"Carbon pricing" is simply a euphemism for "carbon tax."
When a politician talks about establishing a price on carbon in the name of stopping global warming (as federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau frequently does), what he really means is he wants to tax oil production, manufacturing and private vehicle use in the hope that by punishing energy companies, manufacturers and drivers he can force them to reduce their emissions.
However, no market exists for carbon emissions except where governments force companies to buy or sell "carbon credits." Therefore, there is no such thing as a natural "carbon price." The concept is entirely artificial.
Sorry Galileo, according to the BBC you're a crank.In other news the BBC plans to ban Galileo since the consensus is that the sun revolves around the earth and anyone who disagrees with the consensus is just a crank who hates science.
The BBC Trust, which is the BBC’s governing body, published a new report on Thursday that says that Britain’s largest news organization has been giving “undue attention to marginal opinion” on certain controversial scientific issues, including man-made climate change.
To combat what it calls a “false balance” on the issue, the trust’s report called for more BBC staffers to attend courses and seminars to help them learn how to bring their programming in line with what the BBC Trust accepts as the consensus view.
You really do have to appreciate the irony in this story. Maybe someone should email Obama this story. From Contra Costa Times (emphasis added):
A top federal wildlife official said there's too much uncertainty about climate change to prove it threatens the snow-loving wolverine — overruling agency scientists who warned of impending habitat loss for the "mountain devil."
There's no doubt the high-elevation range of wolverines is getting warmer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director Noreen Walsh said. But any assumption about how that will change snowfall patterns is "speculation," she said.
So far, so typical. Last week spectators at Wimbledon were being treated for sunstroke as temperatures soared into the 80s.
On Saturday the heavens opened, as they usually do after a heatwave, soaking the motor racing at Silverstone and Henley Regatta.
By the end of this week, the Met Office is predicting it will be Phew, What A Scorcher! time again. It’s called the British summer.
Not according to the Government, it isn’t. Officially, we don’t have weather any more.
We have ‘climate change’, a catch-all excuse for everything from raising taxes and refusing to empty the bins to exploding manhole covers.
That’s right, exploding manhole covers. The Health and Safety Executive has warned pedestrians to be on the alert after a series of manhole cover explosions in London’s West End.
There have been 64 such incidents already this year, compared with just nine in 2011. ‘Experts’ blame the ‘wettest winter on record’ for rainwater damaging underground electric cables.
Add this be-freckled item to the warming list: new research says red heads will be about as common as a dinosaur walking through Times Square. You can blame global warming, scientists say. Is there anything it can't do? From Handbag.com:
According to new research conducted by ScotlandsDNA, if the weather continues to get warmer, the population of red heads may decline.
Having an auburn 'do and porcelain skin has always been a beautiful look, but now it seems it'll become even more unique.
The research showed that the redhead gene came about due to an evolutionary response to lack of sunlight and Vitamin D in the northern isles of the UK.
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. --Albert Einstein
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill,On Liberty, 1859
Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday. One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” --Ben Webster, The Times, 8 July 2014
Steyer, Steyer, Pants on fire!It’s interesting to see the New York Times finally getting around to telling a story that conservative bloggers have been left alone to tell, notably PowerLine, which is not credited by the Times, but broke the exact same story several months ago. This is a story that makes Democrat sugar daddy Tom Steyer – who bought the Party and its President lock, stock, and barrel this year, with a promise of $100 million in campaign contributions – look very bad. It also makes the Koch-obsessed left wing media look very bad, because they’ve been politely ignoring the incandescently obvious fact that Steyer is what they’ve been accusing the Koch Brothers of being: a self-interested moneybags looking to purchase control over the American political system for his own ends.
The New York Times begins its report by describing a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that’s going to spew eeeeeeeevil carbon dioxide – the Glenfidditch of greenhouse gases – into the atmosphere for decades to come. The project was opposed by some local environmentalists, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s been bankrolled by the biggest environmentalist of them all:
Seeing a pattern yet?No longer content writing rules with "We The People" in mind, Obama's EPA is now letting a radical environmental group do its dictation. The story of green, greed, and Obama's shredded political legacy. From the NY Times:
In November 2010, three combatants gathered in a sleek office here to build a carbon emissions policy that they hoped to sell to the Obama administration.
One was a lawyer who had been wielding the Clean Air Act since his days at the University of California, Berkeley. Another had turned to practicing environmental law and writing federal regulations to curb pollution after spending a summer on a pristine island off Nova Scotia. The third, a climate scientist who is a fixture on Capitol Hill, became an environmentalist because of postcollege backpacking trips in the Rockies.
Someone sent me a clip from John Oliver—a nebbishy British version of Jon Stewart—arguing that global warming skeptics don’t deserve a hearing because 97% of scientists supposedly back the claims of catastrophic man-made global warming.
This video actually demonstrates that lefties like Oliver and Stewart don’t deserve a hearing, at least not on any topic remotely related to science. And the way Oliver dramatized his point turns out to be very revealing about what actually drives the global warming hysteria.
What explains the incredible intolerance, belligerance, and stunning dogmatism of the climate central planners? They really can’t allow a debate, because they will certainly and rightly lose. When that is certain, the only way forward is to rage. If you want tolerance and humility, and a willingness to defer to the evidence and gradual process of scientific discovery, you will find it among those who have no desire to manage the world from the top down. --Jeffrey Tucker, Liberty Me, 19 June 2014
The BBC’s behaviour grows ever more bizarre. Committed by charter to balanced reporting, it has now decided formally that it was wrong to allow balance in a debate between rival guesses about the future. In rebuking itself for having had the gall to interview Nigel Lawson on the Today programme about climate change earlier this year, it issued a statement containing this gem: “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research.” The evidence from computer modelling? The phrase is an oxymoron. A model cannot, by definition, provide evidence: it can provide a prediction to test against real evidence. --Matt Ridley, The Times, 7 July 2014
Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered the eternal conundrum of competing choices. His “Aye, there’s the rub” nicely summarizes the conflicts inherent in the present socio/political/scientific arena of climate discussions.
Years of relentless doomsday prognostications by a variety of public voices spanning the political-scientific spectrum have found their mark in a gullible and guilt-prone public. There is a Medusa-like quality in the serpentine web of doomsday prophets, including members of the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” and the current White House science advisor, John Holdren. In the U.S., Rachel Carson proclaimed DDT to be environmental enemy number one, and inspired Al Gore to discover “Inconvenient Truths,” later found to be not so truthful. Al Gore’s contribution to making climate change a co-equal amongst the four horsemen of the apocalypse is matched by M. Mann’s reinterpretation of global temperature history. Repeated refutations of “faulty” science and failed predictions of climate calamities have not deterred these marketers of doom. Cut the head off, yet it lives on.
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the patrons of conservative Republican politics, after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.