No scientific justification for a carbon tax

Written by Dr Tim Ball, climatologist

The target is not carbon, that is just one of many falsehoods. Carbon is a solid, and carbon dioxide a gas, yet, proponents of human-caused global warming (AGW) use them interchangeably.

They know people connect carbon with soot, hence the inappropriate phrase carbon pollution as they try to link CO2 with pollution. It is “newspeak” that George Orwell would appreciate.

The question is, why distort information and demonize a gas that is a fraction of the total atmosphere and essential to life?

Figure 1 shows total atmospheric gases with greenhouse gases (GHG) exploded out as two percent of the total. The GHG are exploded to show CO2 is only four percent of the total greenhouse gases, and the human portion is 3.4 percent of that total.

(Figure 1)

In her book Cloak of Green, Elaine Dewar quotes Maurice Strong, the architect behind the greatest deception in history, saying the industrialized nations are the greatest threat to the planet and it is our responsibility to get rid of them. How do you do that? Simple, show that the by-product of its energy source, CO2 from fossil fuels, is causing runaway global warming.

Strong told Dewar he was carrying out his goal through the UN where,

“He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”

After five days with Strong at the UN Dewar concluded:

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Strong controlled the outcome with definitions and terms of reference that predetermined the results. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were told to examine only human causes of climate change.

This is impossible when you don’t know or understand natural causes.

However, it was necessary so they could ignore most natural causes of change, including solar mechanisms.

It allowed them to focus on CO2 while effectively ignoring water vapour (H2O), which is 95 percent of GHG and by far the most important. The IPCC acknowledge humans produce H2O but say it is an inconsequential portion of the total so assume the atmospheric volume is essentially constant.

It is likely that a two percent variation in atmospheric H2O would equal the temperature effect of any variation in CO2 and certainly any human portion.

Science produces hypotheses (speculations) or theories based on assumptions, which other scientists (as skeptics) try to disprove.

As Douglas Yates said,

“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”

With AGW, all the funding and research was directed to credit the theory. As MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

The major assumption with AGW is that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. The problem is, in every record we have from any period and of any duration, temperature increases before CO2. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models, and every forecast they ever made was wrong.

If they are wrong, your science is wrong.

The claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed with AGW was a deliberately falsified study. The reality is 97 percent of scientists have never read the IPCC Reports. When they do they find out what German Physicist and Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls discovered:

“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it…scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning CO2 adjustment knob.”

Finally, if all humans were removed from the planet except one scientist, she would not be able to measure any difference in the atmospheric level of CO2.

The human contribution is so small and well within the error of the estimates of the natural contributions, such as the oceans and decaying vegetation.

There is absolutely no scientific or environmental justification for a carbon or CO2 tax. In fact, reducing atmospheric level of CO2 is the worst thing we can do. At 400 ppm, it is already at dangerously low levels because most plants function best at 1200 ppm – they are malnourished.

These brief understandings of the corrupted science also eliminate the environmentalist’s favourite fallback position known as the precautionary principle; shouldn’t we act anyway. The answer is a blunt, justified, and unqualified NO.