Agreed, Jill Singer: the nonsense has to stop

Jill Singer supports a carbon (dioxide!) tax. Unfortunately, she shows a complete ignorance of the real science behind the politics.

THE “debate” over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce.

Indeed it has. The Left seem to think that taxing the bejesus out of a trace gas will somehow save a planet that doesn’t need saving. Jill and her ilk fail to realise CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas at that. It makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere. Most of it is natural. The sceptical side has man-made CO2 at 3% or about 0.001% of our atmosphere. The alarmist side puts man-made CO2 at ten times higher. But so what? That means man-made CO2 would occupy 0.01% of our atmosphere.

There’s no way Man’s small contribution to  a minor greenhouse trace gas – yet an essential gas, most of it naturally occurring – can be the main driver of climate. That hypothesis is, to use Jill’s words, a “high farce”.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as has been widely noted, misled our nation by declaring she wouldn’t introduce such a tax. The worst that can be said is that she lied. The best that can be said is that she lied because we can’t deal with the truth.

What kind of conscience can so easily brush aside the biggest lie ever told to the Australian people? We’re talking about restructuring the entire economy here. We’re talking $11.5 billion dollars reaped just in the first year alone! And that’s just at the introductory price! Also, is anyone so stupid to think our 1000-odd biggest emitters are going to pay that? We are going to pay that. The costs business are burdened with will of course be passed on to the consumer – you and me. We’re talking almost $600 dollars for every man, woman, and child… at the artificially low introductory price.

Remember, the Greens want to start at over $40/tonne moving on up to $100/tonne or about $2500 for every single living Australian. That’s per year, every year. Even figures as high as $200/tonne have been suggested. Got a spare five grand for every member of your family?

We can afford $600 some say. Well, yes and no. Even Tim Flannery and climate czar Ross Garnaut have admitted this tax and the subsequent hopeful cut in carbon (dioxide!) emissions will do absolutely nothing to the temperature of the planet for around 1000 years.

And that’s if the whole world did it. Which it won’t. China. India.

Tony Abbott’s latest stunt, calling for a national plebiscite, was Abbott at his mischievous best. He’s grown into a masterful wrecking machine.

His proposed plebiscite would have gouged at least $70 million out of public coffers in the name of “democracy”. The farce was exposed when he was forced to confess that even if a plebiscite saw us vote in favour of a carbon tax, he’d axe it if elected.

Playing games with $70 million must be a lot of fun when it’s other people’s money.

I’ll take a once-off payment of $70 million over a yearly payment of at least $11.5 billion any day. That deal is nearly 165 times better just in one year and thousands of times better over a lifetime. Sure, the plebiscite idea was a bit of  a stunt. Does Jill know what a much, much bigger stunt is however? You guessed it!

“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.” – J Gillard.

And Tony Abbott didn’t lie.

Gillard’s plan is to tax fewer than 1000 of our major emitters, with more than half the revenue gathered used to compensate millions of lower-income households for any price rises.

Jill still doesn’t get it. Firstly, see above, and secondly, what kind of idiots do people like Jill and Gillard take us for? You can’t take $11.5 billion off us on the one hand, and then say we’ll have more money on the other. It don’t work.

A healthy political debate would see us discussing the relative merits of the two very different policies.

We’re not getting it.

No, because too many people like Jill Singer, HG, Amanda Keller, Cate Blanchett, ex-political apparatchiks with flimsy science credentials, and paleontologists (who of all people should know better) are too close to Big Media.

Cate Blanchett pops up her head to support a carbon tax and Abbott’s band of climate sceptics quickly lops it off because she’s richer than most.

But when Gina Rinehart pops hers up, Australia’s richest woman is touted as some kind of working-class hero.

Wrong. Cate’s head was lopped off – figuratively speaking – because she tried to con us. “Her” ad featured a power station that hasn’t operated in 30 years and that wasn’t even built in Australia. It talked about dirty, black, sooty carbon in our skies when we’re actually talking about an odorless, colourless, essential trace gas that’s only a minor player in the greenhouse effect stakes. Look out the window. Is the sky blackened? It was a rubbish commercial and Cate deserved to be trashed for it.

Then there’s David Murray, chair of Australia’s $71 billion Future Fund and recipient of a $28 million golden parachute from his time running the Commonwealth Bank. Murray states there’s no link between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide is necessary for life, colourless and odourless – and therefore can’t be considered a pollutant. It’s a popularly held view.

Probably because it’s accurate.

Andy Semple of the Menzies Institute claims it’s “refreshing” for someone with Murray’s standing to take on the global warming “scam” by expressing such views.

Really? I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.

Wow. Just wow. That suggestion is as nonsensical as it is stupid as it is childish as it is evil. So like some Jewish Nazi for Gaia, anyone who doesn’t agree with a PM desperate for budget funds after blowing the lot should die?

What is it with the Left and totalitarian population control measures? Tattooings, tyings to totem poles by the seaside, and now the gas chamber.

First Jill calls for a “healthy political debate”. Next she tells us to get dead.

Chill, Jill.


What IS good to read over there is all/most of the comments. Jill gets taken to town. No claps for Jill’s pap. Of note was one commenter who quoted James Delingpole, a quote seriously worthy of ending this post on.

James Delingpole:

‘The Man Made Global Warming industry is a crock, a scam on an epic scale, fed by the world’s biggest outbreak of mass hysteria, stoked by politicians dying for an excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us while being seen to ”care” about an issue of pressing urgency, fuelled by the shrill lies and tear-jerking propaganda of activists possessed of no understanding of the real world other than a chippy instinctive hatred of capitalism, given a veneer of scientific respectability by post-normal scientists who believe their job is to behave like politicians rather than dispassionate seekers-after-truth, cheered on by rent-seeking businesses, financed by the EU, the UN and the charitable foundations of the guilt-ridden rich, and promoted at every turn by schoolteachers, college lecturers, organic muesli packets, Walkers crisps, the BBC, CNBC, Al Gore, the Prince Of Wales, David Suzuki, the British Antarctic Survey, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Knut ”the late, dyslexic-challenging, baby polar bear, formerly of Berlin Zoo.”


Jill, what do they fill saunas with? Steam or CO2? What do farmers fill their greenhouses with to make the plants grow bigger? Steam or CO2?



Tim Blair opts for a pithier response.



Andrew Bolt’s take.

Save the planet! Gas the sceptics

    • J.M. Heinrichs
    • June 22nd, 2011


    • rogerthesurf
    • June 22nd, 2011


    I like your blog!

    Absolutely correct, if the wheat falls in short supply and the price tends to rise, people will switch to rice or rye etc. If butter becomes short in supply, people switch to margarine. Therefore the research paper I cited and others like it would naturally take substitutes into account. Hence the short and long term numbers. Trouble is it appears that there are not that many viable substitutes and I like I said above, I believe the long term figure may well be arrived at mostly be peoples expected life style changes. Redesigning cities etc.

    I was told recently :- “The carbon tax will create substitutes. Electric cars and hydrogen cell technology for example.”

    I believe the carbon tax will do nothing at all except fill your governments coffers.

    One reason why I distrust government, especially in the AGW debate, shows in this recent article in NZ news :-

    Here is the leader of the NZ Labour party (currently in opposition) saying that he is going to bring farmers into our ETS system and use that money for governmental purposes.

    Somehow almost everyone has forgotten that the ETS is NOT a tax (the money is supposed to be spent on carbon credits) and the government has no right to use that money!

    Even more worrying is that the newspapers here and the current government did not pick up on that fact.

    My conclusion on this article is that all politicians have always seen the ETS and other global warming things simply as a way to increase government revenue. i.e an excuse to tax!

    I hope but have very little faith that your government can do better than ours in terms of honesty.

    If I was an Australian, I would fight that carbon tax tooth and nail.

    If there were good viable alternatives to fossil fuels, governmental involvement would be entirely unnecessary.

    Anyway in my opinion, all this points to the distinct likelihood of a premature cataclysmic hike in petrol/fuel oil prices. The question is whether governments are foolish enough to heed the full extent of the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands.

    I like this video:-



    • rogerthesurf
    • June 22nd, 2011

    Oops, Please disregard the first paragraph. If you edit it out thats fine with me.



    • Looked a bit out of place, but that’s OK. 2/3 of the world is starving, unable to afford the most basic of diets, because some inner-city latte-tard wants to feel smug driving his SUV around using E10.

  1. It seems that the worst peddlers of hate are from the left. In other words, those who know they are right, but cannot defend their beliefs because they are irrational. I just came from WUWT where he described an incident 4 years ago with another “peace loving” hater. Seems the world is full of 2 kinds of people. Those who are right, and those who hate. I guess the left can be called the hate side now.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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: