OK, how about having a crack at Myth 5: there is no anthropogenic global warming, so there is no need for a climate tax to 'combat' (or should that be 'combet'?) it. You may find that one a little harder...

The numbers are not consistent with the facts about the role of energy in creating GDP. Energy in the USA accounts for around 7% of GDP. The figures must be similar for Australia. A price on carbon increases the cost of energy, initially via a tax and ultimately via substitution of the more expensive forms of energy that produce less carbon - if they are available. If energy costs double, as they may well do, then the impacts on the economy will be larger than a percent or two. Ben Rose is dreaming if he thinks that conservation will fix the problem. There is no evidence that conservation in the major energy consuming productive industries will be able to offer anything like those kinds of savings. Just have a look at the historical data for energy usage in the aluminium industry.

Jon J is quite correct: it IS a myth that there is no anthropogenic global warming. There is an observed and measured (and published) global warming trend, and climatologists are 90% certain that this is mainly due to human activities. This well-supported theory has not been refuted by any reputable researcher. See for example Raupach et al: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full

I can't comment on Ben Rose's figures, but if Tombee is right and that they are an underestimation, we still need to consider the potential costs of business as usual. Yes, yes, denialists, I can hear you clamouring that there's nothing wrong with this best of all possible worlds - but personally I have more faith in the objective assessment of the world's scientific community, than in the self-interested protestations of the Lavoisier Group or the IPA (et al).

Myth 1: 'A carbon price is a 'great big new tax' to extract more money from us'

"The Government assures us that for the majority of taxpayers (low and middle income earners) the increased energy costs will be at least neutralized."

For the people not compensated, it's a GREAT BIG NEW TAX (do you think we're stupid?)

"Secondly, the main intention of a carbon price is to be an incentive for energy efficient lifestyles."

How? If you compensate the people you are trying to get to move to a more efficient lifestyle, why would they? There's no downside if they are compensated, and if they can't be bothered to move now, why would they bother in the future?

"People who do this can have more money in their pockets than they had without a carbon price."

People who have a second job have more money, same logic.

If you can't be bothered, and it's not affecting you, where is the incentive?

If it does affect you, then, IT'S A GREAT BIG NEW TAX.

Honestly ..

Myth 2 "most companies could pay the carbon price, implement energy efficiencies and still spend less on energy, which is precisely what the carbon price is intended to encourage."

And the rest PAY A GREAT BIG NEW TAX!

Myth 3 "By radical redesigning of mines, replacing trucks and bulldozers with conveyor belts, slurry pipelines and cable skips, energy savings of 30% can be achieved"

So who is going to fund this radical redesign? To get a 30% energy saving? The investors will balk at this use of profits or new fund-raising, investors want returns and are generally not benevolent.

This is just myopic pipe-dreaming .. business does not work the way you think it does, it is not charitable.

Thanks for a good laugh though, as a sell job, this is poor but I'm sure will make all the eco wackos nod in unison at the perceived wisdom, it's all so easy to change everything and only polluters will pay tax (of course, it's so obvious now).

No, everyone will pay for this.

Dear Ben,

CAGW evangelism really is wearing very thin. Your problem is predominantly one of reality.

You are addressing an audience that has access to the real life experiences of the EU’s “carbon dioxide mitigation” experiment which pre-dates Australia’s entry by at least fifteen years.

It does not make any sense at all to pen this missive when everything you say is shown to be proselytizing nonsense. The bitter real life industrial experience in the EU has left you behind, as evidenced by many EU members. This has caused industries to collapse or move off shore, no green jobs, huge cost of living and energy cost increases, costly and ineffective renewable energy infrastructure, the collapse of green energy investment markets and the prospect of the loss of energy security by 2015.

It is as absolute disaster. You need to point to the real problems for those nations that have been there, done that, and then tell us how you propose preventing those same issues hitting Australia.

As for the four myths, they are not myths at all, they are the confirmed and evidenced EU reality. Unless of course you want to tell those in Europe that what has actually happened to them is a “myth”.

Everyone is paying and paying very dearly.

The opponents of a carbon tax are certainly as guilty as the proponents of global warming of exagerating the strength of their case. Nicco's post is a prime example of this on the global warming side. Whether or not climatatologists agree with a proposition is completely irrelevent. It is quite possible for a group of experts to be completely, 180 degrees wrong about their own field of expertise.

How can you tell when they are right and when they are wrong? The answer is you cannot. Delve into the information on forecasting if you don't believe me.. Start with www.forecastingprinciples.com
The scientists concerned need to properly verify their computer models and not waffle about numbers or peer review.

It say about great deal about the standard of the debate that policy makers have not set up adequate systems to verify any of the forecasting systems being used to "prove" global warming.

Curmudgeon (as Max Lawson) wrote a much disregarded book, purporting to disprove climate change, so he should be familiar with the scientific conventions of probability and error-bars. But he prefers to sneer, waffling on (his words) about forecasting systems and suggesting that scientists need to 'verify their computer models'. This is almost laughably wrong. The science of climate does use computer models - as does the science of medicine, aeronautical design, astronomy - but the theory of climate change is supported by measurement and observation from satellites, ground stations, radiosondes, floats, a whole battery of instruments dealing with the real world. See for example (not a computer model in sight) Murphy et al: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml

... oops, sorry, it was Mark not Max Lawson who wrote the much disregarded climate denialist book ...

Nicco - its actually Mark not Max..

Your response points to another source of total confusion in this area. You speak of measurements confirming warming. Certainly it does. No one has ever disputed this. Climate temperatures are undoubtedly high at the moment, so what is causing those high temperatures? Are they due to to human activity or a natural cycle? If its a combination of those factors (the orthodoxy), how much of each factor is in play?

Measurements alone cannot possibly settle those questions. For that scientists most definitely have to use computer models. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. In fact, for the forecasts they use three related computer models - one to forecast emissions (this depends on economics, not science), another to convert those emissions into carbon concentrations in the atmosphere over time, and a third set for climate.

As none of this immense effort has yet produced reliable forecasts that have been properly verified (not peer reviewed) on a seasonal, annual or decadal level, there is some reluctance to accept either forecsts over many decades or the underlying theory. When scientists can point to a reliable, replicable forecasting track record, then they can demand we have a carbon tax.

You appear, Curm, to live in a very sheltered environment, if you are unaware of the denialist strand which asserts that the world is cooling. "No one has ever disputed this (warming)" you say. But some eg the geologist Carter, assert that it has cooled since 1998, some assert more generally that "it's cooling" and argue that warming would be better. Both ignore the empirical evidence, and indeed are characteristically unable to present any evidence of their own.

As for computer models: modellers spend their working days trying to improve their models and the verification of their models. It's a cheap shot, which doesn't carry much weight.

Nicco

The supposed cooling was always very slight. Basically temperatures have been on a plateau for a decade and more with dips and peaks, mainly due to el ninos and la ninas. In the last few months they have been pulled right down by the ruling la nina. Before that they were up due to an El Nino.

But in essence nothing has happened for a decade and more, a point with which the other writers you cite would agree.. Even the warmers would agree but dismiss this lack of action by saying that other factors are holding back temperatures, although they never say what factors..

What is cooling is the issue itself. People are switching off in part because simply nothing is happening.

Even if the fantasy that Ben paints is true Australia would be an absolute mug to tax carbon while others like the US have rejected it. Ben fails to mention anywhere by how much the carbon tax would reduce world temperatures if at all. He says that carbon price is économic reform'. Only those who believe in fairytales believe this is an economic reform. This is an ideological tax that will not lower consumption and cripple the economy rather than reform it. The GST reform was put to the people before implementing it. This deceitful Government said the opposite going into the election which shows how unsellable this con is. In fact our current PM advised the wounded ex PM not to go ahead with it. I hope they do go ahead because it will be their downfall. Ben's position of 'çarbon evangelist'sorry consultant gives it away.

Many thanks Nicco for some balanced responses and thanks also for introducing me to the real 'Curmudgeon" - hello Mark Lawson. Its good to have a real name - I may get time to skim your book and try to find out where you are coming from with your denialism but I am as unikely to change my convictions as you are. I reiterate - have you seen the CO2 , tempertaure vs time (beginning off age of coal / oil) 'hockey stick' graphs originally produced by Mann et al? There are many others too from the world's most reputable scientific organization such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO.

