Alan Jones taken to court by GetUp


Oh, Really?

The article:

Jones has said that human beings produce .001 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the air.

Sure the anonymous journos didn’t misrepresent?

Or maybe Jones is referring to the fact that CO2 makes up 0.039% of our atmosphere, and that many sources (here’s one) state human contribution thanks to industrialisation and whatever is 3% (3.225%) of that 0.039%.

Voila?

0.039% x 0.03225 = ?

Actually, it’s 0.039093% of the atmosphere is CO2 if anyone wants to get really technical. Or if the atmosphere=1, CO2=0.00039093

A trace gas indeed.

Even if you take the alarmist “we contribute 28% of atmospheric CO2” line, rather than the 3% or 5% line, it still equals sweet eff all.

Alarmist view: Our CO2 = 0.0001094604 or 0.01094604 per cent of the atmosphere.

In other words, 0.01% of the atmosphere is nasty human C02 if you take the global-warming-is-real-and-it’s-our-fault-line.

Sceptic view (5%): Our CO2 = 0.0000195465 or 0.00195465 per cent of our atmosphere. SFA.

Sceptic view (3% – Alan Jones says 3%, too): Our CO2 = 0.0000117279 or 0.00117279 per cent of our atmosphere.

Give or take?

0.001%?

What is GetUp is going bonkers over?

Are they going bonkers over 0.001%? Oops! That’s what Jones said. Go ahead GetUp. Please take it to court.

Ahem.

Or to get really technical, 0.039093% x 0.03225…

0.00126074925%

The article states Alan Jones said 0.001% of CO2 is “man-made”. Did the journalists (unknown) involved simply quote the GetUp press release?

Well???

Jones stated that 0.001% of the atmosphere (not CO2!) is “man-made” CO2.

A big difference. Huge.

At best – BEST – they wanna tax everything more for 0.01% (or 0.001 % – the “denialist” view) of the atmosphere.

Oh, and by the way, Australia accounts for 1.5% of that 0.001% or 0.000015% or 0.00000015

0.00000015  (or if you like 0.000015%) bits of our atmosphere and Julia Gillard wants to tax the hell out of us for it.

Another agenda, perhaps?

UPDATE

Go to comments to get to the guts of this one.

About these ads
  1. Oh dear.
    The Greens only hope of getting this rort over the line was to keep it in the media, not the courts.
    They may not have thought this one all the way through.

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • March 24th, 2011

      Exactly what I thought when reading about it, Winston. Sometimes we love precedent on such things.

  2. How long have we been wanting this for?

    • John
    • March 26th, 2011

    If you’d like to include sme facts in your article next time, that would be fine.

    • Enlighten me.

        • GBees
        • July 28th, 2011

        Facts: Alan Jones is correct …..

        The concentration of the gas CO2 in the atmosphere is ~0.04% of all gases. Humans are responsible for 3%. Therefore of the 0.04% humans account for 0.001%. The other 0.039% is all natural CO2.

        Also “They base this on the difference between the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 (about 280 parts per million) and the current concentration of about 390 parts per million.. ”

        Note: 390-280=110ppm and this is ~28% of the 390ppm. GetUp! is trying to say that from pre-industrial to now nature hasn’t released any CO2 into the atmosphere. They are telling us that the entire 110ppm is human based. GetUp! is the group which needs to be investigated and then shut down.

    • It’s not the facts, John.
      It’s the Viiiiibe!

      There are three life jackets left, John.
      And one set of divers weights.
      Choooose Caaaaaarefully.

  3. GetUp is actually getting some heat from some of its members on this one.

    A fair few people who signed up ages ago for the main purpose of fighting Labor’s mandatory internet censorship scheme and those who believe in defending Julian Assange’s right to freedom of speech aren’t so sure that using the instruments of the State to silence those with whom you disagree is really that much of A Good Thing™.

    • It looks as though they were spurred on by Jonathan Holmes on #TheirABC. CLICK

      • (If that link doesn’t take you to the comment, scroll down or search to “Karmadillo” )

      • Maybe ACMA should take a look at Holmes. What about Lindzen, Christie?

        On the other side, what about Mann, Phil Jones?

        Or does the pretentious faux Pommy accent give Holmes credibility?

        Hey, John, I get told I sound British, too. Whatever.

        Why don’t you look at the numbers rather than coming across as you did?*

        *And, instead, possibly attributing it to live radio (rather than a pre-recorded *gotcha*)?

  4. By the way, has the ABC unduly affected a court case insofar as Sunday night’s rant by Holmes?

    Related.

    Maybe I am*, too, but surely it’s fair to argue the Aussie ABC has a wider audience than this expat’s blog with a server in Texas.

    *doing what Holmes is doing

    • Goresh
    • April 7th, 2011

    bingbing:
    I note that you use unreferenced assertions on climate change denial site to justify your post. Even taht site however claims human contribution to atmospheric co2 is 3225 times the level that Alan Jones has asserted.

    The ONLY referenced quote on the page comes from one Dr Wallace Broecker.
    I would like to post another quote from him, “The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.”

    “0.039093% of the atmosphere is CO2″ Yes, and a very important part it is.
    When green glants first evolved, they sucked that 0.039093% of co2 from the atmospher, and the planet froze over from pole to pole, even at the tropics.

    The earth swung backwards and forwards between frozen to ice free again and again until a balance was struck between plant and animal respiration.

      • Carpe Jugulum
      • April 7th, 2011

      Goresh,

      Do you stay awake at night in a cold sweat as you see the climate scam collapse around you?????

      How sad it must be for you control freaks to see the that the whole world isn’t going to crispy critter.

      Oh yes………….I am laughing at you

    • Goresh
    • April 7th, 2011

    spot the dog:
    “aren’t so sure that using the instruments of the State to silence those with whom you disagree”

    It’s not about silencing disagreement. It is about silencing those who broadcast out and out lies.
    If ALan Jones wants to say that climate change is absolute bunk, he has the right to say so.
    He does NOT have the right to make up lies and present them as the truth.

    • Oh, come on Precious.

      If out-and-out lies bothered y’all that much, you’d be on Julia’s case first and foremost. “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” – remember that? You’d be going after every ABC talking head who repeated the lie that “Australia is the world’s biggest per capita ‘carbon polluter’.” You’d have taken the “Terry Lane” liars to court, or any number of others.

      No, this is solely about using the instruments of the State to intimidate and silence those whom you see as your ideological enemies. Pure and simple. And you’re not fooling anyone.

  1. June 2nd, 2011

Surely you're thinking something...

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: