Bolt fisks Gillard

Nice work.

Green Tape hits Europe.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to Bolt fisks Gillard

  1. daddy dave

    Yes, it was very good. He showed that every single line was at best misleading, and at worst a lie.

  2. C.L.

    We’ll be left behind with no industry-ruining tax of own own!!

    Oh noes!

    LOL.

  3. Gabrielle

    His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

    – Walter C. Langer

    It’s a well worn formula.

  4. She’s started with warnings of fire and brimstone for those who do not repent.

    Is she presbyterian ?

  5. No Worries

    “Not one cent with go to Treasury”

    Is she for real ?

  6. JC

    Yep , she’s for real.

    I’m finding it hard to figure if she believes the crap she babbles or if she’s a transparent liar.

  7. Jack Pinczewski

    So according to the intellectual colossus Gabrielle, Andrew Bolt is Hitler.

    Well done Gabrielle, you have just lost the argument per application of Godwin’s Law.

    Kindly take this insulting nonsense somewhere else. Not only have you insulted our collective intelligence but you have insulted the memories of millions of my murdered co-religionists.

    [Not following your logic. Sinc}

  8. This is not 1980s student politics. This is real.

  9. Samuel J

    Anyone who supports Gillard in this is either on the make or stupid. Logic is quite clear on what Australia should and should not do in respect of AGW.

  10. No Worries

    She might believe it. I can’t see how anyone else can.

    I liked the way she singled out Jones, Bolt and Ackerman. With all the credible institutions, government apparatus and tame media on her side, she’s failed to win the ‘debate’ against three people apparently. How weak does that look ?

    Her days must be numbered.
    Perhaps next week, when they’re all back in Canberra, the dirty work will get done and we can have another unelected PM.

  11. JC

    We had Greg Combet on the 7.30 Report this evening talking about about this crap.

    These people are truly fucking ignorant. He kept talking about needing pud a pwice on carbin to spur technological innovation.

    Firstly Greg, a tax is not a pwice, you ignoramus. A tax is a tax.

    Secondly since when did sticking a tax help further technological innovation? Can you show any evidence in history when this has occurred?

    If we believed Combet’s ignorant theory the Romans would have built a car simply by taxing oxen and horse carts hard.

    These people are just morons.

  12. C.L.

    I liked the way she singled out Jones, Bolt and Ackerman.

    She’s becoming Nixon, enemy’s list and all.

    With all the credible institutions, government apparatus and tame media on her side, she’s failed to win the ‘debate’ against three people apparently. How weak does that look ?

    Excellent point.

  13. JC

    We also now have that non-eminent economist Garnaut who seems to be on the permanent government payroll, trying to bribe lower income earners with money by taxing the well off. He’s now trying to start a class war over a carbon tax.

    Samuel is correct. There ought to be disclosure on people’s financial interest every time they talk about this crap.

  14. Combet referred to Garnaut as independent on 730. That’s a stretch.

  15. Gabrielle

    Is Garnaut still a director with Ok Tedi mining, and also still chairman for some gold mine (name escapes me) in PNG – the one which dumped cyanide contaminated waste into the ocean?

  16. JC

    It would be nice if Garnaut made a full disclosure if he is still on the government payroll.

  17. squawkbox

    Yes, RG is still with Ok Tedi. But Ok Tedi is largely powered by non CO2 producing hydro electricity, so that’s OK.

  18. Infidel Tiger

    Garnaut has a lot of experience in gold mining and with this carbon dioxide tax boondoggle, he’s spotted Lassiter’s Reef.

  19. This white man might perish or get eaten by the natives well.

  20. m0nty

    Not a great start scientifically when Bolt alleges that carbon dioxide contains no carbon.

  21. JC

    MontY:
    Not a great start scientifically when Bolt alleges that carbon dioxide contains no carbon.

    Are you doing crack or heroine straight up ?

    Today we must embrace another moment of decision for the future of our nation: a decision to cut carbon pollution …

    LIE: This is not a decision to cut carbon, but carbon dioxide.

    Bolt is scientifically right.

  22. C.L.

    Monty gives a perfect illustration of the now entrenched, systemic policy of wilfully lying for the warmening faith system. And that, folks, is why this gigantic case of hysterical millennarianism is now in its death throes.

  23. Dandy Warhol

    Guys, this speech marks Gillard’s campaign launch.

    This is the opening of the battle. The fact that Garnaut has wheeled himself out, and Combet is carpet bombing the airways with ‘carbon pollution’ blather, seems to demonstrate that they understand what is at stake.

    If she and the Labourites win, we will have a carbon tax, the Libs will be dismissed as extreme (goodbye Tony, hello Warmbull) and the Greens will have been tamed (for the moment).

    If public opinion doesn’t turn round in response, then there is a good chance that Gillard is finished.

    From the sounds of this speech, which as Bolt shows was a fizzer, I think she has stumbled out of the blocks. With Abbott, Bolt and Jones keeping up the pressure, there’s a good chance that her goose is cooked.

    And, with some luck, the irrational panic over carbon dioxide emissions will be disappear along with her political career.

  24. hc

    Catallaxians get their science and their politics from shock jock Andrew Bolt.

    Astounding mental degeneracy.

  25. .

    You get yours from Gillard.

    Win.

  26. Skuter

    hc gets his economics and politics from Bob Brown – winner…

  27. No Worries

    Is there some weird gaming of public sentiment going on ? They ramp up the carbon rhetoric with only a week to go until the NSW election.
    Clearly this is intended to be main debate in parliament next week, and the anti-tax rally happens on Wednesday.
    Looks like NSW labor has been given up for dead.
    Is the intention that the electorate vents its fury at the NSW election, and then have some kind of remorse when they view the devastation they inflict on labor ?

    Garnaut calls people “ignorant” on lateline. I’m sure lefties thought he was being conciliatory. (lol). I wonder when the ‘debate’ will raise itself above the ‘poo head’ and ‘you smell’ level.

    I look forward to next week, when they wheel out the big guns like Flannery (rofl). Missing in action so far.

  28. Rafe

    I like that! “poo head” rog, you smell!!

  29. Peter Patton

    JC

    Did Combet really make that connection between tax and technological innovation explicit? If so, we need to be alert to this rhetorical strategy. Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that another government Minister, who was also a former trade union leader – Big Bill Shorten – argued that civilization was created by taxation.

    These memes do not happen coincidentally.

  30. Rafe

    Yes it will be good to recall Terence Kealey’s devastating critique of the effectiveness of state-funded research. Highly appropriate in the current climate where most parties will probably agree (despite all other differences) that funding a mass of research from taxation will be a Good Thing.

    http://www.the-rathouse.com/2010/Kealey-EconomicsofScience.html

  31. The troll formerly known as Tom N.

    What hc said. Catallaxians on climate change are such a joke.

  32. C.L.

    Two profoundly convincing ad homs from public sector leeches, Harry and Tom.

  33. .

    Bullshit Tommy. Statistically valid (cointegrating) climate science stuff sees only 1/2 a deg of AGW.

    No reasonable CBA has seen mitigation pass – ditto since the effect of AGW from statistically valid models is halved. As a last resort, we’ve elucidated good policy such as deregulation, cutting subsidies to reduce emissions – which total more than the action of the old dog of an ETS which has hammered by Frontier as ineffectual and economically damaging. Before a tax is laoded up, we’d prefer a deep and long tax exemption for carbon neutral industry.

    As a last final resort we have a properly designed, GDP positive, revenue neutral tax.

    We already have an inequitable, usurious and distorting carbon tax, you want to load up on more of this regardless of rigorous science and cost benefit analysis.

    The only joke is your pretense to objective analysis.

  34. AndrewL

    Is Bolt claiming that methane won’t be included under the ETS or that you can emit carbon monoxide with impunity?

  35. JC

    Catallaxians on climate change are such a joke.

    Tommy, can we swing you to the no tax side if you were offered to rostered days off per week instead one.

  36. No Worries

    Bolt also didn’t mention water, nitrous oxide, ozone, and several other ghg’s. Thanks for pointing out that a “carbon tax” will no effect on these emissions.

  37. No Worries

    will have no effect

  38. AndrewL

    No Worries, do you think methane and carbon monoxide won’t come under an ETS?
    Maybe consult with JC as he thinks that Bolt is scientifically correct.

    Water is self regulating as green house gas as concentrations can’t rise past the saturation level of air, dependent on temperature.

    Nitrous oxide would mainly be released from soils, and may need to be considered once agriculture came under the scheme. The Kiwis will probably answer this question first as their ETS is up and running, with agriculture due to be included in 2015.

  39. viva

    Amazing what you find while wandering around the web. Who would have thought that a bunch of Gaian cultists associated with the UN could be using global warming as a stalking horse to bring the industrial world to a screeching halt to protect the Goddess.

    Perhaps the sheer unlikelihood of this and the rightful scepticism re conspiracy theories protects the activities of some quite well known people (eg Gorbachev)from the common view.

    And just finally I wonder if this website casts new light on Tim Flannery’s recent remark that “within this century, the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest.” Mmmmm

    http://green-agenda.com/greenweb.html

  40. JC

    Maybe consult with JC as he thinks that Bolt is scientifically correct.

    AndrewL, your comprehension level is that of a three old.

    Bolt is correct on that point, you unadulterated nimrod which I will repeat for you again seeing it didn’t get through the first time.

    MontY:
    Not a great start scientifically when Bolt alleges that carbon dioxide contains no carbon.

    Are you doing crack or heroine straight up ?

    Today we must embrace another moment of decision for the future of our nation: a decision to cut carbon pollution …

    LIE: This is not a decision to cut carbon, but carbon dioxide.

    Bolt is correct on this point, you eggnog.

  41. JC

    Maybe consult with JC as he thinks that Bolt is scientifically correct.

    AndrewL, your comprehension level is that of a three old.

    Bolt is correct on that point, you unadulterated nimrod, which I will repeat for you again seeing it didn’t get through the first time.

    MontY:
    Not a great start scientifically when Bolt alleges that carbon dioxide contains no carbon.

    Are you doing crack or heroine straight up ?

    Today we must embrace another moment of decision for the future of our nation: a decision to cut carbon pollution …

    LIE: This is not a decision to cut carbon, but carbon dioxide.

    Bolt is correct on this point, you eggnog.

    I really don’t understand why you can’t admit he’s correct. I don’t think Bolt is correct on the broad thrust of AGW. However unlike you I’m man enough to agree with some points he makes and disagree with others.

    Man up Andrewl.

  42. AndrewL

    So you are saying that you think carbon monoxide and methane will be able to be emitted without any permit under the ETS, JC?

  43. JC

    AndrewL

    I’m not saying anything of the sort, you dolt.

    Dumb MontY made the claim that Bolt first fisking point was incorrect.

    this one:

    Today we must embrace another moment of decision for the future of our nation: a decision to cut carbon pollution

    His point, (this one) is correct.

    LIE: This is not a decision to cut carbon, but carbon dioxide.

    Question:

    Are you an arts grad with a communication major?

  44. AndrewL

    I would say it is a decision to cut carbon pollution, as a short hand way of including carbon monoxide and methane with carbon dioxide. So I think Bolt is wrong if he is trying to be pedantic.

    Question:

    Are you an arts grad with a communication major?

    No. Do you need one? Check your local McDonalds.

  45. JC

    It doesn’t matter what you would say, Andy. What matters is if Bolt is correct on this point or not.. (and yes it is correct to be pedantic because science is pedantic).

    Are you man enough to admit that Bolt is correct?

    Okay so it’s media studies?

  46. AndrewL

    He didn’t say it was a tax on methane or carbon monoxide, which would be taxed. So to be pedantic he is wrong.

    The Government have long labelled these emissions as Carbon Pollution, as in Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that they tried to pass through Parliament, so there is a history of them using that as shorthand label.

    Media Studies. No, is that what it takes to parse Bolt?

  47. daddy dave

    I would say it is a decision to cut carbon pollution, as a short hand way of including carbon monoxide and methane with carbon dioxide.

    Shorthand’s find, except in this case the short-hand can be misleading. The policy goal is to reduce carbon dioxide specifically.
    And it’s not pollution.
    They don’t actually care about pollution and are introducing no legislation to reduce pollution.

  48. JC

    You’re an idiot, andrewL.

  49. AndrewL

    Daddy Dave, you think carbon monoxide will be excluded? It can be emitted without paying for permits?

  50. Andrew Reynolds

    Let’s face it – they are both wrong. the identified GHGs include several that do not contain carbon, such as ozone and nitrous oxide. For a carbon tax to be effective in reducing GHG emissions it would have to include these.
    Incidentally, water vapour is also an identified GHG IIRC.
    Gillard was wrong in that they are not taxing carbon at all – the plan is to tax GHG emissions from some sectors using a method that translates GHG emissions back to a CO2 equivalent and then taxing on that basis. Carbon itself is not a problem, in fact as a solid it is a great way to store it.
    Bolt was wrong in that he did not put all the scientific stuff around it, but correct in pointing out Gillard was wrong.
    One of them was flat out wrong and the other just kept it short.

  51. AndrewL

    Andrew, Gillard never said they were taxing carbon.

  52. papachango

    I suspect (though admittedly no proof) that Bolt is right and ‘carbon pollution’ was coined just because it conjures up images of something black and sooty, rather than an invisible odourless gas.

    If they wanted shorthand, they could have called it an Oxygen tax as there’s twice as many of those atoms, but it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

    For the same reason Al Gore likes to plaster images of chimneys spouting steam into the atmosphere and allow people to think it’s CO2 or some other pollutant.

  53. No Worries

    No Worries, do you think methane and carbon monoxide won’t come under an ETS?

    The point is no one knows anything about this tax (it’s alright if I call it a tax, or do you want to check with head office ?) actually is, except that it will start on the 1/7/2012. If you are going to say that you know the details, please divulge same, with appropriate attribution.

    So I think Bolt is wrong if he is trying to be pedantic.

    Please express to the nearest ppm free carbon in the atmosphere, if the Government is being pedantic. Ah, but I see you’ve answered :

    Gillard never said they were taxing carbon.

    Yes, it’s all so clear now – a carbon tax has nothing to do with carbon.

    Thanks for the ride on your merry-go-round. Time to hop off.

  54. No Worries

    JoNova. heh.

    Those boats heading for Christmas Island are in for a tough time.

  55. AndrewL

    Of course, if Bolt is right, as so many here think, Gillard is not breaking any electoral promises about bringing in a Carbon Tax because it is a “carbon dioxide tax”.

  56. papachango

    Good point, let me think about that for a sec….

    ….no, wait that’s complete bullshit.

    Gillard called it carbon before and after – about the only thing she’s been consistent on

  57. Grendel

    If everyone knows what gillard means by a ‘carbon’ tax, then what is the issue?

  58. JC

    if Bolt is right, as so many here think, Gillard is not breaking any electoral promises about bringing in a Carbon Tax because it is a “carbon dioxide tax”.

    AndrewL, you’re first class idiot. You’re now reaching the embarrassing stage where i actually feel embarrassed for you.

    What’s worse is that you’ve now caused Grendal to take the same stupid pill.

  59. JC

    If everyone knows what gillard means by a ‘carbon’ tax, then what is the issue?

    Great idea. I’m all for it. Lets have Duck Bum campaign in favor of the tax, which she calls a price despite it being a tax along the lines you’ve suggested. That way she’ll be laughed out of office.

  60. AndrewL

    papachango, I think you would be doing well to find one example of her calling it a carbon tax post-election. It took about two weeks for her to agree it was a tax at all.

    Grendel, my guess is that it is important for some people to paint Gillard as dishonest.

  61. JC

    I think you would be doing well to find one example of her calling it a carbon tax post-election. It took about two weeks for her to agree it was a tax at all.

    This is unbelievable. I’m calling for help. “Doctor!”

    Of course she didn’t call it a carbin tax by firstly describing it as pudding a pwice on carbin.

    However when she realized she was being laughed out of office she then started to make up excuses that because of her minority status the Greens made her do it.

    Grendel, my guess is that it is important for some people to paint Gillard as dishonest.

    Andy, stop insulting our intelligence.

    This is starting to veer into Homer’s skanke ho territory.

  62. daddy dave

    Grendel, my guess is that it is important for some people to paint Gillard as dishonest.

    indeed, and the reason for that is because she’s dishonest. She’s indefensibly dishonest. She’s a barefaced bloody liar. This is only the latest of many.

    So, yes, some people feel that it’s important to draw your attention to this fact.

  63. AndrewL

    You do know that both the original CPRS legislation and the Kiwi ETS had a fixed carbon price (which is essentially a “carbon pollution”, “carbon dioxide” or “carbon” tax) initially, JC?

  64. JC

    Dad;

    See, there’s no point in being polite to these leftwingers. Only severe quantities of contempt will suffice.

  65. No Worries

    You do know that both the original CPRS legislation…

    Duelling pedantics – cue the banjo music.
    It was never legislation, it was never passed, therefore it was a bill. See anyone can play.

  66. JC

    AndrewL

    The original CPRS legislation was shelved because Rudd realized it would be next to impossible getting it through and be able to survive politically . The advice to shelve it was offered by Duck bum, which she then used to knife the little turd in the back.

    She then campaigned and explicitly ruled out a carbin tax. Not once by several times. Her useless and incompetent treasurer, Wayne SwanDive, said the same thing.

    Rather then admitting that she lied she firstly tried to disguise her dishonesty by calling a tax a pwice. When she realized that was about as believable as trying to convince the electorate that SwanDive has an IQ higher than a gnat she stopped saying that and then began to blame the Greens for causing her to lie.

    Now she’s saying that the ALP has a mandate despite the fact it’s a minority government.

    Lastly, you’re fast taking over where Homer left off and at this rate you could be banned for rank stupidity like he was.

  67. AndrewL

    Sorry, No Worries. CPRS Bill.

    JC. What did the doctor you called earlier diagnose you with? Tourettes?

  68. JC

    JC. What did the doctor you called earlier diagnose you with? Tourettes?

    lol.. You’re wrong again. He’s looking for you, saying he’s really worried about your “delirium induced confusional state of mind”.

    Dunno Andy, but he’s walking around with a strait jacket and asking, has anyone seen Grendel and AndrewL.

  69. .

    To be fair, Grendel never resorted to insults when he was forced to argue. Andrew L fell back on a cheap banjo riff.

  70. AndrewL

    To be fair, JC and No Worries did.

  71. Grendel

    I do have an issue with Bolt on the topic of wheat – he correctly cites a study that shows that increasing CO2 will increase crop yeilds from current varieties by up to 20%. In that statement he inferentially suggests that increasing CO2 is therefore beneficial. Taking that study as a solitary piece of work however misconstrues the potential for additional consequences. For example, at the same time we may see increase yield per plant we may see a decrease in the range in Australia in which wheat can be grown. The challenge will be to determine whether globally we will see a net increase or decrease in total production capacity. Australia, as a nation, is likely to have a net decrease however. We won’t starve, but our capacity to export may be reduced.

    I don’t like Bolt because he is shallow and dumbs issues down beyond the point where there can be coherent and informed discussion.

  72. .

    “may see”

    No.

    For example, at the same time we may see increase yield per plant we may see a decrease in the range in Australia in which wheat can be grown.

    No.

  73. I do have an issue with Bolt on the topic of wheat – he correctly cites a study that shows that increasing CO2 will increase crop yeilds from current varieties

    Fuck me, now Bolt is an expert in agriculture. There are now multiple studies on the impact on increased CO2 on plant physiology but he just chooses the one that suits his perspective. Seriously, why should anyone bother listening to such arguments unless one has first made an attempt to address all the other relevant variables? Is that too much to ask? In these days yes. We don’t need experts anymore, we’ve got the internet, the Renaissance Men are resurrected so let’s close down the universities and never bother to develop expertise again.

  74. Grendel

    And that was pretty much my point. he accuses gillard of cherry picking, then goes right ahead and does the same thing himself.

  75. No Worries

    To be fair, JC and No Worries did.

