There's some interesting science coming out of the University of Alabama who've been studying NASA satellite data on global warming. According to all global warming models, increased man-made carbon dioxide levels should be trapping an ever increasing amount of heat energy within our atmosphere. This is what totally underpins the argument that cutting CO2 levels urgently is critical – if we don't then these increasing levels will result in accelerated global warming.
Uh, not so fast on that one. In several models reviewed by the University of Alabama, the captured energy within the atmosphere falls well short of what the models are predicting because the earth is releasing more energy than the models predicted.
This data has been captured over a period of 2000 to 2011 and explains why virtually NONE of the "scientifically credible" models have been accurate in their temperature predictions during that time.
Now before you run off and call these scientists "oil loving right wing denial mongers" or some such crazy, they aren't against the idea of global warming, they simply think that there may just be far too many variables to accurately predict this kind of global phenomenon.
I think it will be interesting to see how this report is responded to. The problem in credibility that "pro" global warming scientists have is that whenever anyone suggests they may not have the right answers, they are immediately shouted down and called a "climate change denier". The issue is, you can't believe in science on one hand, use it as factual evidence and then when someone reports equally valid scientific counter-evidence you cast it aside as biased.
I've got a couple of things on this issue to say. First of all, I think here in Australia, this type of evidence further undercuts the government's "Carbon Tax" plans. The entire premise of the environmental "good" of this legislation is that increased CO2 directly results in global warming and now there is some recent, credible science to suggest that is not what's happening – at least in such a simplistic fashion. If we continue down this road then we may as well bring back leeching in the hospitals and teach alchemy in schools because scientific evidence doesn't apply anymore.
Next, I'm not a climate change denier – I just think its the wrong argument to have. I'm in favour of a cleaner, healthier living environment. I think non-polluting cars are a good thing. I've never necessarily believed the apocalyptic runaway greenhouse gas scenarios that the Green movement put forward because to me it just doesn't sit well. I've always believed that these "initiatives" were an attempt by the political left to "re-distribute the wealth" and that's what the Gillard-Brown "Carbox Tax" is, wealth re-distribution – tax the rich to buy the votes of the poor.
I like the quote by Kerry Packer that basically giving the government more taxes than was necessary was a bad thing because they were so bad at spending it. I don't believe fundamentally in punishing people economically to "benefit" someone else. The implication is that wealthier people "can afford" to help out poorer people. I don't have a problem with that when it comes to delivering quality education and health care – that's perfectly acceptable. On the other hand when it comes to something like the environment, I take exception – if we as a country want lower CO2 emissions and renewable energy funds, then we should all pay equally. Wealthier citizens should have to pay higher electricity bills AND pay more taxes so that poorer individuals get no increase in electricity because of tax cuts.
It really is a slippery slope. There's nothing to stop the lower income classes from next wanting "free" water. I think free water is a good thing. So next comes a bill that says the average water bill is $200/yr or whatever, so we're going to slug people on $150,000 or more per year with a "levy" and grant people on combined incomes of under $100,000 at least $200/yr in tax cuts and people under $50k, well they get $500.
What about dental care? Rich people can afford good teeth. How about another 1.5% levy on people over $150,000 to pay for a dental care scheme for the whole country. On and on it goes… It is very easy to justify these kind of things, but you consistently fail to realise that someone who's worked really hard to get a law degree, busted their butt to get ahead and is now making $200,000/yr didn't win some life lottery – they worked hard. And there are many people who for whatever reason didn't work as hard and ended up working in a retail outlet and therefore doesn't earn the same money. Everyone has the same opportunity to go to University, get a law degree or become a doctor – there is no financial encumbrance up front – its just a matter of willingness to put in the effort.
Now back to the environment… I think when you step away from the wealth redistribution model it all starts to make more sense. The best way to make people achieve an outcome is to motivate them positively. So rather than tax CO2 emitters, let's give 150% tax credits to companies that create renewable energy. Let's let allow companies to write off their plant and machinery faster if they switch to more energy efficient equipment. Or companies that solar technology, give them tax breaks – make it tax free for all income they get through export channels. Get rid of the luxury car tax for people who want to buy a Tesla or a Hybrid Lexus.
It will be interesting to see where this debate goes. Some science has come back that injures the credibility of the argument which underpins the basis of the Carbox Tax. If the Gillard government continues to push it, then we simply know that this is left-wing wealth redistribution with carbon as the taxation mechanism. What should happen is that the legislation should be shot down and a positive environmental plan put in place that promotes growth and opportunity, not tax and spend.
