Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

CO2 Denial vs. a great big new old Tax

In Australia, opposition leader Tony Abbott has repeatedly described government proposals for CO2 reduction as a great big new tax. While Mr Abbott has repudiated such a tax, up till now he has: (a) failed to appreciate that it is not a new tax idea; (b) neglected the opportunity to repudiate [or maybe refudiate, Ed.] CO2.
The way to a broader truth has come from Abbott's Alberta soulmates in the Wildrose Alliance. Paul Hinman, spokesman for the Wildrose Brewery Alliance has called for a world-class research department that looks at the validity of CO2.

Querying the validity of CO
2 is one of the greatest paradigm shifts of recent decades. To check this out, we need to go back to the original science of CO2, applying real scepticism and superficial research. [Like the denialists, superficial research is what we denial sceptics do best. We just link to wikipedia, unlike serious researchers such as Wegman, Scott and Said who make the scholarly effort to copy from wikipedia and even insert a word or two of their own. Ed.].

Antoine Lavoisier is widely credited with understanding the nature of CO2 from combustion and respiration. What is less appreciated is how Lavoisier's activities as a tax gatherer (which is why he was executed) were linked to his discovery invention of CO2. Indeed Lavoisier's scheme of inventing CO2 as an excuse for a new tax languished for centuries.

At the time of Lavoisier's execution in 1794, Lagrange lamented: "Cela leur a pris seulement un instant pour lui couper la tête, mais la France pourrait ne pas en produire une autre pareille en un siècle." ["It took them only an instant to cut off his head, but France may not produce another such head in a century."] [copied from wikipedia - who says we have to be consistent? Ed.]. In fact it took the whole world 100 years to catch up - it was not until 1896 Arrhenius quantified the effect of the mythical gas, and another 100 years until the 1996 IPCC assessment reported a discernable influence on climate from CO

At this rate we can expect about another 100 years before any action, possibly at the 101st Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Echoing CoP-1, CoP-101 may return to Berlin, by then set among the palm trees on the shores of the Baltic. [By that time, a somewhat reduced CoP will have been officially renamed CoRPSE: Conference Of Remaining Parties with Sufficient Elevation. Ed.].

The mythical nature of CO
2 explains the fate of NASA's orbiting carbon observatory. The failure to reach orbit was identified by Viscount Monckton as deliberate since NASA understood that getting the satellite into orbit would have demonstrated ''the whole darn thing'' - climate-change science - ''is nonsense''..

Finally there is the
reductio ad absurdum analysis. - having contradictory properties means that something can't exist. Ian Plimer [and many lesser scientists, Ed.] has assured us that CO2 is non-toxic. - a non-toxic gas that killed 1700 people near Lake Nyos in 1986 is an impossibility - therefore, confirming the suspicions of the Wildrose Alliance, CO2 doesn't exist.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