Australia's mining tax will not reduce global warming

I am not a believer in the argument that we are facing anthropogenic climate change. I am due to run another review through the material to see if I'm going to change my mind because I'm prone to forget all the detail of the debate, and new facts and assertions arise which can have some bearing. The politics however are taking over the science, as the following broadcast shows.

So what is wrong with this promotion. I have several problems:

1. Appeal to authority - The guy has a lot of credentials, but none is at all related to the issue, aside from the fact that he is related to the mining industry. You cannot disregard what he says because he's from the mining industry, but don't let all those letters intimidate you, it just means he belongs to a lot of mining industry associations.

2. Appeal to exaggeration - The guy cites the cost of the tax as $A72 billion over 5 years. Why not one year? Well that would mean just $A15 billion per annum, and that would be less impressive. But again the size of the tax is not really the issue....its the science. So why does he make the issue?

3. Alternative - I have a problem with a critique of the tax which does not offer alternative science, if not a different form for the tax. Preferably no tax for me.

4. Proportions - There are 33 CO2 molecules in an atmosphere of 85,800 molecules in the atmosphere. He argues that 32 of the CO2 molecules are from nature, and just 1 CO2 molecule is from nature. i.e. 3% of Earth's CO2 comes from humans.

5. Co2 is beneficial (akin to fertiliser) - Not the issue - as ammonia is a fertiliser too; but its also an explosive. Its not a helpful argument; it depends on the context.

6. Short latency - This idea that any CO2 is in the atmosphere for as little as 4-5 years. Where does he get that from? Does it matter? The amount of Co2 is increasing. This argument needs clarification to me.

7. Australia's contribution - He makes the argument that Australia makes 1.5% of world's CO2. Fair enough; but we are the world's biggest coal exporter, which means we export about half as much coal as China produces in one year. Now, if we tax that, then obviously its significant imposition on consumers worldwide, though I would argue that its not going to do anything to the dynamics of global warming, i.e. Its just an excuse for a tax. Koreans are not going to close coal-fired power stations; they are not going to stop using coal; its simply going to raise a lot more money for Gillard to waste. I personally would rather see billionaires get the billions than see the government get it....at least so long as governments are in the business of breaching rights rather than upholding them.

8. Misdirection - He says its going to cost the community $72 billion in the next 5 years. No it won't; it will cost mostly the mining companies and their shareholders; so it will cost super fund holders to some extent; say to $20 billion; but then some of that money will benefit some in the community. At the end of the day its a moral issue for me; its extortion.

9. Perspective: My friend keeps reminding me that CO2 accounts for just 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, while water is anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 parts per million. CO2 is only slightly more worrisome as a greenhouse gas than water, so why aren't we worried about water? Well, the argument is that water is bad because CO2 is bad. i.e. The more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat, which will result in more water; at least until the point of air saturation. You'd think that this would mean more plants in the tropics, which means more absorption of CO2 and a nice little balance. We also need to consider that the earth's population is destined to flatten out in 30 years, however energy intensity will continue; however nuclear and solar might be more popular then. I don't think we need worry even if the science is correct.

If you want some even better perspective; being worried about coal, its worth considering the fact that there is still plenty of coal in the ground, and that most of that coal was deposited in 2 periods - the Carboniferous Period in the Northern Hemisphere and the Permian Period in the Southern Hemisphere. If these were periods of very high coal deposition; it goes without saying that our climate today must be similar to the climate when all that coal was deposited right? As its mostly still in the ground. Ok, let's be more sceptical. Let's look at the Earth at the start of the Carboniferous Period. Well, its clear it was higher, but perfectly within the natural range. Looking at his chart temperatures were typical (25degC average), commensurate with times, which correlates with CO2 levels of 3000ppm at that time, 8.5x more than than the 380ppm. You also get the impression that CO2 does not correlate at all with global temperatures in the long haul. The context is being dropped. Perhaps we should be more worried about the plague or asteroids which caused the mass extinction in the Triassic Period, given that the average global temperature was 25degC for most of the last 300Myrs and have been mostly around 25degC for most of the Tertary Period (i.e. the last 65Myrs). Having fallen to 10degC; the current average global temperature is currently14degC, which strikes me as 'just right' +/- 5degrees.

Source: Climate & The Carboniferous Period

It saddens me that the mining industry has not raised the fact that the entire globe of governments is now raises mining taxes because of Gillard. Products will get more expensive because of Gillard. i.e. Gillard and Rudd have singularly undermined freedom around the world; well maybe in the West only, as you could argue that some of those undeveloped countries need to spend more on justice and infrastructure....or are they corrupt??

Polar sea ice levels are another controversial arena to debate climate change. The exponents of global warming here are a geophysicist (i.e. glorified geologist) and a US Navy Oceanographer (i.e. a bureaucrat). There arguments are really not compelling. i.e. The evidence the geophysicists is the 'melting ice doesn't lie'; true, it is what is it is; but it does not make an argument for climate change, which is an abstract value judgement. Is this what behaviourism has done to science? This science from a denier strikes me as more useful; as it looks dispassionately at the whole 'modern period', not selectively at 'convenient' facts. I must however acknowledge that I'd like to do more research of this topic. Here though is another study which suggests that the extent of Arctic ice coverage was lower in the 11-14th century, prior to the Industrial Revolution. Look at the chart - it tends to convey a pretty natural trend.

Here is another website to take a look at.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

ClimateGate will not be researched further

Here is an update on the "climategate" issue. One could argue that they are not wrong though; that they simply derive no credibility from being associated with the discrediting process. And of course democracy is not exactly the recourse for rational argument, so I guess we will never know. Though every piece of science I'm looked at tends to fold like a pack of cards. The problem is the poor use of the scientific method; the lack of critical review of research, the prospect of manipulating or selectively using data, and of course politicians selectively citing research or exponents of research favourable to the positions of their constituents, i.e. We are talking of a political system which advances what people want to believe as opposed to what is actually the case. The resources to investigate the 'realness' of the science are not there; and neither is the objectivity. Why? Because majoritism (i.e. representative democracy) is the standard of value - not rationality. And that is not the same as the scientific method which is merely correlation detached from context.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

IPCC under attack for pseudo-membership

We love climate sceptics - here is a good one. Most special because she is a journalist...she appears not to be in a hurry to get home.


------------------------------------Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The fundamental climate change problem

So what has greenhouse gas policies delivered the American people - take a look - a 0.6% reduction in greenhouse gas levels; but at the expense of causing a shortage of corn/grains worldwide which will have a more lasting impact on those countries experiencing famine. Oh, and since Asia has no interest in farming because the returns have traditionally been less lucrative than industry, we will see a rise in farm output in Western nations, but that will entail clearing more forests. Yep, market economics was never a strong point for greenies.

The implication of policies are often far-reaching. The solution is actually to deal with the core issue - which drives human decision making, and that is values or philosophy. People are investing a great deal of energy in restructuring society, and failing to identify what really ales society, and that is a crisis of values - a lack of a coherent philosophy.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Electricity consumption is falling in NZ

This is an interesting article from NZ. NZ has apparently recorded a fall in power consumption. This article posits a number of reasons why this has occurred, and I am adding my own below.

1. NZ has static population growth - there are roughly the same number of people going to Australia and other countries as there are going in as Asian or European immigrants.

3. They use 70% hydro here

4. They use a lot of open fire places in NZ using wood logs or pellets, which will offset the demand for electricity.

5. NZ electricity and gas prices are very high because of the small, uncompetitive nature of the market. High prices are likely convincing a lot of people to shift from central electricity and gas heating to open fire places, i.e. Wood in rural areas is cheap, and its renewable.

6. NZ experienced the Christchurch earthquake in 2010; and its plausible that that event destroyed a lot of electricity consumption, which has not been made up by greater home use, as people run their businesses from home.

7. All new generating capacity added in NZ is likely to be expensive wind or geothermal based capacity; simply because of the opposition to coal plants, the lack of current gas reserves, and the small increments of power required.

This story does however give you a clue as to what is happening when you strip out population growth. The question is whether these trends are evident in other countries, concealed by actual population growth.

I frankly think there would be less energy consumption if business was allowed to make money, and if scientists were able to think conceptually, as opposed to relying on the correlation-based 'scientific method'.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

IPCC under attack for dubious claims

If politicians want a sense of the quality of scientific research; most particularly that funded by the WWF - read this:

"The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim -- based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study -- that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall".

Source: Science Daily, website, 12th March 2010.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Is the global climate warming?

The media and political rhetoric is that the climate is getting warmer as CO2 levels increase. If life was so simple, you might expect some type of correlation between CO2 and average global temperatures; but we don't. In fact, there are a great many reasons to be sceptical of such claims. These include:

1. The lack of knowledge that researchers have about the climate. A great many questions are still being asked and a great many answers are surprising researchers.

2. The lack of historical record of the sun's variations in global electromagnetic radiation, i.e. sunspot activity and solar flares

3. The lack of clarity about the role of water in the atmosphere, et al.

4. The broad-based poor state of science. Read this article: “The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” by Jonah Lehrer, The New Yorker, website, 13th Dec 2010.

5. The political conflict of interest - both of researchers and politicians

6. The tendency of certain researchers to seek political sanction rather than scientific resolutions

7. The arguments when some of the climate change advocates actually front up to sceptics. There is one debate on YouTube between MIT and NASA counterparties.

Follow this widget yourself and observe the climate 'change'; its like watching grass grow; except CO2 levels are rising :) There is an accurate temperature record here - current data.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com