Sorry Professor but your logic and facts are haywire.

1. You say "When economic stimulus cheques were sent to millions of households during the global downturn, did families spend it all on high-carbon products? ......And when tax rates were cut in recent budgets, did taxpayers spend all the money on carbon-intensive commodities?
In each case, the answer is no"

...The answer is mostly YES. They bought plasma TVs in the thousands. They simply bought MORE of what they usually buy or something they wanted but couldn't afford, so their buying preferences DID NOT change.

2. Then you rebut your own logic by saying:

"But assistance offers a simple guarantee to most Australian households: if you want to KEEP BUYING THE SAME THINGS, you'll be able to do so"

...This is contrary to the purpose of the tax and actually supports Tony Abbott's view of it being a money go round...

3 'Green' energy products are often MORE not less expensive than 'high carbon' competition so there is already a disincentive to buy.

The price is right. Wow, isn't that the name of a very light entertainment TV show?

I know it is something like that, & on the one occasion I saw it, it made about as much sense as a carbon tax.

Atman wrote: "their buying preferences DID NOT change."

That's because there was no carbon tax to change relative prices.

"... if you want to KEEP BUYING THE SAME THINGS, you'll be able to do so".

But you won't want to, because relative prices will change.

"'Green' energy products are often MORE not less expensive than 'high carbon' competition..."

Yes, and a carbon price will address that problem.

Compensation doesn't undo the price signal because the price signal is conditional while the compensation is not: you pay the price of the carbon tax to the extent that you sponsor carbon emissions; but you get the compensation whether you sponsor carbon emissions or not.

Green energy is not green nor cheaper in the making of the equipment to produce green energy. Every village idiot can tell that much.

OK Andrew, let’s assume that the new carbon pricing will lead to people changing their habits and reducing carbon emissions a little. But to what extent?

It is bound to be pretty small.

A couple of problems….

Once the changes are bedded in, that’s it. There is no planned ‘next step’ whereby further incentives to reduce emission will be implemented, is there? These rather piffling changes at the personal level will be all we get.

Population growth will continue at a rapid rate in Australia. The number of carbon polluters will continue to grow. So despite small per-capita reductions, the increasing number of ‘capitas’ will mean that total national emissions will still rise to the extent of well and truly overwhelming any small personal reductions.

Gillard was extraordinarily remiss in not including the population growth factor in her carbon tax strategy and winding immigration back as a fundamental part of it.

Then we’ve got her assurances that the coal industry is alive and well. I wonder how much more this industry is going to actually expand before the mooted wind-back.

A red-neck anti-environmental government is trying to give itself a green veneer while entrenching its worship of our continuous growth fossil-fuel-powered economic system.

There are 22 million Australians out there using electricity, not just 500 companies. Of that 22 million, most will be compensated for the increase in price so there will be no incentive for them to reduce their use of electricity. As the population increases, there will actually be an increase in the demand for household power. To get a reduction in the deemed amount of greenhouse gases, we will actually be relying on buying carbon credits from overseas, we wont be doing anything to accomplish this by our own endeavors.

The population at large are the major polluters and if an reduction in greenhouse gases is to happen, it is they who should be feeling the pain, not the power generating companies who are merely supplying the demand.

David

David wrote: "most will be compensated for the increase in price so there will be no incentive for them to reduce their use of electricity."

Wrong, because the increase in price will be so many cents per kWhr, but the "compensation" won't be. The "compensation" will avoid damage to the overall household budget but WON'T reduce the financial consequences of using more or less electricity.

What a ridiculous article.

In the tradition of the IPCC and its unscientific guess about carbon emissions, Andrew has an uneducated guess at the effect of the iniquitous carbon tax.

No matter, to Andrew, the idea is to distract from the fact that there is no basis for a carbon tax in science, or in economics.

The scientific proof predicted by the IPCC to be found to show the effect of human emissions, was the “hotspot” in the troposphere, which no scientific effort has been able to demonstrate. There is no proof that human emissions affect climate in any measurable way.

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions. The natural variation is 10% so obviously the human emissions component has a negligible effect.

If Andrew urinated in Sydney Harbour, we would know it was polluted, but it would not be possible to demonstrate it scientifically, for the same reason that the effect of human emissions cannot be demonstrated; because the effect is negligible.

This fraud is pushed by the IPCC, the puppet of the UN, because it will mean a cash flow to the UN. If you look at Labor’s taking from the community by this fraudulent tax, and giving it back to “the families”, to buy support, there will still be a couple of billion left to hand over to the greatest parasite the world has ever seen, the United Nations.

Our cost of living, according to Juliar will rise by “zero point seven per cent”. Coincidentally the global warming upon which the fraud is based, amounted to zero point seven of a degree in temperature.

An insignificant rise, with no further rise for the last 12 years, despite increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, predicted by the IPCC to cause further warming. Such warming as there has been, like the carbon dioxide, has not been shown to be detrimental in any way.

There is no possible justification for a carbon tax.

@VK3AUU: Of that 22 million, most will be compensated for the increase in price so there will be no incentive for them to reduce their use of electricity.

It's disappointing to see a response like this. I expected the usual crowd not to get it, or more likely just to ignore it because it didn't chime with whatever their favourite conspiracy is today. But usually VK3AUU does. Andrew Leigh: if you watching, this response means it is likely you didn't explain it well to the average person.

VK3AUU - sometimes there things are easier to understand when taken to an extreme. So lets say that rather than rising the price of power by a small bit, the government multiplied it by a factor of 100. So instead of paying say $1000 a year, you would pay $100,000. But you now have $99,000 cash in the hand. So what do you do. Well most people say to themselves "if I switch my hot water to solar, switch off the heater and throw a few blankets on the bed, put in an expensive high efficiency aircon in the living room and switch off the rest, then I can use that $30K saved to pay for a golf membership (substitute your favourite vice here)".

The point is the relative price of electricity has gone up compared to other things, and life is always about choices. The carbon price means some things are going to look cheaper relative to electricity than they did before, and amazingly that also makes them more attractive.

The logic is pretty seductive once you get it. Besides, it's been demonstrated to work on other things.

@Ludwig: Once the changes are bedded in, that’s it.

I though it was pretty clear this isn't it, but evidently you didn't get the message. I don't know how you could have missed it as Abbott has been pounding on this point for some time. The price of carbon will keep going up, and up, and up. And so will the compensation of course. Abbott always forgets to mention that bit.

The elitist Labor Coalition assumes Australians are stupid and by omission and simplification can be easily hoodwinked.

An example of deceit by omission and simplification "When we raise the first homeowner grant, house sales go up."

You doubled it for first homebuyers of pre-existing housing and TRIPLED it for new housing.

Hardly the simple "raise" is it? From $6.8K to $21K, and it modified behavior slightly, amazing!

You believe incentivising will lead people by the nose to what you want, and big government needs clients, so come this way stupid, I mean citizen.

The GFC cheques were squandered and no one cared whether they bought carbon friendly, (my PA got another tattoo with her cheque, how green was that?) you are deceitful and tricky to claim people used the cheques to "go green".

People make decisions based on what they need, their quality of life, then their relatives and friends, then their local community, then their city/suburb/town, then their state and in the long run and last of all, the country let alone the world.

We're not all barking activists trying to save the world, it owes me, not the other way around.

Government has a duty to me, a duty, to provide, and that's why I pay taxes, I resent being told to modify my lifestyle so that a minority government trying to stay in power with no mandate for a great big new tax, can deceitfully play silly games with our society and our future.

We did not vote for redistribution of wealth, and it is clear now this is Gilliar's socialist vision, whatever it takes to get it, and the environmentalists have not yet realised that this is the main game not AGW, and the stupid egotistical Greens are just fascinated to be "important" (and have a price).

Useful idiots will defend it, that redistribution is good, when yesterday they were saying that's not the government's intent and saving the world from CO2 is.

More lies that do nothing for the environment, the ALP coalition has no credibility and is reduced to buying followers and votes.

If buying stuff you want or need cheaper is what it's all about and that seems to be the argument here, then why are there any brands left on our supermarket shelves besides "home brands"?

Surely if we're motivated to buy what's most economical, we'd buy the cheapest? That's the basis of the ALP's logic.

RPG has it right, it's about quality of life, we will not reduce what we believe is our minimum standard, and if you try to force us to for your idealist aims, we'll simply tell our representatives, this is not what we want and at the next chance, vote in someone who appears to be doing WHAT WE WANT!

We work hard to improve our lot, then get idealistic busybodies who demand we adhere to what they want and cannot understand they are now in a minority, so spend more (of our money) on the sales campaign then the sale is worth, do you think we don't notice something smells rotten there?

So much effort is going into selling this now and the fear everyone has is, what's next.

We don't believe anything the ALP says as they continually contradict themselves.

We do not want to be clones of the environmentalists or socialists or any other ists.

Snide comments and insulting anyone who doesn't see how clear everything is, matters not a whisker to the populace who have bigger things on their minds then wanting to be the first in the world to show how fast we can reduce our country to a disaster.

The task is not how well the selling is done, it is what is being sold.

The left believes it is some conspiracy or shock jock that is the problem, and their own policies are so wonderful there must be some other reason that everyone is not falling over for some of it?

Here's a hint, sneering at people who you are trying to convince, demonising them and calling them names, is not good sales technique.

It is not the customer's fault, it is the goods that are faulty.

grptland.
The author used the argument that people didn't buy more carbon intensive products with money previous distributions - but they clearly did. They simply did what they had always done, consumed more of the same goods they had always bought. Plasma TVs were a great favourite, so it is likely that this money greatly increased the sale of carbon intensive products. So he is incorrect.

You say people will want to buy Green goods because of price changes but the author says they won't have to because the carbon intensive goods are subsidised through the rebate. Your assumption that people buy on price alone is wrong.

Cash handouts meant to lessen the effect of the CT undermine it because its the Govt whose paying for the carbon intensive products not the consumer.

Eg If your favourite items goes up 2% why change to a slightly cheaper item when the Govt supplies you with that 2% difference? If you like Tim Tams and the Govt subsidises the price you won't buy a cheaper biscuit you like less.

Amicus asks: If buying stuff you want or need cheaper is what it's all about and that seems to be the argument here, then why are there any brands left on our supermarket shelves besides "home brands"?

Because people have preferences on matters other than price. That doesn't contradict the fact that they also have preferences on price. And as long as they have price preferences (with or without other preferences), they can be influenced by price signals.

Price signals, by the way, are the least intrusive method of influencing behaviour -- the method you pick if you don't like Big Government, the Nanny State, and all that.

Atman wrote: "Your assumption that people buy on price alone is wrong."

Nowhere do I assume that they buy on price *alone*. I merely assume that they are influenced by price (among other things).

Neither am I necessarily defending everything the author (Andrew Leigh) says. I am merely attacking certain fallacious arguments offered by others -- e.g.:

"If you like Tim Tams and the Govt subsidises the price..."

Grrrr.... In the compensation package, the government isn't subsidizing PRICES of carbon-intensive products. It's subsidizing the INCOME out of which those products AND OTHERS are purchased. The price is product-specific but the compensation isn't. So the compensation doesn't negate the price signal.

If the government raises prices of apples and provides compensation which can be spent on apples or oranges or anything else, not everyone will spend it all on apples.

I think people are wrongly assuming that just because consumers are being compensated that they won't try and save money by switching to cheaper options or by reducing consumption.

If I'm getting an extra $10 a week in my pocket, I don't automatically stop looking for ways to save money. I assume most Australians would be inclined to do the same. So instead of getting an extra $10 a week, reduce consumption, switch to greener products which will start to be more price competitive, and maybe have an extra $20 a week in the pocket for savings.

The reason for the compensation package is two-fold. Firstly, the greener options won't be immediately available when the tax is introduced, so it provides a buffer for end consumers while industry innovates. Secondly, to allay the fears of change being drilled into the public by the Murdoch press and the Coalition, therefore preventing a massive voter backlash.

In February the price of bananas rose from about $6 a kilo to about $15. I stopped buying bananas. In April I got a pay rise that increased my weekly income by more than enough to buy the quantity of bananas I used to. But I still don’t buy bananas. Why? Even though I could afford bananas, I don’t like them three times as much as apples, pears, mandarins and all the other cheaper alternatives.

It’s the same with a price on carbon. Some people will take extra care to turn the lights off, buy a smaller car or TV, insulate the roof, turn appliances off rather than leaving them on standby, take public transport, or take other action so they can spend less on energy and more on other things.

Andrew’s economic analysis is entirely correct, a carbon price will lower energy consumption compared to what it would be otherwise.

It’s a bit disappointing, though, that he has limited his attack on carbon price detractors to the most economically illiterate and easily refutable end of the opinion spectrum (though the comments here show there are some who still don’t get it – well done grputland for a good effort at spelling out the economics in simple terms).

Far more interesting and important are questions about whether the price is at the right level, whether the right industries were compensated or exempt, how to adjust the price over time, what will happen to export competitiveness, how we integrate with the rest of the world ...

Andrew has rebuffed one easily refutable argument against the carbon tax. I look forward to his responses to the tougher ones.

I would like to see the rationalé of first charging & then giving back ? Where in this is the economic sense or other benefit ?

One of the most persistent of myths in the present condition of Man is that politicians are worth the wealth they waste. They aren’t.

Take Mr. Andrew Leigh. Wouldn’t he be well advised to acquaint himself with some facts of Life? I mean Life of any and all living beings.

He needs to learn that every living cell, tissue or organism embodies three elements; Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, which by the energy of light give us that marvel we call Life.

The girl that goes to the dancing school will expend energy to go there and mental energy to learn and Energy to perform her exercises and this energy comes from the oxidizing of Carbon.

To all thinking people, Mr. Lee, Carbon is indeed the only product we trade in.

Let us beware of this fact if we want to keep ourseves on the ground
and not uner it.

grputland

Its merely an academic distinction to say that price is not subsidised and income is, because though technically true its ultimately purchasing power that we are talking about which is a function of both disposable income and price.

In your article, Andrew, probably the most ridiculous statement is; “By pricing carbon, we're encouraging a shift to a cleaner economy”

We are not pricing carbon, we are pricing Carbon Dioxide. Neither carbon dioxide, nor the economy, are dirty. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is an essential trace element in our atmosphere, essential to life on earth.

The tax does not place a burden on polluters, but on producers of essential energy and power. Taxing carbon dioxide, and calling it “carbon” is not taxing pollution. It is merely attempting to deceive the public.

Part of the money raised is to be used by this government to buy support from voters, not by subsidising essentials like power, but by paying money directly to the recipients.

This is not likely to work, blatant and rat cunning as it is. Dishonesty on this scale invariably becomes quite obvious and repellant, even to the apparent beneficiaries. I say "apparent" because in a sleazy exercise of this nature everyone ultimately loses.

The "Juliar" brand is obnoxious and noisome

I was just sent this and it so fits:

"Labor has convinced itself of a monumental fantasy - that if it just explained its carbon dioxide tax more often, or more simply or more vividly, more voters would change their minds."

Some of the posters and the author all seem to believe this as well .. one poster is convinced another poster has clearly explained the economics.

"It’s a bit disappointing, though, that he has limited his attack on carbon price detractors to the most economically illiterate and easily refutable end of the opinion spectrum"

That's 67% of the population, and growing, that does not seem to be convinced of this "easily refutable" truth. Another one who insults people, it's clever to sneer at people who disagree, the ALP way!

"Andrew has rebuffed one easily refutable argument against the carbon tax"

No he hasn't, simple fact, people do not believe the ALP or their rent seeking hangers on.

If it was so easy, why does the ALP coalition need to spend millions on advertising, have all the environmental groups chanting together, have their proxies run TV ads, run campaigns to deny media coverage to skeptics, the ABC has how many anti skeptic hate pieces today, has a climate team led by the Flannery, they feed favorite climate clubs choice titbits, have the Gilliar doing home visits to "ordinary" people (Well I'm sure some of the other posters believed it .. eh)

If it is so simple, why are we looking at the biggest marketing and sales campaign in Australia's history, and it is only being bought by the people who were already on board.

Daily, the ALP coalition loses more and more credibility and gets more desperate

Their desperation morphs into them insulting and lashing at at critics, the people they need to convince, so instead of convincing them, they put them further offside .. so clever.

Some humility and admitting they are liars will help them restart this process, but the big egos will never go there.

I agree with Leo Lane. Those who brand our PM as "Juliar" are generally obnoxious and noisome.

@Rhian: In February the price of bananas rose from about $6 a kilo to about $15.

I think the prize for the clearest summary of what Andrew Leigh was trying to say has to go to Rhian.

Yet some still profess to not understand the point being made. Given the quality of the efforts to explain it, this article looks to be shaping up as an excellent IQ test of some OLO posters. As the following link demonstrates the occasional person simply can't grasp the basic arithmetic, so people here not being able to grasp a more nuanced economic argument presented should not have been a complete surprise to me.

http://notalwaysright.com/unfortunately-your-iq-adds-up-to-zero/12457

I don't know whether this link describes a real event, but I have been associated with point of sale in my time and have had people say things to me that were actually worse, so real or not it reflects reality.

@Andrew Leigh: Since Tony Abbott has called economics 'boring', it's perhaps not surprising that he is in complete misinformation mode on this point, describing tax cuts to assist households as 'a con'.

This is the second economist here on OLO that has taken affront at Abbott's jibe at the profession. He knows how to make enemies.

Rpg

Andrew is right to argue that energy consumption will fall if energy prices rise relative to other goods and services, for the same reason banana consumption has fallen even though most people could easily afford to buy bananas at $15/kg if they really want.

My point was that there are stronger economic arguments against the tax which Andrew hasn’t addressed.

If you’re 67% number is right, it’s surely that 67% of people disagree with the tax or are worried about its effects, not that 67% of people think emissions will not be affected by the tax.

You need some assistance morganzola. In the context in which I have used it, the well recognised noun “Juliar” is used as an adjective, modifying the noun “brand”. You have taken “brand” to be a verb, which is obviously incorrect.

I trust that this will assist your comprehension of English usage.

Rstuart, you have not managed to grasp that the article by Andrew is merely a ploy to direct attention away from the fact that there is no valid scientific or economic basis for a carbon tax.

The attempt to characterise critics as lacking understanding, by equating them with someone in some sick joke to which he provides a link is a ham-handed and failed attempt to denigrate the sensible people who commented on the article.

You no doubt have no science to back the asserted necessity for this baseless tax, which if it were “successful” would allegedly, and this is according to the alarmists, not the realists, reduce the temperature of the globe by .0004 of a degree, in total.

Not per year or per decade, but in total. This is the question which Juliar has been asked a number of times, and obstinately refuses to answer.

The warming which we were lucky enough to receive, from natural climate cycles, is in Juliarspeak, “zero point seven” of a degree.

The warming has not increased for the last thirteen years, despite the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Since we have been coming out of the mini ice age since the end of the 19th century, we could do with a little more warming, not action to stop something that has been stopped for the last thirteen years.

The carbon tax is based on fraud. We do not need economics, we need a Royal Commission.

Leo Lane,

Stupid statement no.1: "there is no basis for a carbon tax in science, or in economics."
Unless of course you speak to most scientists and economists, who completely disagree with you. (Note, scientists and economists are generally considered experts in the field of science and economics). Of course you then go on to regurgitate Andrew Bolt's BS or whichever other puppet you've decided to follow without question.

Stupid statement no.2: "We are not pricing carbon, we are pricing Carbon Dioxide"
Semantics, and irrelevant as most people understand we are talking about CO2. Besides, CO2 emissions are created from the burning of carbon. This is just another AB regurgitation.

Stupid statement no.3: "Carbon dioxide is not pollution, it is an essential trace element in our atmosphere, essential to life on earth". Yes, it's essential to support life. Just like cholesterol is essential in the human body. You probably don't believe excess cholesterol can cause heart disease though (on account of it being the theory of meddlesome scientists) so this point is probably lost on you.

And "67% of the population" don't agree with the carbon tax? How is that relevant? 74% of people believe in God, doesn't mean God exists. You're ignoring the advice of economists and scientists but referencing the opinions of a bulk of people who in large part get their information from "experts" like Andrew Bolt.

"Their desperation morphs into them insulting and lashing at at critics". This is an interesting one, as I just don't see this happening at all. It's also an interesting one considering the amount of times I read phrases like "Juliar", "loony-left" etc in this forum.

"We do not need economics, we need a Royal Commission"

A Royal Commission on a tax reform without referring to economic analysis?

Genius. Leo Lane for PM. I'm moving to Belgium, however. The option of having no government at all suddenly seems appealing.

<< The price of carbon will keep going up, and up, and up. >>

Not sure about that, rstuart.

Both big business and the little man in the street will cry foul about that. It might go up a bit, but as you say, so will the compensation, probably. So what are we likely to gain in terms of further reductions in emissions…. or I should say; further average per-capita reductions?

Very little if anything. And population growth at anything like the current rate would just continue to completely overwhelm any per-capita gains, meaning that total national emissions will just continue to rapidly increase.

Our government is hooked into the continuous growth fossil-fuel-powered paradigm. They’ve done their bit to show that they have a teensy weensy bit of concern about our environment. They’ve appeased the Greens. So there really is very little for them to gain from incrementally increasing the price of carbon, especially if they are going concomitantly increase the compensation.

Hey, I would love to be proven wrong and see them actually develop the whole ethos of renewable-energy replacement of fossil fuels to the extent that emissions are brought right down, and we are put on a path towards a sustainable society. But right now I just can’t imagine them doing anything of the sort.

Anyone still whingeing about the GST and how it effects them personally? Just like the GST there will be initial hiccups but after awhile who is going to notice?

Will make no difference to me if there is a carbon tax or no carbon tax. The proposal is so miniscule and ineffective there might as well not be a carbon tax.

I have never relied on any government policy to be better off or not. Those who claimed they were better off under Howard better get themselves sorted because he ain't around to hold your hand anymore.

While Gillard won't go down as our most adept PM, the hysteria generated by Abbott is well ...hysterical.

All Gillard wants to do is prove she can do it (*yawn*) and all Abbot wants to prove is he can fool most of the people most of the time (67% apparently).

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favour of reducing pollution and looking after the environment but I'm not in favour of political stunts be they loony lefty labor latte sippers, rabid self righteous tories or watermelon greens.

So get a grip and get a life:-)

<< There is no possible justification for a carbon tax. >>

Oh yes is there Leo. There is a more important reason than for climate change:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4577#118583

Ahh FFS.

That shoulda read:

< Oh yes there is Leo. >

why do pommie immigrants who come here for a new life, cling to their roots by calling the conservatives in Australia, "Tories"?

did they come for a new life, or the same old life with more benefits

why not go back to pommieland, they have truly stuffed their own economy ..?

tories/conservatives/neocons/Liberals/Republicans - same dog different leg action

PS. I'm 5th generation Oz and proud to say not a drop of pom:P

It is worth noting that a tax on CO2 emissions is intended to have six major outcomes:

• Reduce Australian and global CO2 emissions
• Promote more efficient use of energy
• Develop clean energy technology
• Increase investment in clean energy
• Increase Australian energy self-sufficiency
• Encourage other countries to do likewise

There is good reason to believe that all of these outcomes will be achieved to varying degrees as soon as legislation is passed by Parliament. Emissions will be reduced by the efforts of major polluters seeking to reduce their emissions so as to reduce their carbon tax burden. They will also be reduced by end-users of electricity who seek to reduce their consumption – and therefore the amount which need be generated – in order to reduce their electricity bills.

Part of the carbon tax will be applied to assisting development and application of clean energy technology. The result will be relatively rapid increase in the production of electricity from non-polluting sources. This will also contribute to lowering CO2 emissions and create expertise in clean energy production and ways of using energy more efficiently. That expertise will become a valuable new industry whi9ch can be exported.

As electricity generation transits to clean sources, its price will fall and its use will become more widespread, replacing oil-based fuels to provide motive power for both fixed and mobile plant . This transition will be speeded-up by as the cost of oil-based fuels increase relative to electricity, until the latter becomes more affordable. As this occurs, dependence on oil import will be reduced and this too will further reduce CO2 emissions.

As these development occur, other countries, particularly those which now import fossil fuels to produce their energy needs, will adopt the technology and expertise developed in Australia and elsewhere. Such is the opportunity for a clean energy future which has been initiated by government and which the Opposition lead by Mr Abbott seeks to thwart – just as it seeks to thwart the development of an affordable super-fast internet becoming available nationwide.

TrashcanMan. You are still fooled by the claim that most scientists believe that human emissions contribute significantly to climate.

There are no scientists who assert that there is any scientific proof that human emissions affect climate in any but a negligible way. There are scientists who support the IPCC’s assertion that it is “very likely”. There were originally seven independent scientists who supported it, but two later withdrew their support. There were 55 conflicted scientists, people like the Climategate miscreants, who supported it. Presumably they still do.

There were 30,000 scientists who signed a petition to Congress to take no action on climate change until there was proof that human emissions had any measurable effect.

You are repeating an untrue slogan of the alarmists, and you have no science to back your statement.

If the majority of people, for good reason, oppose the tax, then the representatives of the people, in Parliament, should carry out their will.

Or do you think that it is OK for a lying socialist to impose her will against the wishes of the people, who were promised by her, “no carbon tax”?

It is not a tax on carbon, it is a tax on carbon dioxide. There is no scientific justification for it. If you have any science which shows human emissions to have any measurable effect on climate, produce it. No one else can, so you either have it or are making baseless statements.

The IPCC would love to know of it, as they would be relieved of their pathetic “very likely” assertion, and have some science to justify their existence, which at the moment is unjustifiable, except in the success of swindling money on false pretences for the UN.

Watch what you call stupid, TCM, you seem to lack the intellectual status and depth of knowledge to make such a judgement.

Ludwig, it is very interesting that you think a tax should be imposed for some other purpose than the false one of climate change, but why would it be called a “carbon tax”.

There is no justification for this tax.

<< Ludwig, it is very interesting that you think a tax should be imposed for some other purpose than the false one of climate change, but why would it be called a “carbon tax”. >>

Leo, I’m not worried about what we might call it, but in order to plan for peak oil and a sustainable society, it would essentially be the same sort of thing that we are now getting for the climate change motive. It would have to be geared towards considerably reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and redirecting it onto renewable energy sources.

I’m pleased that you find this very interesting. So then, is it not worth discussing further, rather than just dismissing it?

What about planning for peak oil?

What about planning for a sustainable society?

Don’t you think these are worthy objectives, rather than to just continue blundering forth with our rapidly expanding fossil-fuel-powered society until we reach a critical crunch point and are forced into radical change, with probable enormous social upheaval resulting?

There enormous justification for a carbon tax / incentive to reduce emissions / mechanism for the development of renewable energy sources, or however we may express it.

Leo,

Firstly, the list of 31,000 "scientists" has ben shown to be a farce. If you got your information from somewhere other than the Murdoch press or denialist blogs you might know that. The list even included two doctors from the M.A.S.H TV series.

Secondly, every single significant national and international scientific body endorses the AGW climate theory. There are thousands of peer reviewed articles which, as a whole, provide ample evidence to support the theory. None successfully discredit it. The science is 200 years old and calls on the fields of physics, mathematics, chemistry, geology, and so on. There is so much more to it than the simple hockey stick which denialists seemto think is the only piece of evidence.

Your statements that no scientists assert there is proof is an outright lie and has no place inthis debate.

Basically you are making false statements, regurgitated from newspapers and denialist blogs. Your sources of information are bogus, your assertions are bogus and therefore your whole argument is bogus.

Either you're a fraud or an ill-informed hot-head. Take your pick.

I wonder how many people out the think that the target for 2020 can be met in time, regardless of who is in power. It is the equivalent of removing five 1000 megawatt coal fired power stations and replacing them with the equivalent in non CO2 producing power in the next eight years.

David

Thanks, TrashcanMan, for more unsustainable generalisations, and no science. As I said, you will not come up with any science to sustain your position, because there is no such science.

This is all we ever receive from fraud backers. No science, just attempts to deceive.

As for the scientific bodies unjustified assertions on the topic, an outstanding scientist, Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society pointing out that floods of government money have corrupted science and the APS in particular. Government grant money is at the base of misleading statements by the scientific bodies, and not science.

As I said, everything that you come up with is based on the IPCC's pathetic guess "very likely". When they announced their guess, they predicted that the contribution of human emissions would be borne out when the "hot spot" in the troposphere was demonstrated, which would be the "signature" for AGW. Years later there is no hot spot, no signature, and no apology from the IPCC for being so wrong in their estimates.

Global warming is caused by natural cycles. This is well established science, and the IPCC has failed to dislodge it, despite efforts by the Climategate miscreants, who peer review each other's papers. There is no room in the established science for any effect by human emissions, and no such effect has been scientifically demonstrated.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

The main document sets out the disgraceful behaviour of the Climategate miscreants in their opposition to publishing the paper confirming this truth about AGW, or demonstrating the lack of truth in AGW proponents.

Leo,

So it's a big conspiracy theory is it? I think not.

Lewis' complaint wasn't that AGW theory was false, but that the amount of warming could not be determined accurately. This fact surfaced after the release of his original resignation letter. He was also one of 48,000 plus members of the American Physical Society, but obviously the only one not in on the conspiracy.

In fact, in a book on technological risk published by Lewis in 1990, he asserted that:
"...the bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases, mainly carbon dioxide..."

And as for your link to Bob Carter's paper. The original paper this refers to was blasted because it was simply "bad science" and was quickly and effectively rebutted by peer review. Furthermore, it did not even refer to long term global warming at all.

Yes, global warming can and is caused by natural causes, the ÌPCC don't refute this and have no interest in "dislodging" it because it doesn't conflict with AGW theory, in fact it helps understand it better..

But current levels of global warming are not able to be correlated with any natural causes (show us the science that proves otherwise and you'll get a Nobel Prize).

You are providing shaky shaky shaky arguments to somehow assert that the majority of the world's scientists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to, well, science. OR that they're all in on some massive global conspiracy. Maybe they're hiding Elvis and Bin Laden somewhere and just using this all as a diversion.

@TrashcanMan,

Believe it or not, I was thinking about the odds on whether you would respond to Leo Lane. I figured you sounded like you had a clue, so you would recognise a brick wall when you saw one. I was wrong, because here you are, still banging your head against it.

Ah well, you win some and you loose some I guess.

@Leo Lane,

I'm curious. I figure you are posting under your real name, and you are as outspoken in the real world on climate change as you are here, so your friends and associates in the real world are very familiar with your views. Is that true?

For what it's worth, my nick here is how I sign my name, and I live in Brisbane.

rstuart,

I'll admit I'm a sucker for punishment. But I can't stand the fact that this stupidity is out there in the public domain and, as is seen in the polls, people are actually listening to it.

Never before has a conspiracy theory been so effective and damaging. And the conspiracy theorists / denialists / contrarians are running with it.

Besides, I'm not smashing my head against the wall, just patiently dismantling it one ignorance brick at a time.

TrashcanMan, you have really given yourself away now.

Here is what Harold Lewis said, in part, when he resigned from the APS:

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion..”

This was after a petition signed by 50 members failed to have any effect on the governing body of the APS.

What you say arises from dishonesty, or that you do not know what you are talking about.

The purported refutation of the paper by McLean et al, by the Climategate miscreants, was an easily dismissed document, for which publication was unethically obtained in the Journal, through Trenbath’s approach to the President of the body which published it. It is amusing to read the email which he never dreamed would see the light of day, to reveal his dishonest and unethical behaviour.

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009

You did not read the link I provided, did you TcM?

The difficulty for people like you, is that the majority of the population are now aware of the fraud. They are not forgiving of people like you, these days

Rstuart, one of my pen names is Leo Lane. I use a different name when I subscribe on different issues on other blogs. I use my own name on uncontroversial sites.

I have a wide circle of highly intelligent friends, and relatives, all of whom share my views on the AGW scam.

A few years ago, I felt as if I was the sole representative of truth on a lot of the sites on which I posted, and was isolated and attacked, for having the temerity to oppose the scam, against the asserted “majority of scientists”, which has always been a lie, boosted by the deranged Naiomi Oreskes, who is peddling another weird line in support of the scam at this moment.

I wondered from the start how people were fooled by the, to me, obviously dishonest assertions of the fraud backers, but had no cogent proof until the Xstrata case in February 2007, where the Judge considered the IPCC Fourth Summary, and found that it misrepresented the very science which formed part of the document.

He also said; “a temperature increase of only about 0.45°C over 55 years seems a surprisingly low figure upon which to base the IPCC’s concerns about its inducing many serious changes in the global climate system during the 21st century.” This was my sort of language.

The main witness in the case for the alarmists was Professor Ian Lowe, who had to admit in the witness box that he had exaggerated his testimony by a factor of 15 times. This gave me an insight into the type of person backing the AGW scam.

The case did not seem to change public opinion much, and I remained feeling fairly isolated until some great benefactor of truth and decency posted the Climategate emails, and exposed the contemptible dishonesty backing the AGW fraud.

@Leo Lane: Rstuart, one of my pen names is Leo Lane.

Thanks for the reply Leo. I appreciate it. For the record, by nick is based on my name, and is how I sign it. I live in Brisbane.

You set me wondering who Ian Lowe is. So he is head of the ACF. His wikipedia page says he is head of all sorts of of other groups of very concerned individuals, but not actually a thing on what branch of science he has actually studied. I thought that was odd. It paints a picture of him being more concerned with being concerned than with science. His Griffith University says his interests lie in "policy decisions influencing the use of energy, science and technology". On thinking about it, that sounds similar to the picture painted on his wikipedia page.

Anyway, the important point here is whatever he is, he isn't a climate scientist. He is no different to Bob Carter, Al Gore, Ian Plimer, your or me - an informed layman. What's more an informed layman with a very obvious bias. Given what you say about him seems true, I'll tread anything he says with a some scepticism from now on.

I looked up your 0.45°C over 55 years reference as it seemed odd. The predicted rise is much higher than that. Turns out it was the 0.45 rise was for the last 55 years, not the next 55 years. It is of course the predicted rise the IPCC is expressing concerns over. I read the Judge's report, and it seems he thinks the sole basis of the IPCC's predictions is the historical rise. Clearly it's not. He said he read the IPCC report, so I guess the science was beyond him.

@Leo Lane: Climategate emails, and exposed the contemptible dishonesty backing the AGW fraud.

As you probably realise, many will disagree with this. Now that 6 independent investigations have failed to turn up any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, claims to the contrary have to be viewed with deep suspicion.

Thanks for your response, rstuart, I do not know why you think that the Judge would know less science than the authors of the Summary, who are politicians, not scientists. Any protest to the IPCC by one of their scientific authors, in relation to the material presented in the Summary as “science”, is ignored by the IPCC.

Even in 2007 it was obvious that the IPCC predictions bore no relation to reality, and it is even more obvious now.

The IPCC has no science to support their view that human emissions are very likely to affect climate. They should cease making such statements until there is a scientific basis.

What gave you the idea that Professor Robert Carter is a layman? He is Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. He is a highly regarded Climate scientist.

His status is further enhanced by the constant sliming he receives from AGW fraud backers.

There have been no proper enquiries into Climategate, just pretenced "clearances", by conflicted parties. A proper enquiry by a prperly constituted body with the powers of a Royal Commission would be most welcome. In the meantime, the emails are there to see, and any suggestion of innocence is laughable.

LeoLane, I wonder if you saw the piece on the TV over the week end about the sea level rise in the Torres Strait Islands. Methinks your denial of AGW is akin to King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. I hope you don't live in a bayside suburb.

David

@Leo Lane: the authors of the Summary, who are politicians, not scientists.

That's factually wrong. From the report itself :

"IPCC 2007 This Summary for Policymakers should be cited as:

IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt"

Solomon S: Senior Scientist, Earth System Research Laboratort, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric research http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/solomon020807.pdf

I could go on, but I have looked up all the names on Google Scholar, and all the listed authors have published peer reviewed papers on climate science.

@Leo Lane: What gave you the idea that Professor Robert Carter is a layman?

Bob is a very credentialed fellow. So is Ian Lowe. Neither have published any peer reviewed papers on climate science, and both have very polarised views which in my book makes them equally credible.

@Leo Lane: There have been no proper enquiries into Climategate

They are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

One was in UK government committee enquiry, with members from a range of political parties. Others ran for 6 months.

If you are going to debate with me Leo you have to stick with the facts, not just repeat things "you know to be true". I will check your assertions, and if they are blatant falsehoods as is the case with your "the authors of the IPCC report aren't climate scientists" claim here, I will pull you up on them.

You have reached your use by date on this, rstuart.

You put up, as evidence, material from the villain itself, the IPCC.

Its function is to pretend that the Summary is a scientific document.

Here is what Chris Landsea, an IPCC scientist said:
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Chris Landsea 17 January 2005”

I posted, on this thread, a copy of an email from Trenberth demonstrating that he has the same dishonest attitude as when he was engaged on the Summary.

As to comparing Carter to Lowe, please tell me when Carter was exposed as lying on oath, as Ian Lowe was.

As to publications by Carter, there have been many. The paper being attacked by Trenberth, in respect of which I posted his email, was the peer reviewed paper which showed that climate follows natural cycles.

The assertion that human emissions have any effect on climate could only be sustained if a difference in the natural cycles, arising from human emissions, could be demonstrated. The alarmists tried for years to demonstrate such a difference, but could not scientifically demonstrate it.

Speaking of advertence to facts, you said there had been six enquiries clearing the Climategate miscreants. In fact there have been four purporting to clear them, none of which, as I previously explained, are properly constituted to investigate or decide on the matter. If you know of a real enquiry, then tell me. Otherwise, stop talking nonsense.

Do not accuse me of falsehoods, based on the fact that you do not know what you are talking about

@Leo Lane: You put up, as evidence, material from the villain itself, the IPCC.

Only because you did it first Leo. It was you who referred to the IPCC authors. I then looked at the bit you you were referring to - the author list, and your claims about it (they were not climate scientists) and found you were flat out wrong. If you won't want the IPCC report dragged into the debate - avoiding dragging it into the debate in the first place would be a good start.

@Leo Lane: Do not accuse me of falsehoods, based on the fact that you do not know what you are talking about

I am accusing you of telling falsehood because what you are talking about is well documented, easily found, and when you look it up is clearly false. Anyone reading this doesn't have to rely on me. They can just check it themselves. If you don't like being shown up like this try sticking to the truth.

On reflection, rstuart, I concede your point that the authors of the Summary are the persons listed as authors.

The document is edited, not authored, by politicians, to ensure that the document says what they wish it to say, if that varies from what the scientists say.

That is why the scientific graph in the Fourth Summary, which varied from the text, was not picked up before the document was released.

The people who tampered with the text were unqualified, and did not realise that the science which remained in the document, after their editing, proved them wrong.

I grant that were it not for your persistence, rstuart, I would have continued in that error.

@Leo Lane: I grant that were it not for your persistence, rstuart, I would have continued in that error.

I appreciate the acknowledgement. For what it's worth Leo Lane my best moments where are when I am corrected. That's when I learn something new. It happens often enough.

@Leo Lane: As to comparing Carter to Lowe, please tell me when Carter was exposed as lying on oath, as Ian Lowe was.

I can't. But then I am not sure about what Lowe did either. Yes, it could have been a deliberate lie. But he could have just made a mistake, then was too embarrassed admit to it. In any case "not lying under oath" is pretty low base you are setting for Carter. It seems to me neither man is going to give you a balanced view.

@Leo Lane: you said there had been six enquiries clearing the Climategate miscreants

I got the figure of 6 from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports which said quote: "Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings." The claim is referenced, and the reference lists the 6.

@Leo Lane: four purporting to clear them

I don't know that any "cleared them", in the sense of given them a perfect pass. However quoting Wikipedia again: "none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct". To me that is all that matters.

@Leo Lane: none of which, as I previously explained, are properly constituted to investigate or decide on the matter.

I confess I don't even know what that means Leo Lane. They were investigated and at least three of those investigations were by independent outsiders. I'll list the independent ones:

- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html
- United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538
- Department of Commerce http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html

That and the score line (6-0) seals it for me. I imagine it would seal it for most people.

@Leo Lane: Do not accuse me of falsehoods, based on the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.

There you go Leo, another "falsehood".

And your beloved Bob continues to fake it too:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/#more-3954