    This from the guy who insults by implying he knows everything about an empty policy with a start date, yet obviously makes it up as he goes along.
    Quick, get in touch with head office for some more talking points. Good to see you agreed with the remainder of Bolt’s assessments about the PM’s speech. That would be the same PM who insults us all on a daily basis btw.

    Oh, and if you Andrew Leigh, I still have your insulting email.

  76. daddy dave

    Rationale?

    speculation.

    There are now multiple studies on the impact on increased CO2 on plant physiology

    Of course, a slight increase in a vital ingredient of photosynthesis will be terrible for plant life.

    Look, Gillard’s entire speech was misleading and/or deceitful. Bolt called her on it line by line. If he did what you guys wanted, he’d have to write an essay about each lying line of Gillard’s speech.

  77. daddy dave

    Oh, and if you Andrew Leigh, I still have your insulting email.

    He may or may not be, but let’s not ‘out’ people.

  78. Jc

    Worries

    No, AndyL isn’t andrew leigh, but you’ve now made me curious. Can you at least describe the insulting email. Here I was thinking butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.

  79. PSC

    Of course, a slight increase in a vital ingredient of photosynthesis will be terrible for plant life.

    I’m still waiting for Blog Science to get to Leibig’s Law.

  80. No Worries

    Jc
    Basically I indicated to Leigh (local member) my disgust at the announcement of the carbon tax.

    Leigh replied (prior to Gillard admitting that it was a tax) with the following formulaic response that no doubt got sent via other MPs also to any one complaining. (my highlights of the insulting/patronising bits):

    Thank you for your email.

    We have always been clear – before, during and since the election campaign – that we want to tackle climate change.

    We have always been upfront with people that the best way to do that is through putting a price on carbon.

    The Prime Minister could not have been clearer about that during the election campaign.

    It’s true that for the first few years there will be a fixed price – and some will call that a carbon tax – but it is an interim first step towards an emissions trading scheme.

    And we’re doing it this way to give businesses and the economy a stable, predictable price in the first few years – to make the transition to a clean energy economy as smooth as possible.

    Sincerely,

    Andrew Leigh.

    I sent a fairly Fisk-like reply, pointing out the factual errors.

  81. .

    Grendel – cut the speculation. Tell me by exactly how much Australian wheat production would fall given climate related changes of mean values of forecats.

  82. JC

    Really that’s his email:

    always been clear

    always been upfront

    could not have been clearer

    It’s true that for the first few years there will be a fixed price – and some will call that a carbon tax –

    Worries, as his constituent, you ought to ask him that as an a trained economist if his able to define a tax and a price.

    I’d love to see what the answer is.

    And they referred to Howard as a lying rodent.

  83. Mr. Papaya

    I guess for people like hc, it’s easier to slime others under broad labels, rather than single out an opponent they know they can’t win against. It’s cowardly, cheap and weak.

    Seriously, guys, learn how to construct a compelling argument. You’re utterly crap at debating.

  84. No Worries

    That was the whole email.
    Unfortunately, I wasn’t in a questioning mood, but rather told him what I thought a tax was, quoting Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (1938) 60 CLR 263. I referred to his economic expertise when mentioning the lack of a cost benefit analysis on the matter. I also asked why someone would announce a “price” without nominating it’s actual value.

    I replied to Leigh’s email on 27/2/11, but have received no further response. That’s only to be expected in a safe labor seat, I suppose.

  85. Grendel

    Grendel – cut the speculation. Tell me by exactly how much Australian wheat production would fall given climate related changes of mean values of forecats

    I don’t know and neither does Bolt – the point is he took something complex out of context to suggest that increasing CO2 is a good thing – ie he cherry picked, something he accused Gillard of doing.

    Bolt made it an issue, called the PM on what he considered to be lies and to be fair when he is inaccurate in that process it should be acknowledged.

  86. JC

    I don’t know and neither does Bolt –

    Yes he does because because I think he posted the numbers up on the site. Duck Bum knows too. In fact even we were able to achieve those objectives the net effect on global temps would be close to zero.

    So there’s no discernible purpose to cut emissions. In fact if the entire western world cut all emissions by 2020 the emerging world will increase the output by 10 times current US levels.

    It’s feigned concern without any rational reasoning behind it.

  87. JC

    oopps should read… by 2050.

  88. m0nty

    Ah, I see I missed a good argument.

    On the “carbon tax” nomenclature, my understanding of a carbon tax is that it is an attempt, amongst other things, to decrease the amount of carbon in the air, particularly its formulations with oxygen atoms. CO and CO2 bad, O3 and O2 good, to put it in its most blunt terms.

    Thus Bolt trying to say that a carbon tax targets carbon dioxide and not carbon is scientifically moronic. I do not believe individual carbon atoms floating around in the atmosphere are the issue here, since all the literature talks mostly about greenhouse gases, not carbon-based particulate pollution. It is how carbon interacts with other atoms that is the problem.

  89. dover_beach

    O3 and O2 good, to put it in its most blunt terms.

    Oh, so ozone (O3) is good now?

    It is how carbon interacts with other atoms that is the problem.

    The interactions between carbon and other atoms are the problem?

    On the “carbon tax” nomenclature, my understanding of a carbon tax is that it is an attempt, amongst other things, to decrease the amount of carbon in the air, particularly its formulations with oxygen atoms.

    contradicts

    I do not believe individual carbon atoms floating around in the atmosphere are the issue here, since all the literature talks mostly about greenhouse gases, not carbon-based particulate pollution.

    By the way, if you don’t think that black carbon is a problem or a greenhouse gas than you would do better not calling others “scientifically moronic”.

  90. daddy dave

    Thus Bolt trying to say that a carbon tax targets carbon dioxide and not carbon is scientifically moronic.

    huh? It’s stating the literal truth.

  91. Grendel

    As an analogy, if Bolt had suggested that water is made up of two highly flammable elements., this would also have been literal truth. The inference there is that water is flammable, which would be scientifically moronic. Splitting hairs (or in this case, molecules) around the word ‘carbon’ is just silly and I can’t believe it is an issue worth discussion.

  92. daddy dave

    The inference there is that water is flammable, which would be scientifically moronic

    so what’s the scientifically moronic inference in calling carbon dioxide “carbon dioxide”?
    See, your metaphor breaks down, because it’s Gillard who’s referring to CO2 by its component parts, not Bolt. In fact the metaphor works against Gillard, not Bolt.

  93. Grendel

    DaddyDave your love of split hairs is so great I have to wonder if you own a hair care products factory.

  94. daddy dave

    splitting hairs?
    the sequence of events as I see it.
    1. Bolt suggests that we call carbon dioxide “carbon dioxide.”
    2. You claim that this is ‘scientifically moronic’.
    3. I point out that, rather than being moronic, it’s actually quite sensible.
    4. You accuse me of splitting hairs.

  95. sdfc

    Dover

    Oh, so ozone (O3) is good now?

    Have your expanded your skeptism to the ozone layer now?

    Is black carbon a gas?

  96. m0nty

    Ozone is good in the ozone layer. Not closer to ground, obviously. Black carbon is not a gas.

    Attacking the phrase “carbon tax” because it doesn’t mention oxygen is unsupportably petty. Carbon is the problem, not oxygen. Would you rather the GST was called the Goods And Services But Not Stamp Duty Or Import Tariff Tax? It’s the sort of childish gainsaying that undermines an argument that is otherwise held by rational adults.

  97. JC

    you know what’s childish and annoying MontY. Spelling your stupid moniker with an “O” instead of an “o”. I’d be the lat person to whine if I were you.

  98. No Worries

    As an analogy, if Bolt had suggested that water is made up of two highly flammable elements., this would also have been literal truth. The inference there is that water is flammable, which would be scientifically moronic.

    Well done you’ve just described why CO2 is dangerous (according to the warmers) and not carbon. Good work, you. So, you now agree that the tax is targeting CO2, not carbon, and the name of the tax is misleading. It is, after all, the bonds between carbon and the oxygen atoms that actually responsible for the absorption of infrared light, that everyone’s all upset about.

    You have a rather narrow view of science in terms of what might be a subject for scientific enquiry.
    I actually visited a lab once, where a few researchers were actively involved with the question of “burning” water. Funny old world isn’t it ? Perhaps you thought scientists went to labs every day just to confirm what’s already in the text books, nothing left to discover. I guess you would have a problem explaining the origin of the textbooks, though. Perhaps gaia wrote them.

  99. daddy dave

    Would you rather the GST was called the Goods And Services But Not Stamp Duty Or Import Tariff Tax?

    It would be like calling it the “goods tax” because we’re too lazy to use the full name. When people defend the absurd, their partisan colours show.

    I guess some – perhaps including Bolt – are suspicious because “carbon” brings to mind images of images of black sooty stuff. Therefore, it seems to confuse the issue by bringing to mind other kinds of pollution (the stuff you can see) rather than focusing the mind on the true issue – carbon dioxide.

  100. daddy dave

    Would you rather the GST was called the Goods And Services But Not Stamp Duty Or Import Tariff Tax?

    no because that’s too long and unwieldy.

  101. OnTheBus

    MONTY TRIES:

    Carbon is the problem, not oxygen.

    So you are saying diamonds are also causing the greenhouse effect?
    They are pure carbon are they not?

  102. dover_beach

    Black carbon is not a gas.

    School yourself m0nty. Black carbon appears in the atmosphere and has radiative properties; whether it is strictly speaking a gas is neither here nor there since the material points I countered involved your claim that particulates “are not the issue here” when they most certainly are, and the claim that “the literature talks mostly about greenhouse gases, not carbon-based particulate pollution” which is wrong since quite a good portion of it addresses the role of particulates as first-order forcings.

    Attacking the phrase “carbon tax” because it doesn’t mention oxygen is unsupportably petty. Carbon is the problem, not oxygen.

    Why is carbon the problem and not oxygen in the molecule CO2? The problem is neither C or O but the molecule CO2, in much the same way it is CH4 but not only C or only H. And so on. Apparently, an element which made chemists all goo-goo because of its versatility and stability of its various compounds is now a problem.

  103. m0nty

    I’m trying to figure out why you people are being so strident on this indescribably minor point. I am developing a theory that every libertarian belief is formed from, or described in, Atlas Shrugged. Thus, you Taggartites don’t like carbon being taxed because you have developed a cryptosexual fetish for soot spewed from steam trains. There can be no more compelling case to explain this absurd conversation that that you are merely reciting Scripture from your book of new myth.

  104. dover_beach

    I’m trying to figure out why you people are being so strident on this indescribably minor point.

    m0nty, “I’m trying to figure out why you” can’t admit you made a simple mistake.

    Thus, you Taggartites don’t like carbon being taxed because you have developed a cryptosexual fetish for soot spewed from steam trains.

    You previously said that soot, i.e. black carbon, was not a/the problem.

    There can be no more compelling case to explain this absurd conversation that that you are merely reciting Scripture from your book of new myth.

    I’m not a libertarian, nor have I ever read the ‘scripture’ you refer to.

  105. JC

    Thus, you Taggartites don’t like carbon being taxed because you have developed a cryptosexual fetish for soot spewed from steam trains.

    Dunno about MontY. You’ve sort of taken rolling in the hay to a whole new level. Do you have urges to coat your body with soot? I certainly don’t yet.

    However if you do, start a blog and put up pics of yourself that so we can judge for ourselves if it’s (good) kinky.

  106. m0nty

    Soot is A problem, but it’s not THE problem. Gases are the main target of the carbon tax, not particulates. Anyway, dover, your point supports my criticism of Bolt, because if soot is also being attacked by the tax then it would be silly to call it a carbon dioxide tax.

    I think it’s valid to use the word “carbon” to describe the things being taxed, a collection of pollutants and naughtiness which is comprised many kinds of matter with carbon in it. Bolt was trying to score a cheap point with a dumb argument.

  107. dover_beach

    “Naughtiness?” Your ilk lampooned Bush’s War against ‘Everything’ and yet here you’re mounting a campaign against carbon.

    So far as human welfare and the environment is concerned, particulates are a greater problem then carbon dioxide.

Comments are closed.