Thursday, 2 June 2011

The Proposed Australian Carbon Tax and Climate Fraud

By Spookypunkos

The proposed "Australian Carbon Tax" is completely unnecessary. In practice an approach that favours direct action actually works.

Think about it. The nuclear industry did not come about solely from private research and development. The Western world's partial switch to nuclear power generation was a co-operative effort involving government scientists and financial assistance. Similarly we should expect some level of direct action to be taken in making a shift to renewable energy sources. In the meantime, to encourage innovative private investment, rather than a tax on the polluters, it would be a good idea to offer substantial tax breaks for any company engaged in developing and commercialising clean sustainable technology.

However, having argued for renewables, there is something that must be understood about our current global warming concerns...

A rigorous look into the climate warming data reveals no correlation between our carbon output and rising temperatures (more on this later). In fact in the last decade it appears that average global temperatures have been falling.

Therefore any move away from carbon dioxide gas producing industries should not be enacted because of the carbon output but because of the pollution generated from the burning of coal and oil. Burning coal releases arsenic, lead, mercury and many different kinds of radioactive particles into the atmosphere whilst the combustion of petroleum products in motor vehicles contributes to smog. Unless these contaminant releases can be nullified the present situation cannot be allowed to stand.

In terms of atmospheric carbon's role in regulating the Earth's temperature recent research from the University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, Mexico, has indicated that carbon dioxide gas does not act to fuel the Greenhouse Effect as it is unable retain heat as was previously believed. Consequently it is more scientifically sound to regard water vapor and fluctuations of the Sun's output as the primary driver of world wide temperatures.

And if history is any guide we must also consider our present level of industrial activity on Earth to the various warming periods and Ice Ages that have come and gone throughout the ages.

In regard to heating, most recently we have seen the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), from around 950 to 1300, in which global temperatures exceeded today's levels. Scientific studies clearly show that the MWP was worldwide. Warmer temperatures allowed farming on Greenland, it pushed back glaciers in Europe (further than they are today), and caused drought in North America and China. Our present level of carbon production and deforestation did not contribute to these episodes which leaves the Sun as the most likely driver of this phenomena.

Today a plethora of scientists and politicians are now fixated on the idea that our carbon output is regulating the planet's temperature. In the 70's, after a series of harsh winters, the fixation was directed towards the notion that the Earth, without our help, was entering a new Ice Age. Unfortunately during the course of our present debate a number of individuals, in positions of trust, have tried to skew data to prove that the Earth is heating beyond its natural range.

At the UN, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), a political body - rather than acting diligently - has been using manipulated climate data to help justify their existence (and funding). The most notable contributor to climate misrepresentation comes from the famed Climate Research Unit (CRU) operating out of the University of East Anglia. Thanks to the "Climategate" email releases we are aware that the CRU was engaged in fraudulent activity intended to quote, "hide the decline", in global temperatures occurring over the last decade. Most disturbingly rather than seeing the individuals involved in this deception punished political forces swung into play so that the CRU was cleared of any misconducted by three subsequent "show-pony" inquiries.

Alas, the misrepresentation problems do not end with the CRU. The other major data sets, used repeatedly to show temperature increases, are also corrupted.

For instance we know the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite data, showing an overall global temperature rise in recent years, is almost certainly due to equipment malfunction- on at least five of their satellites. Dubbed "Satellitegate", the errors were first pointed out by an anonymous visitor to a skeptic blog who pointed to thousands of impossible readings, of over 200 degrees Celsius, published on a government website. Subsequently it was admitted by the NOAA that their data could not be deemed reliable.

Also we know that many thousands of land-based thermometers, used to gauge global temperatures, have been removed from the temperature data record. In the 1970s scientists were able to incorporate data from 15,094 stations compared with only 5,265 in the year 2000- a deficit of 65 percent. For "reasons unknown" those in charge excluded many stations in isolated colder regions- the Russians complained about this in regard to their own data in 2009- while retaining stations in urban areas known to act as heat sinks.

Unsurprisingly even Wikipedia has been the target of unscrupulous activity in which a global warming protagonist spent years making 5000 revisions to information on the Medieval Warming Period in order to obfuscate the fact that there then existed warmer temperatures than today.

As a result of this manipulation many scientists not directly linked to the skewed data falsely assume that evidence for rising global temperatures is solid.

For those honest researchers engaged in climate, or climate related, studies they would then have to overcome a confirmation bias when reviewing their data, perhaps believing their results confirmed the carbon warming hypothesis rather than from anything else. Take the recent melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has been linked to rising global temperatures. It is very probable that the melt may in actuality be due to altered ocean currents (the Pacific decadal oscillations) and undersea volcanism. Note: there is an undersea volcano situated under part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

So, when take into account all of the above material it is evident that the carbon tax being pushed on the Australian public, by many misguided but well meaning people, is not urgently required to stave off an environmental catastrophe. In all likelihood this kind of taxation will have a low impact in efforts to switch out of coal and oil. A more specific approach, using more direct action, would be needed. As things stand, those who are set to benefit the most from this tax on energy -a tax on everything- will be the bankers who collect fees in the process of trading carbon credits.

We do not need this a carbon tax to make a change to a less polluting and sustainable society. What we require is some imagination, research and an uncorrupted "can do" approach from our politicians and scientists that keeps the big corporations (including bankers) at arms length.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, June 2nd, 2011.]

1 comment:

brian concannon said...

global warming and a carbon tax is a zionist hoax to help along bankrupting nations in the middle of a GFC to get us all that one step closer to accepting a zionist controlled one world governance

zionism is a satanic cancer upon humanity