As for those who doubt or lampoon my figures, you have not produced a logical refutation so there is nothing to respond to.

Assertions that the dire finances of some European governments are due to the carbon tax - what amazingly simplistic 'logic'. Germany and Sweden have have had carbon price plus feed in tarriffs for longest and have very high renewable energy (RE) -20% or more - doing very well. Spain and Ireland, also high RE - catastrophic government debt. Might it have more to do with Governemnt fiscal management?

The US - California and many NE States such as Massachusets achieve > 20% RE and having their own carbon prices and RE feed in tarriffs. Maybe it has something to do with politics in the US. Our near and poorer neighbour NZ has carbon price of over $20/ tCO2. Is it just possible that these countries/ states are progressive, see carbon and oil constraints as inevitable and see it is less painful to act now than later.

As to how much differnce one person,one state,one nation reducing carbon emission will make, can't you see that it is a matter of the highest emitters (past and present) needing to be the first to act? After all they have more to cut to get close to an equitable situation. Or is it fair that some of us go on emitting 10 times more than the sustainable average?

nicco/Roses 1,

I guess there is some real passion in your posts. Sadly, the case you make is so old and discredited; some might wonder where on earth you’ve been for the last two years?

When the mention of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” raised its head again I began to realize the desperation of the “warmertariat”. Add to this, the fabricating of EU renewable figures and I came to the conclusion that you know even less about EU economics than you do about climate change. What you don’t know you make up.

When you suggest that we might “doubt or lampoon” your figures what can we say? Yes, that is the one thing you got right?

Since you wish to play the numbers game, let’s start with one of your “nominations”. What is Sweden’s primary source of renewable energy?

Over to you

"As for those who doubt or lampoon my figures, you have not produced a logical refutation so there is nothing to respond to"

No response required old boy, it would only be more regurgitated rubbish from alarmist and hysteric climate scientology sites .. which clearly are not working very well for your mob, since more than half of Australians neither believe or care any longer.

Same with the rest of the world, the whole AGW hsyteria is spiraling in, in a year or two, it will be forgotten as the joke it should be .. those whose reputations damaged will soon move on to other interests as soon as they get funding sorted out.

The environmental movement has been done a great dis-service by the AGW hysterics, like yourself .. well done

Such is the BS that the hysterics have carried on with, everyone has pretty well turned off to the wildly exaggerated end of the world alarmism .. but please do carry on with it, it is amusing to watch the thrashing around and clumping of hysteric alarmists

next will be accusations of funding being against you and dark forces at work ..

Special pleading from Curmudgeon, again. See: von Schuckmann 2009,
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237. The planet continues to absorb more heat than it radiates outwards. The warming trend continues, but most of the warming is going into the oceans, where it is masked by thermal inertia. (I have seen this quoted as a ten year effect, but can't vouch for that.)

And if, as Curm says, people are turning off the issue, it is because of a very succesful campaign by vested interests, who want people to do just that. That doesn't mean that the issue is any less serious.

Hay Roses, have you got a good doctor, to sew up that hole you just shot in your foot. Really mate, you have to do more research if you want to be taken seriously.

California was not a great example to push.

One, it's bankrupt, due mostly to stupid policies like it's renewable power policy.

For the same reason it has the highest unemployment in the US, increasing rapidly.

Three, it only manages to produce about 70% of it's own power, once again due to those stupid policies. The rest it has to buy in from the more intelligent states, who produce reliable power. That's the stuff that comes out of coal fired, or nuclear power plants.

You have to feel sorry for those poor Californians. They jumped on the green band wagon when they had a desperate problem with smog, due to their geography, & their prosperity. They did a great job, sorting it out.

Unfortunately to sort that out they had to develop a huge department. Like most government, departments develop a life of their own. This one has kept on growing, despite being past it's use by date, & now runs around looking for windmills to slay. They are very successful now at finding & solving nonexistent problems, just like the whole global warming crowd.

Californians are stuck on the runaway wagon, & will have to ride it to the crash.

Perhaps something good could come out of it. How about a new movie, "Harry Potter saves California". Sound good? God knows they are going to need a wizard to sort out the mess they are now in

"And if, as Curm says, people are turning off the issue, it is because of a very succesful campaign by vested interests, who want people to do just that.

oooooh dark forces at work .. right on queue

Nicco, who are these vested interests?

How do they work?

Who are they paying?

the reality is there are no vested interests convincing people, people are doing it themselves .. if it smells like BS .. it probably is and after the CRU debacle and all of the governments flip flops and turns, and now an "education team" traveling roadshow .. who apparently are preaching to the converted

so there huge amount of funding they get, all the funding of the BOM, CSIRO universities WWF, ACF getub and all the rest .. and they still can't get a result and in fact it's going backwards for the well funded doom saying hysterics ..

surely you're not in denial that most people simply do not believe any longer that there is a problem caused by mankind that can be fixed by a tax from a labor government who stuffs up everything they touch?

you guys crack me up, defending the indefensible with pithy little snide accusations of "vested interests" .. like there's a conspiracy .. against the overwhelmingly well funded alarmist camp .. pull the other one mate

It is easy enough to oblige Amicus, whose sneering request for references suggests that he hasn’t been paying attention to the subject.

Firstly, a copy of the letter sent by the Royal Society to Esso (UK), requesting that ExxonMobil desist from funding organisations which promulgate information contrary to the scientific evidence. Secondly, a scholarly piece about US conservative efforts to defeat the intentions of the Kyoto Accord. And thirdly, the celebrated New Yorker essay on the Koch brothers. Just a sampler of the well-documented information available.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

http://ireswb.cc.ku.edu/~crgc/NSFWorkshop/Readings/Defeating%20Kyoto.pdf

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

The debate of mankind's contribution or not to global warming just drives me crazy!

Makes me want to close my eyes to all of this and just live out my life which, either way, will hardly be affected by whichever group is right! But what of the children of today, do we use them as our stake in the bet that the science is wrong? One fact is that nobody can be absolutely sure whether global warming hysteria IS hysteria or not, but why worry, not my problem!

I wonder had Captain Smith been told "there's an iceberg up front” Would it have mattered if he had changed course though believing such advice if not from just one, but a majority many of his educated crew would prove to be wrong?

So too here. Moreover we have to find another energy source regardless! So why not go for it now?

Affordability, need for new taxes, I don’t think so.

Just take 30% of the defense budget (i.e. $6b of the current $20b! – are we for real? China $80b – US $600b) invest it in clean alternatives and demand co-operation from the exploiters and profiteers of our “limitless” resources to build their own clean power generators, renewable water resources which they plunder and fund their own townships phasing out FIFO one day to be left behind forever.

Unless such steps are taken, regardless of climate change, our resources will be depleted leaving little to attest to the wealth we once owned as an asset in the ground.

While taking these major steps time will allow better appreciation, either way, of what is happening and at least, move public opinion towards a more equitable sharing of the planets resources with those who we with OUR multinationals ravage into starvation, disease and poverty, regardless of the reality or otherwise of mankind’s contribution to climate change

Would that be so bad? Would that really hurt our lifestyle and that of our children? Shall we just go on and on arguing or shall we actually take some positive and realistic steps forward?

"It is easy enough to oblige Amicus, whose sneering request for references suggests that he hasn’t been paying attention to the subject. "

nicco, yep US$20M from Exxon, who also fund conservation project s, or do you ignore those, compared to Billions spent on trying to convince everyone global warming is the fault of CO2

try harder .. instead of referencing known hysteric sites, guardian, conservationist funded documents try to get something harder.

the koch brotehrs are funding all the skeptics in the world are they?

give it a break

the funding is trivial and does not have any impact on half of Australia now not believing in AGW

I know you feel better having a scapegoat, but it simply doesn't exist

and .. you deserve to be sneered at, you haven't obliged me at all, you underline the thin evidence of a conspiracy

Amicus, please concentrate. I gave you just three examples, from a wealth of documentation, because you implied that so-called sceptical organisations are not being funded. What you call "hysteric sites" include the Royal Society, a fully-referenced academic paper, and the New Yorker, which I chose to show the range of sources of information. I suggest you actually read the material which is available there before sounding off again. If you can refute any of the allegations made in the three items, please let us all know.