cash-floods-in-for-anticensorship-protests/2008/12/05/1228257282965.html
I am interested but why is Rudd’s photo here?
Jeremy C.
Why would you expect an ETS to work? There is no real market for carbon!
Paul Howes had a good piece in The Australian yesterday:
“THE hypocrisy of big banks such as Westpac and National Australia Bank that signed up to a corporate communique on climate change calling for aggressive unilateral targets needs to be exposed.
“Having participated in what can be described only as a global stuff-up of our financial system, they now are trying to tell Australian corporations that operate in the real economy, and generate real wealth and real jobs, how to behave on climate change.
“It’s time their dishonest motivation was exposed. Now that the huge profits made out of shoring up risky mortgage markets and fancy financial products have unwound – devastating the lives of countless millions of ordinary citizens – the banks are looking to create a new source of revenue from carbon-trading markets.
“I wonder how responsive they will be, safely wrapped in the cocoon of a government guarantee, when Australia’s coal-fired power generators come knocking on the door for debt refinancing to help them cope with the new carbon-trading world.
“The ANZ bank already has announced hundreds of job cuts, said to be more than 2per cent of its workforce. Employees at Westpac and elsewhere are steeling themselves for cuts. These bank workers, and the families they support, are the ones who will pay for the irresponsible management of financial regulation and poor loan practices of the past several years.
“Now the same people responsible for that debacle want to kill jobs in the real economy by calling for action far in excess of what Australia can realistically achieve without a comprehensive global agreement.”
And it’s not going to be my website, and it’s not going to be a blog site. It is will be a dedicated campaign site run by a team of volunteers from the AEF.
Perhaps I have come in late on this. What a bunch of idiot comments. Here is Jennifer trying to dumb down a complex message into a form that most of the populace can understand and what we get is pedantic carping over trivialities.
1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;
Message has been simplified: where the operative word is NOT .
Since many people believe that an ETS WILL change global temperatures.
This is a complex issue for sure but it has been brought down to a single
statement that counters the message being promulgated by the government
and others – that an ETS will change global temperatures.
2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
Message has been simplified: Australia has a relatively controlled manufacturing
and energy producing environment compared to other countries, with high focus
on the reduction of actual pollutants (rather than CO2, which is not a pollutant).
Penalising such high-standard industries based on their “carbon economy” will
give advantage to overseas manufacturing where critical standards (not to
mention labor conditions) are poorer or non-existent.
3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.
Message has been simplified and this is a parallel argument to the second point:
The quality of Australia’s industrial standards is tied to its wealth and living standards.
An ETS is an effective waste of resources (human capital) and thus by definition
(although perhaps not by GDP definition) Australia will (a) be poorer for it and
(b) result in poorer environmental outcomes.
PS The link for the full piece from which I drew the above quote is here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24781908-7583,00.html
And in advance, don’t criticise me for quoting someone from the AWU. I’m an empiricist – from a Labor Party family, who works for a think tank often associated with the Australian Liberals (for US readers Australian liberals represent the conservative side of politics here).
Thanks KJS. Spot on.
Having read the comments here I feel inspired to contribute, regardless of quibbles about cost-effectiveness. The tone of her critics makes me do it.
“Why would you expect an ETS to work? There is no real market for carbon! ”
Ultimately, all markets are an abstraction. Money is only paper, or, even worse, just variations in the magnetic field on a spinning disk in some darkened room somewhere. It works because we want it to work. Just look at the state the markets are in now. Make people question their suspension of disbelief, and chaos results.
Good move Jen and I’m in for $200 initially and more when required – cheques in the media transport system. And why respond to the likes of SJT over the cost of running a site when they are guzzling on the the fat tit of the Department of Climate Change or whatever? Don’t be drawn in (and what has SJT – ‘just variations in the magnetic field on a spinning disk in some darkened room somewhere’ – been smoking tonight anyway?). They have millions of bucks of our money and nothing to do but shout the correct message by blog during their day job, but we have brains on our side. It’s a house of cards so woohoo!
Lazlo
Jennifer,
I am a skeptic on the worth of an ETS, as per my previous posts. You are correct about it being an artificial market for carbon. And don’t forget the scenarios where emissions could increase under an ETS.
Concerning Paul Howes’ article, remember the ETS work was around before the present financial mess up emerged and its a bit rich taking his advantage of the present financial problems to slam dealing with CO2e emissions and I’m not convinced about the poor coal fired generators for two reasons:
i. A while ago I was dealing with a combined electricity network distributor and retailer and on the issue of supply from generators they were completely agnostic. That must be far more scary for the coal fireds than dealing with the banks on Howes’ hypothetical future.
ii. The coal fireds have known for years that emissions reduction is coming yet they have steadfastley refused to rejig their business plans. Sensible and serious efforts at emisioins reduction might show that a centralised baseload system is out of date and inefficient as there are a range of measures that can be combined to present availability and security of electricity supply. The coal fireds could just be left behind and why should I worry if that happens.
