Agreed, Jill Singer: the nonsense has to stop

Jill Singer supports a carbon (dioxide!) tax. Unfortunately, she shows a complete ignorance of the real science behind the politics.

THE “debate” over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce.

Indeed it has. The Left seem to think that taxing the bejesus out of a trace gas will somehow save a planet that doesn’t need saving. Jill and her ilk fail to realise CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas at that. It makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere. Most of it is natural. The sceptical side has man-made CO2 at 3% or about 0.001% of our atmosphere. The alarmist side puts man-made CO2 at ten times higher. But so what? That means man-made CO2 would occupy 0.01% of our atmosphere.

There’s no way Man’s small contribution to a minor greenhouse trace gas – yet an essential gas, most of it naturally occurring – can be the main driver of climate. That hypothesis is, to use Jill’s words, a “high farce”.

Read more of this post

Drink more Coke!

This is the label from a 500ml bottle of Coke. Note the little green bit. It’s states that the bottle contains 168 grams of CO2. Excellent!  It’s time to go back to that old Coke-a-day habit!



In other warmy news, 67 German scientists have written to the German big cheese about this man-made climate change nonsense.

Quick math check: Percentage of atmospheric CO2 = 0.04%. Percentage of man made CO2=5% of that. Percentage of atmosphere made up of man-made CO2=0.002%. Two thousandths of one percent.



Or as a blogger, roslav, put it on George Monboit’s blog a while back…

The concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm (pre-industrial world) to 387ppm (now). Right? In other words, particles other than the CO2 made up 99.972% of the atmosphere then, and 99.9613% now. Right?

Am I to believe that this infinitesimal change in the level of CO2 will raise sea levels six meters, kill polar bears, and turn Britain into a desert? And what about pigs? Will they fly?

Note. Yes, there is dispute on how much CO2 is man-made but the numbers are so small anyway, it’s moot. Even if man-made C02 were 50% rather than 5%, that would still only bring up man-made CO2’s contribution to the atmosphere to 0.02% as opposed to 0.002%.


How the fuck is man-made CO2 supposed to be driving climate change when even if you pumped it up to 4000 parts per million, it can absorb virtually no more heat anyway since the heat absorption is on a logarithmic scale, and is pretty much maxed-out already?


Some more number crunching. If CO2 is about 400ppm (parts per million) and we produce 5% of that, that means total human CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is 20ppm.

PS Australia contributes about 1.5% of that human CO2 total meaning Rudd will introduce a costly, ineffective, job destroying ETS all because Australia’s CO2 contribution is 0.3ppm.


I’ve missed the most obvious question. Why, when most people are worried about man-made CO2 emissions, would Coke put that little green label on their bottles and thus potentially lower sales?

%d bloggers like this: