Hockey Urges For Repeal As Inflation Rises

The plan to repeal the carbon tax by the federal government has so far been a sticky process with the first legislative package rejected by the senate. Because the Labor party and the Greens are still against the bills, there is little to no chance of the federal government getting the bill passed until the seats of the senate change hands on the 1st of July.

In a move to further slow proceedings, the opposition and Greens chose to debate each piece of the legislative package as separate entities. This has angered the treasurer Joe Hockey, who has blamed the former Labor government’s carbon tax for the recent rise in the inflation rate. The consumer price index rose 0.8 per cent in the December quarter pushing the inflation rate to 2.7 per cent from 2.2 per cent in the previous period. This is the highest rate of inflation in two years.

“The inflation rate continues to be impacted by Labor’s carbon tax,” said Mr Hockey on Wednesday. He went on to say that “Labor senators should stop standing in the way of cost-of-living relief for Australian families and vote to repeal the carbon tax when parliament resumes.”

The repeal of the tax cannot come soon enough for some local business owners. Rod Bishop from Snowcentral in Brisbane’s North said he may no longer be able to afford to tune snowboards in his business’ state of the art Wintersteiger Tunejet machine due to rising energy costs believed to be associated with the tax.

And it appears he is not alone. A spokesperson from Ray White Project Marketing Queensland recently commented at a community meeting in Brisbane’s East on the potential negative influence the tax is having on consumer spending. “People are more conscious with their money” she said. Implying that their money is not going as far as it once did taking into account rising living costs. “This has also led to buyers losing confidence in their ability to repay loans on new apartments. We used to receive a steady influx of purchases off the plan; but this rise in inflation as definitely minimized this.”

The federal government has put forward numbers stating that the repeal of the tax would save Australian families and businesses an average of $550 next financial year. However, some of the Labor senators believe that it will cost the Australian taxpayer more to shut down the $10 Billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

Michel Mann’s Nobel Hockey Stick

Mark Stein has been having some sport with Dr Michael Mann’s attempt to pass himself off as a “Nobel prize recipient“, notwithstanding that the Nobel committee says he isn’t. But Mark Steyn may not be aware of the new Nobel ring modelling that Michel Mann has developed over at the Penn and is about to be published in Nature. Based on carefully picked northern Norwegian tree ring chronologies and some extremely complex and secret mathematical computer models way beyond your puny mind’s comprehension, it turns out that Michael Mann indeed did receive the Nobel Prize in 2000. As the graph below clearly shows, the certainty is 0.95, which to us scientists in the know, means there is only 0.05 chance that it did not happen and thus we call it a highly probably event.  The Nobel committee which ignores this science and claims Michael Mann did not receive a Nobel Prize are clearly nothing but Nobel Deniers.

The Political History of GW Madness

From Dallingpole’s Post Nicholas Stern – the most dangerous man you’ve never heard of 

Commented AlecM makes a nice summary of the political history of global warming madness.


The organisation chart of ‘environmentalism’ is complex.  The core are long term entryists like Hansen, who has called for a Chinese Communist style government in the USA, and the late Schneider. The latter had been part of the group which had got funding from predicting a new ice age.

In 1975, the ‘Endangered Atmosphere Conference’ was organised by Club of Rome Erlich and Eugenicist Margaret Meade and they decided to use CO2 as the justification for population reduction.

A parallel scare was the ozone hole, now known to be a natural phenomenon. Devoutly religious Houghton co-founder of the IPCC,  published his book on Atmospheric Physics in 1986: it has two errors which apparently led to the false assumptions in the climate models.

In 1992, the UN adopted Agenda 21, the sustainability model for the 21st Century but really a blueprint to use the CO2-threat to impose Marxist totalitarianism on the West. Associated with the eugenicists are Porrit and Prince Charles. The former apparently set out to indoctrinate Oxford students, e.g. Davey.

With the collapse of the USSR, the Marxists set out to infiltrate WWF, Greenpeace, FoE, Christian Aid, Oxfam etc.  In 1993, Will Happer, Director of Research for the US DoE resigned because he was told by Gore to falsify the IR science.

In 1997, the proof that CO2 followed the warming at the end of ice ages led to the fake Mann Hockey-stick and in 2001, the third IPCC assessment report had this as the highlight. It was organised at a meeting with CRU people in  Tanzania in 1999.

In 2004, NASA switched the partially correct aerosol optical physics of Twomey with an incorrect claim that small cloud droplets reflect more sunlight because of higher surface area. This fake physics allowed the fourth IPCC assessment report to claim AGW was hidden by polluted cloud cooling.

At about this time the renewed SWP organised with Trotskites at the Guardian and the emerging 10.10 movement the Red-Green Alliance.  It’s international and links with environmental groups.

Last year, Hansen claimed AGW is hidden by exactly the opposite aerosol cooling, hence the atmosphere has ceased to warm. He and Trenberth apparently introduced the 0.9 W/m^2 ‘missing heat’, supposedly hiding in the ocean deeps: there is no such physics and it seems to be the fraud to underpin the fifth IPCC assessment report.

Al Gore and David Blood, ex CEO of GS, set up their London based carbon trading company. Shell set out to get 2/3 rds of its revenue from carbon trading. Grantham set up the LSE propaganda unit, also work at Imperial on climate modelling. Deutsche bank influenced Merkel and Blair.  Blair reportedly gets £5 million a year from J. P. Morgan.

Stern persuaded Lehman Brothers to do carbon trading: it broke the bank and may have triggered the World financial meltdown. Schroeder did a deal with Putin to get a monopoly on Gazprom gas into North Germany.

Obama has to date spent nearly £65 billion on climate research to ‘prove’ CO2-AGW. There is absolutely no proof it exists, fundamental IR physics shows it cannot exist and the prediction of positive feedback is a fraud in the models.

The Club of Rome has been lobbying to get ‘deniers’ on trial at a UN Court in the Hague for obstructing the ‘science’. Judge Finklestein in Australia recommended that bloggers in Australia with 41 hits or more per day should be fined and/or jailed if they put out science not approved by the State.

Marxists started the fraud but then became controlled by the emissions’ traders.  Politicians joined in for the extra taxes. Behind them the Eugenicists plan to kill billions in the interests of ‘sustainability’. The movement is similar to Nazism in the 1930s with the Eugenicists eager to get their first Law, equivalent perhaps to the 1934 Law in Germany allowing the State to kill ‘defectives’ at birth.

James Lovelock, appalled at scientific fraud he saw in ozone research he started and revealed in the Climategate e-mails has has apologised for his apocalyptic predictions. Peter Lilley, one of a handful of scientifically-trained MPs, recently wrote a coruscating criticism of Stern’s 2006 Report which was highly influential on UK Government and Lehman Brothers.

ABC24: Business wants even higher Carbon tax !?

This is my today’s complaint to ABC24:

The ABC24 Monday night The Business bulletin on the 16th July 2012 at 8:35 pm, had a report on the Carbon Tax, which mis-represented the facts presented.

During its interview of the CEO of Sustainable Business Australia, the ABC Journalist reported a finding, that left even this hardened listener of ABS bias quite gob smacked, namely that business can’t get enough of this carbon tax:

Journalist: “And contrary to popular understanding that business believes that the carbon tax at $23 a ton of Carbon is too high, Andrew Peterson says many with rising energy costs are coming to the view that it is too low.

An authority figure saying that businesses, subject to the world’s highest carbon tax by multiples, want even more carbon tax on them is astonishing and proves that maybe Gillard was right all along.

But wait, Andrew Peterson’s sound byte actually states nothing of the kind:   “I think that business once they become comfortable with the primary implications for their business will argue that if they’re going to see investment in energy, more efficient energy activity, they’ll actually want to see the price increased.

So what is merely a preposterous prediction from a self-interested party that business will argue for more tax in the future, the ABC paints even a rosier picture by misreporting the person as having said that it is happening already – and in ‘many’ businesses.

I believe the ABC24 should either present the evidence or make a correction to this report and clarify that the SBA CEO in fact made no such claim and that the ABC has no evidence of such a claim or such fact that business is coming to any view of wanting a higher carbon tax.

There goes the ABC, having trouble distinguishing prediction from fact, in relation to climate and CO2.

The Story of Climate Change and the Carbon Tax

What is the Carbon Tax about?

In a sentence: The Australian carbon tax is a species orphan, the Collins-class submarine of global environmental policy. It is environmentally inconsequential, economically costly, administratively nightmarish and unlike anything else in the world. Greg Sheridan, The Australian.

If you have lived on Mars for the past 5 years, then you will need to understand the whole sorry story of climate change wars to understand the Carbon Tax:

What is this Carbon?

It is an invisible gas Carbon Dioxide (CO2), a natural part of earth life’s carbon cycle, not soot or any toxic substance. Fossil fuel was created million of years ago by plants using sun’s energy to combine CO2 gas in the atmosphere and water into organic matter and a by-product, oxygen. Today, burning the organic fossil fuel reverses this by using oxygen to break up the fuel mostly into carbon dioxide and water and releasing the stored energy for our use.

Earth’s fauna emits CO2 in fall and leaves decay and absorbs CO2 in spring as leaves grow (mostly in northern hemisphere) forming a huge annual CO2 cycle. Volcanoes, including underwater ones and warming seas emit CO2. Overall, 95% of annual CO2 production (and absorption) is by nature and man’s burning of fossil fuel adds only 5% of CO2 to this natural cycle. About 1/2 of man’s additional CO2 is absorbed by natural CO2 sinks like limestone and deep sea carbonates, but this is a slow process and the rest of the CO2 builds up in the atmosphere and over the past 100 years has raised atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0.032% to 0.039%, the highest its been for thousands of years.

Why is CO2 Bad?

CO2 is not toxic and is essential for life – it is a plant nutrient often added to greenhouses by farmers to make market crops grow faster. It is also one of the greenhouse gases contributing to the life-giving planetary atmospheric Greenhouse effect, which normally traps Sun’s heat and keeps earth habitably warm. In the past 30 years, rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane have caused concern that they may be trapping too much heat, causing dangerous man-made global warming.

Is Global Warming and Climate Change real?

Yes, earth’s climate is always changing, sometimes quite rapidly. Earth has been naturally warming from a mini ice age for several hundred years, long before man’s CO2 emissions, causing gradual loss of glaciers, slowly melting Arctic ice and slowly rising sea levels. Over the past 50 years and up to about 10 years ago, temperatures however seemed to rise more quickly than normal in tandem with rapidly rising atmospheric CO2, begging the question if CO2 is causing the dangerous man-made global warming.

Enter Climate Models.

Earth’s climate is incredibly complex involving air, clouds, oceans, geology, the sun, other planets, cosmic radiation and the biosphere, in fact it is a non-linear chaotic system subject to the famous butterfly effect, which really can not be modelled effectively. The only way climate scientists could make their primitive computer climate models work in explaining this rising global temperature, is by assuming that one brute strength factor, the rising CO2, was causing virtually all of the temperature rise. But in fact, the greenhouse physics of CO2 could only explain a third of the temperature rise, so they programmed the models to have a high climate sensitivity to CO2 – to assume that the heat trapping effect of rising humidity from the mild CO2 warming would amplify the CO2′s warming 3 fold. This CO2-centric model now reproduced observed past temperatures.

Unfortunately, these models now also gave frightening possible future scenarios for the next 100 years, showing runaway global warming of 3-6 DegC, if atmospheric CO2 continues to rise from burning fossil fuels. Thousands of studies, all using these computer models projected desertification of countries, sea level rises of up to a meter from ice melting and possible increased extreme weather, which if correct might cause global havoc and politicians like Al Gore dramatised it to apocalyptic 10m sea level rises for effect. The scientists always caution that their climate models were just models and not reliable, but many believed that emissions of CO2 should be drastically reduced as a precaution to prevent possibility of runaway catastrophic global warming. This would require unprecedented global coordinated control over all energy production and thus every aspect of global societies.

Enter politics.

This frightening climate scenario and its need for global control fitted well with the environmentalist’s Malthusian belief that man’s industrialisation and excessive consumption was destroying the earth and their socialist ideology for a society centrally controlled by benevolent intellectuals. It also suited the United Nation’s quest for ever-greater influence of global governance and redistribution of west’s wealth to their majority of less wealthy members. The two got together and formed the IPCC a notionally scientific but largely activist political advisory body to governments charged with, no longer investigating, but rather proving the dangers of CO2 related anthropogenic Climate Change and recommending and advocating ways to combat it.

For 30 years, governments have spent tens of billions of dollars on climate change institutes which dutifully employed thousands of well meaning youths wanting to save the earth, who in turn dutifully produced ever more frightening climate ‘research’ using these made up climate models, with warnings ranging from polar bear extinction to malaria epidemics to hundreds of millions of climate refugees. Epic star-studded international meetings have been held annually, renewable energy industries have been created with tax dollars, CO2 permit trading schemes developed and governments eager for a moral crusade, silenced all dissenting voices with claims of the science being settled and promoted the dangers of climate change to their population from schools to businesses to our homes. The activist administrators of most scientific bodies signed on to the climate models they knew little about, all in the name of saving the world’s environment. A giant taxpayer funded green climate industry thus grew, with conflicts of interest, rent-seeking and frank corruption all justified with the piety of using capitalist greed to fight the noble cause or “the greatest moral challenge of our times”, as Kevin Rudd called it.

What went wrong with Global Warning, then Climate Change, now Climate Disruption?

Earth has failed to warm for 10 years, seas have not warmed and sea levels have not accelerated despite ever rising CO2, showing the the frightening climate models to be either exaggerated or plain wrong, Then GFC came and the giant green industry ran out of taxpayer’s money.

The various climate model predictions and in particular convincing evidence for dangerous high climate sensitivity to CO2 have failed to materialise. Errors and exaggerations in climate models and bias and politicking by climate scientists were first found by independent retired climate and non-climate sceptical professionals and scientists, particularly geologists, and publicised in the blogosphere. They were quickly labelled by governments and green lobbyists as heretical ‘deniers’ lest they derail saving the earth.

Later, contradictory physical evidence were published in journals by a growing body of defecting respected climate scientists like John Christie, Roy Spencer and Judith Curry, bold enough to bite the hand that feeds them. Many other factors have been found which influence climate on a decadal scale, such as giant ocean current, cosmic rays and cloud cover, all of which are not well represented in climate models if at all, and seem better natural explanations for past global warming. This relegates CO2 to a minor influence on climate, causing most likely a harmless <1.0 DegC rise by end of century, certainly not requiring any forced CO2 reductions or carbon taxes.

With climate sceptics rising, patently absent warming of the globe and cold rather than hot weather for some years making populations sceptical, climate lobbyists cynically renamed the campaign to Climate Change and more recently to Climate Disruption, to enlist natural but frightening storms and floods in support of climate alarm. But is is all too little too late.

Since 2008, when world governments spectacularly failed to agree on a global CO2 reduction regime, fighting climate change has quietly dropped off the list priorities for most nations’ populations and governments. One can only assume it failed due to the weakening scientific evidence, the huge costs involved and damage to economies and relative ineffectiveness of carbon reduction schemes. Only the radical Greens remain committed. The public, increasingly faced with scientists contradicting scientists on climate change and aware of bias and advocacy from alarmist climate scientists due to Climategate emails, no longer want to spend effort or money on climate change.

So what is this Carbon Tax?

A tax of $23 per ton of emitted Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gas, payable by large emitters of CO2, such as electrical power stations, manufacturers, transport companies, miners, smelters, including council tips and concrete manufacturers; a complete list is hereand categorised list here. The tax is scheduled to increase every year. The greens want it to be above $100 per tonne.

Why a carbon tax?

Politically, the radical Greens made Ms Gillard introduce the Tax, or gave her an excuse to do so against her election promise as a condition of forming government with Labor. The tax is hugely attractive to the government because it, even more than the GST, taxes indirectly every aspect of our lives and will be a huge source of tax revenue in the future.

Internationally, it is intended to help prevent global warming albeit by an unmeasurable amount, by reducing Australia’s CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020, mostly as a symbolic act of a responsible government for other to follow. Given the central role of energy in our civilization, it would represent dramatic falls in our living standards and would prevent the development of 3rd world countries. Unfortunately for us but fortunately for the world, the risk and alarm of global warming is dissipating, and other countries are no longer contemplating such a damaging economy-wide scheme. Our Carbon Tax has thus been described as Australia picking the last possible moment to leap ONTO the burning ship of climate alarm.

Scientifically it is meant to contribute, albeit immeasurably to stabilising the rise of atmospheric CO2. The falling confidence in alarmist climate models and alternative natural explanation of the now decelerating global warming make the scientific reason very weak, which may be the reason why it is rarely mentioned by the government.

Economically, it is intended to make fossil fuel energy more expensive and thus favour the development and utilisation of more expensive ‘clean’ renewable alternative energy sources. It is also meant to create green jobs, ignoring the many more existing jobs it destroys. Unfortunately, effective renewable energy technology is many decades away and no rent-seeker spruiking and not even obscene amounts of taxpayer subsidies will change this, as the growing numbers of failed projects around the world testify.

Ideologically, the greens and UN are using climate alarm to create a transnational or global socialist governance to force the world into their own ideology of a centrally governed, de-industrialised, smaller populated earth, with people living more equitable, subsistent and sustainable lives along side animals and nature, more like the idealised natives in Avatar. Of course, history is littered with such corrupted noble causes causing millions of deaths, and such an oppressive ideology on a global scale would be truly and possibly irreversibly catastrophic or human freedom.

Carbon Trading instead?

Carbon trading is the multi-trillion dollar pot of gold for banks as they clip the ticket for every trade. It trades in not emitting an invisible gas and is thus hopelessly subject to corruption. Carbon trading has failed in the US and in EU. Enron pushed it and ex Goldman Sachs Malcolm Turnbul love carbon trading, ‘Nuff said.

How will it affect me?

These companies produce the energy and raw materials which powers our society and the increased cost will trickle through our entire economy own to consumers. For example, every business and every home uses electricity. You will pay higher electricity, higher gas bills, and higher prices for all goods and services.

If you work in one of the most affected industries, it may become uncompetitive with the rest of the world and shut down or move to other countries and you may lose your job.

But the poor and the threatened industries will be compensated, no?

Government will hand out a few dollars a week and protect their favourite unionised industries but the whole point is to make fossil energy more expensive, so compensation is small and the tax will rise each year. “I haven’t met anyone who believes the compensation will be adequate…” Graham Richardson. Because the rest of the world is not hampered with as high, if any carbon tax, we will be uncompetitive and as carbon costs rise, industries will either need to be even more highly subsidised or go out of business or will move overseas. Any of these scenarios are bad for Australia and our families.

But we are just following the rest of the world?

No. All major CO2 emitting countries like USA, India, China and have refused to damage their economies with a nation-wide carbon tax some have regional or state based industry specific carbon tax only. Most recently, Canada and New Zealand with a smaller carbon taxes have abandoned plans to enlarge it so as not to harm their citizens. No country has an economy-wide carbon tax. Australia now has an astronomical energy cost: industry will be taxed $70 million per week for our 28 million people while the green EU, with its 600 million odd people collects only 30 million per week. Do the math.

But the “big polluters” should pay, no?

Labelling CO2, a natural gas, an essential nutrient for plants, with 95% of it produced by nature, as pollution has been this government’s marketing master-stroke. Pollution is entirely emotional – it is all bad, it is assumed to be toxic to us, it is something that other careless or greedy people make, not us, there is always a better cleaner if more expensive alternative and it must be eradicated at all costs, with no safe level allowable because who wants to live with pollution.

But it’s a misnomer, a bit like calling water pollution, because too much of it can flood and drown us. These ‘big polluters’ make essential energy and material for us. They may be big green house gas emitters, but not polluters, as they have long been removing any real pollutants from their smoke stacks. Carbon tax will not clean up pollution, will not make air one bit cleaner and will not reduce asthma or other illnesses. Finally, the end customer, that is you, will of course, end up paying.

But surely clean renewable energy and kicking the oil habit is a good thing?

Yes, but no matter how much we wish for a green tree-change for our lives, the fact is that effective renewable energy to power our lifestyles is many decades away. Rather than bankrupting our governments and societies by rolling out hopelessly ineffective renewable energy today, we should be investing in technology to create adequately efficient alternative clean energy sources. This point is argued most strongly by an environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, a believer in global warming.

So do we just keep strip-mining our earth and polluting it?

Yes we do over-consume in the west and the thought of every person in China and India getting a car and a lifestyle like ours is inconceivable, as it would probably take the resources of several earths. I don’t know the answer except that people have always peddled end of times alarms, like peak oil, food crisis and overpopulation, and our ingenuity and technology has so far managed overcome the problems mostly by market forces.

For all our concerns about the environment, we should realise the irony that industrialisation and its consequent wealth have enabled us to create the cleanest, safest and healthiest time of our history, and yet we have never been more anxious about the environment, our safety and our health.

But I know that de-industrialisation, corruption of industry and global governance by a few unelected people in the corrupted United Nations is not the way to go, particularly using a dishonest global climate fear campaign. No that is not the world I want to leave to my children.

To see the other side – the government propaganda site on Carbon Tax, go here.

About the Author, MichaelC58:  I am a medical specialist and scientist, past PhD student with a long experience in technical design, manufacturing and Quality Management. I have been following the climate debate for many years and have no ‘skin’ in the game other than seeking honesty and integrity in our governance.

Protesters send a message to Julia Gillard: “Australians don’t want your carbon tax”

Over 2000 people gathered in Hyde Park in Sydney on Sunday, 1st July – also known as Carbon Tax Sunday – to march to Belmore Park in protest against the introduction of the carbon dioxide tax.

Protesters marched from Hyde Park North to Belmore Park at Central   Photo by Jim Sternhell

Protesters travelled from all over Sydney and as far away as the far North Coast.   Some carried banners and inflatable baseball bats as they marched and chanted “no carbon tax” and “election now”.  Despite reports of traffic chaos, the march was orderly and many vehicles including buses, trucks and trains, honked their horns in support of the protesters.
The crowd was made up of people of all ages – from the very young to several octagenerians.  A group of North Shore ladies walked across the harbour bridge to Hyde Park, before the march to Belmore Park.    Small business vehicles adorned with banners and signs protesting against the Government’s tax drove behind the marchers in a line that stretched from Hyde Park South to Belmore Park at Central.

Protesters at Belmore Park, Sydney   Photo:  Jim Sternhell

The lively and vocal crowd at the rally was addressed by MPs, including Bronwyn Bishop who said, “The next election, whenever it will be held, will be a referendum on the carbon tax.”  She continued, “Those people who say we can’t abolish it are wrong – we can demolish it.”

Unable to attend the rally due to other commitments, crowd favourite Barnaby Joyce addressed the rally through a phone hook up from Queensland.  Senator Joyce said “The Australian people are disgusted with this Government, they’re disgusted with this tax.”

Federal Liberal MP for Hughes, Craig Kelly addressed the rally and said that the Federal Government was destroying Australia’s competitive advantage.  “This tax is a poisonous, toxic tax”, he said.  “Every Coalition member will sign a blood oath to get rid of this tax”, Mr Kelly said.

Braving wet and wintery conditions in Melbourne, 200 people turned up to Parliament House to hear radio personality Alan Jones speak against the carbon tax and climate change science which he described as ‘propaganda’.

”The notion of global warming is a hoax,” Jones told a group of about 150 people on the steps of the Victorian Parliament.  ”This is witchcraft. Commonsense will tell you it’s rubbish; 97 per cent of all carbon dioxide occurs naturally … 3 per cent around the world is created by human beings.”

The Labor Party has launched a campaign, stating that Tony Abbott won’t repeal the carbon tax.  In response, Mr Abbott said a Coalition government would introduce legislation to repeal the tax on its first day in office.

“That is my pledge to the people of Australia. If you elect a Coalition government there will be no carbon tax and I can be believed when I say there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

When asked if he would repeal the carbon tax on Twitter today, Mr Abbott responded, “I can and I will.  What Parliament has done, the Parliament can undo.”


*  The rallies were organised by Jaques Laxale, tireless anti carbon tax campaigner from the Consumers and Taxpayers Association (CATA), along with  volunteers from the anti carbon tax movement.  Anita Donlan organised the Melbourne rally.

In defense of the Biggest Polluters

The Gillard Carbon Tax propaganda has completed its vilification, not of Tony Abbott again, but of CO2, by cementing into our vernacular that CO2 is a pollutant.  Newspapers, politicians and various speakers on both sides of the argument now almost universally refer to emitters of CO2 as polluters, with statements like the 400 biggest polluters will be affected” and  “big polluters will pay“.

The masterful word here is Polluter.

In fact CO2 is not even on the National Pollutant Inventory.  I wonder why not? Is it because it requires by regulation to have some solid proof and not just mathematical models?  More importantly, can the companies called big polluters sue the government for libel for having their reputation damaged?

But the damage is done, because ‘Polluter’ is the new ‘evil’.   It does not matter what the pollution is, whether it harms, how much it harm.  It’s simply evil and intolerable.  Like child molesters, ‘polluters’ are absolute evil, there is no debate, no doubt about guilt, they instantly have no friends, they have no counter argument from what benefits their products give.   They only deserve punishment, the harsher the better, and preferably be shut down for being polluters.

And so now it’s about punishment, not science or effect on global temperature.  In fact, reporter Natalie O’Brien is more worried in case “Big polluters go unpunished”  rather than if all this punishment benefits global temperatures.   Yes, it’s essential for ‘Biggest Polluters’ to be punished.   It doesn’t matter if they are in fact your Council tip disposing of your rubbish, they are the evil big polluters.  It doesn’t matter if they produce the energy for your 30 minute shower, or your mother’s ventilator in hospital, they are the polluters.

So as you gradually accept that the carbon tax is about crime and punishment of other evil people, know that the evil enemy has been found and the enemy is us,  in our normal independent western lifestyles.

And if you can you still remember the actual purpose of the carbon tax, it was supposed to be global CO2 abatement to avert what is now an increasingly unlikely mistaken climate crisis.

Marvel at the artistry:

Global warming
Climate Change
Climate Disruption
Pollution Reduction
Punishment of Polluters