This is off the topic but my idea is that Australian industry and business is inefficient because our electricity costs are so low and that increasing costs of supply could
KJS.
Simplicity does not automatically equal accuracy. It requires work and an understanding of the subject to arrive at simplicity. Using ETS = cooling is inaccurate and misleading and why would you want to use something inaccurate and misleading, it will just defeat the purpose of what you are trying to do and you will lose credibility.
I have given a bunch of reasons as to why I think businesses wil not go offshore and no one has answered those yet plus my criticism of the faith statement that only rich countries can afford to look after the environment.
So Jennifer what are going to be your sources of accurate information and evidence that ETS in Australia wont work
Whoops! Let me finish that last sentence…
‘This is off the topic but my idea is that Australian industry and business is inefficient because our electricity costs are so low and that increasing costs of supply could’ just help the economy become more efficient.
Whoops
Yep, no worries Jennifer. I’ll support a website committed to opposing an ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme) or any tax regime designed to declare CO2 as malignant or polluting and attempts to tax the production of it.
It will be modest, but I’ll rattle the tin at my little network of friends and plumb the depths of their pockets, for a bit extra… 😉
…. Oh… and you mob out there reading this who received $1400 bucks from Uncle Kev…. C’mon strip a 140 bucks orf that and send it to Jennifer…. It’s bloody not yours anyway…. Now there’s an Irony…. hehe.
Jennifer,
I applaud your initiative; it is a good start. You and at least 650 scientists are shining the light on why man made global warming does not exist.
I would like to support you with contributions, however, your premise in your request already accepts some of the wacko environmentalist terminology i.e. ‘climate change’. It started out being global warming and it is my belief it must remain with the term ‘global warming’ & we should not allow this term to be softened or smoothed by the left. Especially since evidences are proving that we are now entering a cooling phase. Climate can not be changed, it can not be damaged, destroyed or even created by us and it does not particularly care what type of light bulb one uses.
I shall monitor your progress on the website.
Best of luck
Sunny
Mermaid Waters, QLD
Happy to donate $100 to such a worthy cause. Those posts about the high cost are typical of the theorists who have never run a business and have no idea of costs.
You will cop a lot of flack for your effort Jennifer because the last thing the greenies and their cohorts want is organised opposition to their cause.
By the way when I clicked the button to review my donation details it all went a bit haywire pls confirm you did receive, you have my email.
Jeremy C – “I have given a bunch of reasons as to why I think businesses wil not go offshore and no one has answered those yet…”
All of the reasons you stated were pretty unsupported, as you admitted. The problem with your argument is that many industries (all of the large ones) are already multinational, hence shifting operations is not as difficult as you argue. Alumina is one example. Can you give any evidence that the aluminium industry is lying when they say Australian jobs will be lost? Whole operations may not shutdown, but its relatively easy for Alcoa as an example to shift significant production to China.
Jeremy C – “Using ETS = cooling is inaccurate and misleading and why would you want to use something inaccurate and misleading…”
The public is being bombarded by the Rudd government to reduce “carbon pollution”. You don’t call THAT “misleading”?!? Carbon pollution is supposed to be the route of global warming, hence any rational person joins the dots and thinks ETS = less global warming. I’m happy to argue semantics with you all day, but cooling and less warming are pretty damn similar. From an energy perspective they are the same.
Trying to waylay the obvious is part of the “Green’s” hysterical ranting about a non-existing event..
Global warming is a myth and supported by ignorant, self-appointed so called specialist whose only claim to fame is lying..
Europe is finally waking up to the “Great Global Warming Scam” and so should Australia..
By the way, you voted those clowns into office and now you are going to pay, and pay for a long time to come with no effect except growing poverty..
Well Done..
Call me when Volcanoes stop spewing billions of tons of carbon in the air every year..
“I don’t quite recall McIntyre putting that way. I think he said something more to the effect that CO2 densities were not in his field and he didn’t want to get into discussing stuff like that.
Someone on climateaudit actually knew Beck and pointed out that Beck was only trying to collate existing information. It’s not Beck’s fault that Nobelists did work that refuted IPCC claims.”
You think McIntyre is going to pass up the chance to move on to something new? At the moment, he’s just a one trick pony, and getting to be indistinguishable from a record with a scratch on it.
He won’t touch Beck because he knows becks statistical analysis is a joke. There is nothing wrong with the measurements of local CO2 levels that Beck is using, but they are not well mixed, and just represent local conditions. Hence the need for Mauna Loa to be established, to get the real background CO2 levels. If you think Mauna Loa is wrong, Australia has Cape Grim, and there are other properly set up stations around the world that confirm the Mauna Loa readings.
Jeffery Sachs the economist to the UN Secretary General and believer in AGW is critical of ETS –
“It’s such a mess administratively. It covers only a fraction of what needs to be covered. It’s hard to implement. It’s hard to monitor. It’s not transparent, it’s highly manipulative – which is why the banks love it.
Two points.
Its looks like another derivative for the financial industry to play around with and see how much money they can make before it all goes bust ala Mortgage Backed Securities.
Secondly, I think it is misleading and confusing to call it a tax. In fact I would prefer a straight carbon tax, at least the Government gets the money and it could be used for environmental issues. A carbon tax might even cut back on our insatiable and unsustainable reliance on oil.
Tried to donate by AnyPay, but was told the payee name was too long and the account number has too many digits.
“You and at least 650 scientists are ” that number is a lie.
Beck only has a Diploma, and is a science teacher, for a start.
and Freeman Dyson has only a Masters (or maybe less), and he is (IMHO) the greatest living scientist on the Planet.
SJT, I always considered you a pompous arrogant twit, you have now proved it.
People are judged on their accomplishments, not whether they have a certain piece of paper or not.
and I know some top astrophysicists who have, at some time in their career, taught high school. One in particular produced a thesis that was seminal. He is now back in research.
Next you will be telling me that Flannery is an expert climatologist (ROFL).
Joel,
Apoligies for not replying earlier. However I have a question wrt to your post. Why are you bringing up the aluminium industry? Are you making the assumptions that its one of Jennifer’s ‘clean and green industries’? I haven’t seen a list of the industries or sectors that Jennifer regards as ‘clean and green’ and that they need protecting from an ETS.
And thinking about it if an industry is ‘clean and green’ then why the assumption it needs protecting from an ETS? Surely a contradiction.
But back to the Aluminium Industry. Are you sure it will shift OS under an ETS? Can you tell give me figures that say compare the CO2e emissions from one tonne of Aluminum produced in Australia compared with the equivalent produced in say China or New Zealand. Also what’s the amount subsidy given to the Aluminium industry each year, say per head of employees across the industry?
If the aluminium industry in Australia can produce output with the same carbon foot print as aluminium producers in the third world and other places then as above what has it got to worry about from an ETS….?
‘Beck only has a Diploma, and is a science teacher, for a start.’ And Flannery is a complete fake who is being paraded in the Fairfax/ABC media in Poznan, and who are you SJT? Those who live by the ad hom…
Go for it!
It’s great to see a ‘Green’ group going against the grain.
Co2 is NOT a pollutant folks, so why is the ETS called ‘Carbon pollution reduction scheme’???
It’s a psychological ploy!
Following is a link to a website about The Club of Rome, a premier international think tank, responsible for coming up with the lie about Global Warming and the joke that it is being caused by your average joe. Back in 1992 they publilshed a major report entitled ” The First Global Revolution” . Here is a quote from that report, ” in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill” .
Here is another quote from ” The First Global Revolution”. , ” It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one imagined for this purpose”. The Club of Rome works with the United Nations to develop Policy Guidance Documents, which the U.N. uses in creating its policies and programs.
————————
The whole Gaia worship by radical green groups is nothing but a depopulation agenda at riding the earth of ‘useless eaters’.
Forget the cafe-latte sipping wanna-be environmentalists, all they are worried about is “Their’ environment being impacted by scum like us. Keep the world from breeding useless eaters and away form their cafes.
Another thing.
Where are these Green groups on Aspartame, Fluoride, Melamine, GMO, Cross-species chimeras, Mercury in vaccines??????????????? NOWHERE. They are just controlled opposition.
What about the land seizures by these Enviro-thugs who then don’t care if the land is developed into golf courses?
Jeremy C – “If the aluminium industry in Australia can produce output with the same carbon foot print as aluminium producers in the third world and other places then as above what has it got to worry about from an ETS….?”
Because countries such as China won’t implement an ETS and probably never will! By its very nature processing aluminium is energy intensive, so higher energy prices caused from an ETS will hit it hard.
If you can’t see this then there’s not much point in answering the rest of your post.
“People are judged on their accomplishments, not whether they have a certain piece of paper or not. ”
Morano has made a specific claim. It is false. He didn’t claim “scientists, and others who have shown by their accomplishments…”.
If you are going to judge Beck by his accomplishments, I am afraid you are just making the case even weaker.
Definitions of scientist:
Merriam-Webster – A person learned in science and especially natural science.
Oxford – A person who has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Wikipedia – A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.
SJT, you are the one making false claims with your narrow-minded definition of “scientist”.
Jennefer;
A link for your readers’ education.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
USA environment public works with answers to scientists not doing the goose step.