jump to navigation

Scientist hits out at emissions bill June 26, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,

Scientist hits out at emissions bill

WRONG TERM: Bob Carter says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

The Bendigo Advertiser, June 24, 2009

A LEADING academic says the Carbon Pollution Reduction bill before Parliament is the single worst piece of legislation to be foisted on the Australian public.

Professor Bob Carter was in Bendigo last night to address a climate science meeting.

He said Australians were being conned, as the bill was aimed at carbon dioxide rather than carbon, and carbon dioxide was not a pollutant.

Professor Carter said the public should have access to balanced views on climate change.

Twenty years of intensive research and great expenditure had produced no compelling evidence that humans have had a significant effect on climate.

“I have been described as a sceptic. I am not a sceptic, I am a scientist, and all good scientists should be sceptical.

“I would rather be described as a climate agnostic.’’

Professor Carter is adjunct professorial fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Townsville.

He said the legislation would be fine if it meant positive outcomes.

However, it did not, and it was the underprivileged people who would be hit hardest.

“Everywhere else in the world similar legislation is called emission trading bills.’’

He said the use of the term “carbon dioxide’’ to indicate a pollutant was not correct in language, logic or science.

And “climate change’’ was a tautology, as the climate changed continually.

“If the bill is implemented, carbon dioxide emission will be reduced but the cost will be $3000 a head each year in taxes for every Australian.

“And the temperature change will be 0.001C by the year 2100.

“That is the science.’’



1. Roger - June 27, 2009

The issue of carbon emissions needs to be considered without the contamination of partisan politics. This is a global issue that affects all of us and our children. If we act imprudently it will be our children and our children’s children who will bear the brunt of poor decisions made solely for financial or political gain.

2. Pete Ridley - June 27, 2009

Dear readers, I’ve just been watching the UK’s BBC News item “The Price of Going Green” on the predicted rises in the cost of energy resulting from this Government’s “green” policies. The National Energy Action charity has estimated that energy prices could rise by 10% in the next year, pushing the present 500M people in fuel poverty up to 5.5M. That is only in one year, a year in which taxpayers’ will be paying subsidies to the energy industry to help develop renewable sources. In years to come these subsidies will fall, so energy prices will increase even more drastically. Meanwhile, the cost of energy produced from the much more economical fossil fuels will also be pushed up by the energy companies way beyond any increase in the cost of fossil fuel but on the basis of “what the market can stand”.

The BBC item finished with “In the long term we’ll reap the benefits” of renewable sources. I have no disagreement with that. When fossil fuels run out we’ll need the alternatives. But that is decades away. Intense and speedy action to develop renewable sources is totally unnecessary. The only reason that the energy companies are showing an interest is because of the financial support (from the poor old taxpayer) that could be available. Why use their own funds to do development that is essential to their long-term existence. If it was left to the energy companies to pay they would pursue these developments at a much slower pace. They’ve done the risk commercial analysis which confirms no need to rush. It’s a shame for us taxpayers that adequate and independent (of the influence of the IPCC and its supporters) risk analysis has not been undertaken into the impact on global climates of our continued use of fossil fuels. Considering the low level of understanding scientists have of climate processes and drivers (Note 1) such an analysis would surely show that action against our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is totally unjustified. If (as stated in the lead item of the blog referenced in Note 1) there is so much scientific uncertainty about climate processes and drivers then it is impossible to build climate models which can be depended on to predict, project or forecast future climates. Today’s computerised climate models being used by the IPCC to forecast global climates later this century are no more reliable than gazing into a fortune-teller’s crystal ball.

Why are politicians supporting this precipitate action. It’s not because of a belief that it will have any impact upon global climates. That’s just a pretext. It’s in order to raise extra taxes to help pay off the enormous national debt this Government has created through its economic mismanagement over the past 12 years plus the need to attract environmentalist votes at the next election. From then on we’ll all be paying through the nose for our stupidity.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Note 1) see bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth especially 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12

3. Pete Ridley - June 27, 2009

Sorry, 500M should have been 5M
Pete R

4. Pete Ridley - July 16, 2009

Dear readers, this is the lead item in Australian Senator Steve Fielding which I think all of our politicians and environmentalists should see.

Climate change is real. Yes that’s right, contrary to the misreporting in the media, I do believe in climate change. That might come as a shock to some of those on the left side of politics, but it’s the truth. The question that concerns me, however, is what is driving it? Is it increasing levels of human made carbon dioxide emissions, variations in solar radiation or something else?

Around three months ago one of my advisors pulled me aside and asked me what I thought was driving climate change. I smiled and said automatically that it was obviously a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions. I had never really looked at the science and just assumed what was reported in the media to be true. Well wasn’t I in for an enormous shock. My advisor presented me with data and some comments from a number of scientists which suddenly had me asking many questions. This led me to do some further reading and I ultimately decided to head over to Washington on a self funded trip so I could find out more about the science behind climate change.

In the US I met with numerous scientists on both sides of the debate. Some media outlets would have you believe that I met only with climate skeptics who they accuse of being paid off by the fossil fuel industry. These claims are wholly inaccurate. Moreover, I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair hearing even if it isn’t the most popular view. I believe it’s my role as a a politician, to wade through all of the spin and come up with my own conclusions after hearing all of the facts. Some of the data led me to question whether the Rudd government had got the science right. I then took some of the information and questions I had to the White House where I met with one of President Obama’s senior climate change advisors. While these discussions were fruitful, I was left at the end with even more questions than when I had started.

In an effort to try to get to the bottom of the issue I started to talk to a number of scientists based in Australia to get a feel for what their views were on the subject. Amongst the many presentations, one item really stood out. I was presented with a graph based on data that IPCC use which showed carbon dioxide emissions sky rocketing over the last 15 years while global temperatures had remained steady. This graph left me nothing short of flabbergasted. Up until this point I had truly believed that human made carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for climate change. However, this graph basically said otherwise. I was left asking myself how I could vote for a carbon pollution reduction scheme if it appeared as though carbon dioxide emissions were not driving climate change. It is important to point out that the IPCC had predicted in their models that there would be a direct correlation between increasing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperatures. However, if you look at the graph it is obvious to everyone that this correlation simply does not exist.

Armed with this information I sat down with Minister Wong, the Chief Scientist and Professor Will Steffen of the ANU to hear their explanation. After an hour and a half I left none the wiser. I received a written response to my questions from the Minister a few days later which had me even more uncertain. According to the Minister, air temperature, a measurement relied upon by the IPCC and the Rudd Government to justify its emissions trading scheme was irrelevant. Instead, I was told that I should really be concerned with the variability in ocean temperatures. Not only did this contradict all of the information which the Minister had provided me with only a few days earlier but I was also aware of an IPCC report which stated that the measuring of ocean temperatures was not reliable.

I went back to the government with this question but was met with a wall of silence. They had clearly decided it was safer not to engage with me because I had legitimate questions which they probably were unable to answer. I was left feeling that the only responsible thing to do was to vote against this legislation. At the end of the day, it would be a betrayal of my duty to the Australian people to put at risk the national economy and many thousands of jobs on what is clearly inconclusive science.

But then enter Al Gore. Here was a man who had a lot of power and went around the world preaching about climate change. I thought he might have the answer for me, the ones I couldn’t extract from the Rudd government. I briefly met Mr Gore at a breakfast in Melbourne attended by more than a thousand people. He was aware of the important role Family First plays in the senate and was keen to catch up. After a series of phone calls I was met with a stonewall of resistance. I offered to meet Mr Gore at any place at any time but had no luck. Here we had the former Vice President of the United States, a self proclaimed climate change preacher running away from me over a few simple questions. I could hardly believe it. I would have thought if Al Gore was really committed to the cause he would want to meet with all senators who had concerns about the science if it would help ensure that the CPRS legislation would pass. Obviously I was wrong.

I have written to every senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question – what is driving climate change? If they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for a CPRS. This decision is the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines. I call on the government to answer my question with a straight answer. If they’re not prepared to do so, I’m happy to fight the lone battle in the senate until those senators who are honest with themselves break party lines.
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: