Monckton’s litany

  • Canute couldn’t stop sea lev­el ris­ing. Offi­cials can’t stop it either.
  • Even if glob­al tem­per­a­ture has risen, it has risen in a straight line at a nat­ur­al 0.5 °C/century for 300 years since the Sun recov­ered from the Maun­der Min­i­mum, long before we could have had any influ­ence (Aka­so­fu, 2008).
  • Even if warm­ing had sped up, now tem­per­a­ture is 7C below most of the past 500m yrs; 5C below all 4 recent inter-glacials; and up to 3C below the Bronze Age, Roman & medi­ae­val opti­ma (Petit et al., 1999; IPCC, 1990).
  • Even if today’s warm­ing were unprece­dent­ed, the Sun is the prob­a­ble cause. It was more active in the past 70 years than in the pre­vi­ous 11,400 (Usoskin et al., 2003; Hath­away et al., 2004; IAU, 2004; Solan­ki et al., 2005).
  • Even if the sun were not to blame, the UN’s cli­mate pan­el has not shown that human­i­ty is to blame. CO2 occu­pies only one-ten-thou­sandth more of the atmos­phere today than it did in 1750 (Keel­ing & Whorf, 2004).
  • Even if CO2 were to blame, no “run­away green­house” cat­a­stro­phe occurred in the Cam­bri­an era, when there was ~20 times today’s con­cen­tra­tion in the air. Tem­per­a­ture was just 7 C warmer than today (IPCC, 2001).
  • Even if CO2 lev­els had set a record, there has been no warm­ing since 1998. For 7 years, tem­per­a­tures have fall­en. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steep­est since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).
  • Even if the plan­et were not cool­ing, the rate of warm­ing is far less than the UN imag­ines. It would be too small to cause harm. There may well be no new warm­ing until 2015, if then (Keenly­side et al., 2008).
  • Even if warm­ing were harm­ful, humankind’s effect is minus­cule. “The observed changes may be nat­ur­al” (IPCC, 2001; cf. Chylek et al., 2008; Lindzen, 2007; Spencer, 2007; Wentz et al., 2007; Zichichi, 2007; etc.).
  • Even if our effect were sig­nif­i­cant, the UN’s pro­ject­ed human fin­ger­print – trop­i­cal mid-tro­pos­phere warm­ing at thrice the sur­face rate – is absent (Dou­glass et al., 2004, 2007; Lindzen, 2001, 2007; Spencer, 2007). 
  • Even if the human fin­ger­print were present, cli­mate mod­els can­not pre­dict the future of the com­plex, chaot­ic cli­mate unless we know its ini­tial state to an unat­tain­able pre­ci­sion (Lorenz, 1963; Gior­gi, 2005; IPCC, 2001).
  • Even if com­put­er mod­els could work, they can­not pre­dict future rates of warm­ing. Tem­per­a­ture response to atmos­pher­ic green­house-gas enrich­ment is an input to the com­put­ers, not an out­put from them (Aka­so­fu, 2008).
  • Even if the UN’s imag­ined high “cli­mate sen­si­tiv­i­ty” to CO2 were right, dis­as­ter would not be like­ly to fol­low. The peer-reviewed lit­er­a­ture is near-unan­i­mous in not pre­dict­ing cli­mate cat­a­stro­phe (Schulte, 2008). 
  • Even if Al Gore were right that harm might occur, “the Armaged­don sce­nario he depicts is not based on any sci­en­tif­ic view”. Sea lev­el may rise 1 ft to 2100, not 20 ft (Bur­ton, J., 2007; IPCC, 2007; Moern­er, 2004).
  • Even if Armaged­don were like­ly, sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly-unsound pre­cau­tions are already starv­ing mil­lions as bio­fu­els, a “crime against human­i­ty”, pre-empt agri­cul­tur­al land, dou­bling sta­ple cere­al prices in a year. (UNFAO, 2008).
  • Even if pre­cau­tions were not killing the poor, they would work no bet­ter than the “pre­cau­tion­ary” ban on DDT, which killed 40 mil­lion chil­dren before the UN at last end­ed it (Dr. Ara­ta Kochi, UN malar­ia pro­gram, 2006).
  • Even if pre­cau­tions might work, the strate­gic harm done to human­i­ty by killing the world’s poor and destroy­ing the eco­nom­ic pros­per­i­ty of the West would out­weigh any cli­mate ben­e­fit (Hen­der­son, 2007; UNFAO, 2008).
  • Even if the cli­mat­ic ben­e­fits of mit­i­ga­tion could out­weigh the mil­lions of deaths it is caus­ing, adap­ta­tion as and if nec­es­sary would be far more cost-effec­tive and less harm­ful (all econ­o­mists except Stern, 2006).
  • Even if mit­i­ga­tion were as cost-effec­tive as adap­ta­tion, the pub­lic sec­tor – which emits twice as much car­bon to do a giv­en thing as the pri­vate sec­tor – must cut its own size by half before it preach­es to us (Fried­man, 1993).
  • There­fore, extrav­a­gant, futile schemes by the State and its organs to mit­i­gate imag­ined “glob­al warm­ing” will have no more effect than King Canute’s com­mand to the tide not to come in and wet the Roy­al feet. 
  • We must get the sci­ence right or we shall get the pol­i­cy wrong. There is no man­made “cli­mate cri­sis”. It is a non-prob­lem. The cor­rect pol­i­cy approach to a non-prob­lem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Address by The Vis­count Mon­ck­ton of Brench­ley to the Local Gov­ern­ment Asso­ci­a­tion, Bournemouth, 3 July 2008. Thanks to Dr Ben­ny Peis­er’s newslet­ter where this was first published. 

Ref­er­ences: Many of the ref­er­ences are spelled out in full in Monk­ton’s recent arti­cle in the let­ters of the Amer­i­can Phys­i­cal Soci­ety.


  1. At a time of uni­ver­sal deceit, telling the truth becomes a rev­o­lu­tion­ary act”
        George Orwell

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeat­ing it, peo­ple will even­tu­al­ly come to believe it.    The lie can be main­tained only for such time as the state can shield the peo­ple from the polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and/or mil­i­tary con­se­quen­cies of the lie.


    (The eco­nom­ic con­se­quen­cies are begin­ning to be seen. TTG)

    I won­der how long it will be before the main stream media final­ly realis­es that their inter­est would be bet­ter served by expos­ing the whole sor­ry affair. 
    Thank good­ness for Mon­ck­ton, Christo­pher Book­er and a few others.

  2. I’ve been active­ly study­ing glo­gal warm­ing news for two years now and your last para­graph is pos­si­bly the most per­ti­nent item I’ve read.

    We owe a great deal to all those who valient­ly fight this idio­cy, but I feel we are attack­ing on the wrong flank.  The remain­der of your com­ments point the direc­tion we should be tak­ing.  Media has been silenced and we now learn that Wikipedia edits out mate­r­i­al that doen’t fit the religion.

    For all the huge amount of work that Vis­count Mon­ck­ton has churned out, I rather think that Ter­ry Wogan’s tiny col­l­umn in the Dai­ly Tele­graph gets through to more people.

    Per­haps a promi­nent half page from Ter­ry includ­ing a graph of ‘79 to July ‘08 might achieve more and quicker

    Gore does not con­trol the press as Goebbels did (at least I hope not!), so bring­ing him down on this issue should real­ly be a piece of cake>

  3. Nor­man: I think Monkton’s writ­ings are impor­tant because they car­ry weight with peo­ple who think about these—- still some what abstract (because noth­ing much has hap­pened)—- pol­i­cy issues. 

    We have to thank good­ness (as Thomas says) for his work because his is now a rare species: inde­pen­dent schol­ars not yoked to grants and received wisdom.

  4. We need Lord Christo­pher Mon­ck­ton to come down to Aus­tralia and knock some sense into Labor the Lib­er­al party.

    Instead of play­ing catch up pol­i­tics, they (the Lib­er­als) should be stand­ing on their hind legs and denounc­ing the so called man made glob­al warm­ing for what is is…

    Utter Fraud.

    I used to be a long time labor sup­port­er, but no more…

    Labors’ embrac­ing of this car­bon cult like pol­i­cy has finnaly turned me away. This idi­ot­ic Car­bon trad­ing, will end up doing more to harm the aver­age work­ing fam­i­ly in this coun­try than any oth­er sort of work­choice legislation.

    There was time that the labor par­ty actu­al­ly helped the poor and the down trod­den, but now, they’re too obsessed with being seen to ‘polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect’ on the world stage, to wor­ry about pen­sion­ers, dis­abled and work­ers will survive..

    Lit­tle won­der Rudd is being dubbed The New Emper­or Ming”…

  5. Aqua: That’s a great idea, to com­pare the impact of an ETS and Work­choic­es on ordi­nary fam­i­lies. I’d like to see if I can find some esti­mates. Do you know of any?

  6. Peter, sad­ly, I am not an econ­o­mist. but the com­par­i­son is some­thing that the Lib­er­als should use as a stick to beat over the heads of the Kevin (Emper­or Ming)  Rudd & Co..

    In the mean­time. I have been in touch with Lord Mon­ck­ton. who recent­ly shared in the Nobel prize along with­the rest of the IPCC.
    How­ev­er, unlike the many flaky syco­phants and sci­en­tif­ic yes~men that make up that vile ‘cor­pus delic­ti’; he has staunch­ly and bod­ly attacked them for their adher­ance to junkscience.. 

    In his reply to me, he added a copy of a let­ter he wrote to Sen­a­tor Pen­ny Wong.

    In con­se­quence, he has giv­en me per­mis­sion to pass his let­ter around the internet…and you are like­wise free to pass it on to like mind­ed individuals.

    It is repro­duced in full below…


    “Many thanks for your enquiry.

    This is a mes­sage that, at the invi­ta­tion of one of your com­pa­tri­ots, I wrote to Sen­a­tor Wong two days ago.

    It is now being wide­ly cir­cu­lat­ed among the Oppo­si­tion: do feel free to cir­cu­late it still fur­ther. — M of B


    Dear Sen­a­tor Wong -

    Greet­ings from Scot­land! One of your con­stituents, has asked me to drop you a short email about emis­sions trad­ing and “glob­al warming”.

    I have recent­ly con­duct­ed some detailed research into the math­e­mat­ics behind the con­clu­sions of the UN cli­mate pan­el on the sin­gle ques­tion that mat­ters in the cli­mate debate — by how much will the world warm in response to adding CO2 to the atmos­phere? My research, pub­lished in Physics and Soci­ety, a tech­ni­cal newslet­ter of the Amer­i­can Phys­i­cal Soci­ety this month, demon­strates that the IPCC’s val­ues for the three key para­me­ters whose prod­uct is cli­mate sen­si­tiv­i­ty are based on only four
    papers — not the 2,500 that are often men­tioned. Those four papers are unrep­re­sen­ta­tive of the lit­er­a­ture, in which a low and harm­less cli­mate sen­si­tiv­i­ty is now the con­sen­sus. There­fore I should rec­om­mend extreme cau­tion before any emis­sions-trad­ing scheme is put in place.

    Such schemes will dam­age Australia’s com­pet­i­tive­ness, per­haps fatal­ly; they are prone to cor­rup­tion in that they incen­tivize over-claim­ing by both par­ties to each trade and by the reg­u­la­tor; they are address­ing a non-prob­lem; and, even if the prob­lem were real (as a few large­ly-politi­cized sci­en­tists per­sist in main­tain­ing), adap­ta­tion as and if nec­es­sary would be orders of mag­ni­tude cheap­er than emis­sions trad­ing or any oth­er attempt at mit­i­gat­ing the quan­ti­ties of car­bon diox­ide that we are (harm­less­ly) adding to the atmosphere.

    There­fore I strong­ly urge you to recon­sid­er your sup­port for this or any emis­sions-trad­ing scheme. I have read the Aus­tralian Government’s paper on the pro­posed scheme, and the sci­ence in it is, alas, large­ly non­sense. Polit­i­cal­ly, of course, the fatal dam­age that emis­sions trad­ing will do to the Aus­tralian econ­o­my will great­ly favour the ene­mies of the free West, which is why I, as an ally, have locus stan­di to approach you. 

    Cli­mat­i­cal­ly, your emis­sions-trad­ing scheme will not make any sig­nif­i­cant difference.

    There are many oth­er envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems that are real: I rec­om­mend that the Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment should tack­le those. As for the cli­mate, it is a non-prob­lem, and the cor­rect pol­i­cy approach to a non-prob­lem is to have the courage to do noth­ing. Sim­i­lar warn­ings are being sent to oth­er leg­is­la­tors world­wide by those of us — now prob­a­bly in the major­i­ty among the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty, not that one should do sci­ence by head-count -
    who have stud­ied cli­mate sen­si­tiv­i­ty and have found the UN’s analy­sis lam­en­ta­bly wanting.

    The UN’s pre­dic­tions are already being fal­si­fied by events: glob­al
    tem­per­a­tures have been falling for sev­en years, and not one of the cli­mate mod­els relied upon so heav­i­ly and so unwise­ly by the IPCC pre­dict­ed that turn of events. If you intro­duce an emis­sions-trad­ing scheme, when it tran­spires that the scheme and its asso­ci­at­ed eco­nom­ic dam­age had nev­er been nec­es­sary — and it will, and soon­er than you think — you and your par­ty will be flung from office, per­haps forever. 

    It is, there­fore, in the long-term vest­ed inter­est of your par­ty to think again.

    - Mon­ck­ton of Brenchley”


    .…Some­how or oth­er, I fear it will fall on deaf ears…

  7. Gov­ern­ments are sim­ply using the ‘cli­mate change’ issue to secure extra fund­ing for them­selves by way of tax­a­tion. This car­bon tax is basi­cal­ly a tax on our very exis­tence. It has noth­ing to do with the envi­ron­ment and every­thing to do with taxes. 

    Goven­r­ments rely on tax­a­tion for thi­er pow­er and wealth, there­fore why would even the oppo­si­tion seek to pre­vent it, after all it will be thi­er mon­ey one day as well. This is pure­ly a means of steal­ing mon­ey from us, and even­tu­al­ly enslav­ing us. Rudd will be offer­ing up this extra rev­enue to put towards his glob­al gov­ern­ment, next will be a glob­al water tax, wait and see. we’ll be told it is to sub­sidise 3rd world devel­op­ment when real­ly it is all going to be used to sub­sidise an elite, glob­al, rul­ing class.

  8. one more point, has any one asked them why they changed the name of thi­er cause from ‘Glob­al Warm­ing’ to ‘Cli­mate Change’. Answer, cli­mate change can be absolute­ly any­thing, warmer, cold­er, windi­er, calmer, dry­er, wet­ter. Who ever said that glob­al temps and weath­er con­di­tions were ever sta­ble in the first place? 

    They had to throw out the ‘Glob­al Warm­ing’ mantra because the earth has been in a cool­ing phase for a decade or so.

    Why do all Left Wingers see them­selves as a cut above on the intel­lec­tu­al scale yet they swal­low every­thing with­out question…scary.

  9. Greet­ings

    I am a trained scientist.

    I do not hold to man made cli­mate change because it is not “true sci­ence”. True sci­ence has to do with what can be actu­al­ly observed and mea­sured, and what we have observed and mea­sured indi­cates that the evi­dence is not there for man made cli­mate change.

    At Flinders Uni­ver­si­ty we found upon exam­i­na­tion of the actu­al data that there is no demon­stra­ble basis for Anthro­pogenic Cli­mate Change. 

    There are oth­er sci­en­tists at Flinders (Pro­fes­sors in Chem­istry and Physics) who hold this con­clu­sion, because it is based only on the facts that we can observe.

    The “Cli­mate Change” Red-Her­ring” has only ever been the prin­ci­ple vehi­cle by which “Glob­al Warmists” in gov­ern­ment have sought to set up a one world cen­tral dic­ta­tor­ship. this is its prin­ci­ple pur­pose, with the added ben­e­fit that is a con­ve­nient excuse by which we may all be fur­ther taxed.

  10. The one world gov­ern­ment is going to hap­pen!! it will look like a good thing but IT ISNT!! Every­one will be deceived. Sign­ing the treaty will sign away our free­dom and it will NEVER be able to be tak­en back. This will also start a one world reli­gion and the pope will be the head of it most like­ly, believ­ing him­self to be anoth­er Christ. The world is full of free masons!! even then pope’s cathe­dral has freema­son­ry sym­bols in it. Watch the Total onslaught series by Wal­ter Veith!!

  11. Hi Guy , could you please prvide more links to papers prov­ing your ideas , Iam look­ing for evi­dence from both sides , i can find plen­ty of papers research dis­prov­ing oth­er cuas­es for CC (sun sunspots , cos­mic rays etc ) . Also from read­ing forums web­sites it seems Ppl enjoy tak­ing the con­trary view just to show how much they are not part of the pack , they denied all research show­ing any link to CO2 and warm­ing as dodgey . why are some sci­en­tist right and some wrong , I see this on both sides and the debate is being side­track by con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist about one world gov­er­ment that one being going for as long as i can remem­ber and its still no closer . 

    Col At Flinders Uni­ver­si­ty you make a post stat­ing from your obser­va­tions you can find no evi­dence for Anthro­pogenic Cli­mate Change could you link any of these stud­ies ? On pro Anthro­pogenic Cli­mate Change web­site if they make state­ment like that they will add links .
    we need you to do that so we can com­pare and read oth­er­wise your state­ment is worthless . 

    thanx Dav­ed

  12. Be encour­aged — the truth will pre­vail.
    In the words of oth­ers, The plight of the world we see, is a graph­ic demon­stra­tion that there is a set of prin­ci­ples of truth beyond the mind of man — and that man has shak­en his fist at that truth and has invent­ed his own ver­sion of utopia which flies in the face of that truth.
    No won­der things go awry.
    The lead­ers of the world (those who wish to inflict this utopia on all peo­ple whether they want it or not) are either blind, stu­pid or despot­ic.  And if gen­er­al­ly edu­cat­ed peo­ple like you and I can even enter­tain this ques­tion from our rather obscure obser­va­tions, then I think that blind and stu­pid are prob­a­bly not the issue here!
    The Copen­hagen treaty is, no doubt to my mind, a push for inter­na­tion­al con­trol over the free­doms we — in the West­ern Chris­t­ian world, have delib­er­at­ed for, and fought and died for, for well over a thou­sand years.
    On Novem­ber 11th, only a few weeks ago, we respect­ed one minute’s silence for those who have been pre­pared to die for our free­dom (and many did die).
    And yet, our lead­ers are will­ing to throw all that away, for appease­ment to a world dic­ta­tor­ship, and aban­don our free­doms to the con­trol of a hand full of peo­ple we nev­er elect­ed?
    Oh God, how low have we come?
    Be vig­i­lant my friends, don’t let Rudd do it.
    Com­plain until they want you to just shut up!
    Talk to your ‘rep­re­sen­ta­tives.’


  13. We must protest far more vol­ubly and open­ly against the intro­duc­tion of this ETS / CPRS.
    Fed­er­al Oppo­si­tion ALSO has no idea of how use­less and harm­ful it will be.
    One way to drill sense into the debate is to buy a full-page dav­er­tise­ment in the main Aus­tralian news­pa­per The Aus­tralian and repeat it ongo­ing­ly, but with sen­si­ble vari­a­tions each time——say week­ly.  Include car­toons ridi­cul­ing the whole thing.  But be very care­ful ! Get Mon­ck­ton or Lindzen or Carter ro vet all final details before sub­mis­sion.  And beware of infil­tra­tion by car­bon­istas.  Cost will be peanuts if thou­sands of us con­tribute via Paypal—-say $10 or less each. If we can kill this mad­ness, Aus­tralia will tru­ly “lead the world”—-.  But anoth­er warn­ing—- ours must not be a “Do Noth­ing” policy—while noth­ing needs to be done about AGW, the Coali­tion must forge ahead with hun­dreds of oth­er envi­ron­men­tal things—-conbat degra­da­tion of air, water, land, and sea.  Give real incen­tives for research in renew­able ener­gy (tidal, geot­her­mal, solar etc——nuclear is not renew­able of course), worl­wide search for real engi­neer­ing exper­tise in improved ways to desali­nate seawater—-and so on. 
    Writ­ing let­ters to Can­ber­ra seems to be useless—-so any tak­ers for this “full-page advert” idea ??? Vol­un­teers with the organ­is­ing exper­tise and time ?  Write to i j s e t o n @ w e s t n e t . c o m . a u (but with no spaces , of course)

  14. unfor­tu­nate­ly guys, it is inevitable, why would the coali­tion, or any govt. stop it? it is extra income for them! extra pow­er! any busi­ness will try to increase its rev­enue by any means pos­si­ble, why would a gov­ern­ment be any dif­fer­ent. and ter­ence, don’t roman­ti­cise about fall­en vet­er­ans and bygone eras etc. the same forces that sent those dig­gers out to their deaths in the name of ‘free­dom’ are the ones that are try­ing to enslave us today. dig a lit­tle deep­er in your his­to­ry books and you’ll see that none of those wars were ever about such lofty notions as free­dom and jus­tice. wars are always waged because thi­er is wealth and pow­er at stake.
    just amazes me that so many aus­tralians are actu­al­ly scream­ing for this tax to kick in, it is a very scary omen for the future that we are sur­round­ed my so many that are so ignorant.

  15. Yes Matt, I agree about the caus­es of war.
    (aka. Antho­ny Sut­ton, C.H. Dou­glas, Cpt. Ram­say, E.D.Butler, etc.)

    For­give my roman­tic ‘episode’!

    How­ev­er, please be care­ful with that word “inevitable”!
    Cap­tain Ram­say, in his book

  16. For Dav­ed:

    On pro Anthro­pogenic Cli­mate Change web­site if they make state­ment like that they will add links “

    Yes, they do, but the links don’t actu­al­ly con­tain any evi­dence of AGW, only ever unsub­stan­ti­at­ed claims with links to oth­er unsub­stan­ti­at­ed claims.

    In terms of “proof” it is dif­fi­cult to dis­prove a neg­a­tive. If, for exam­ple, I said that I believed in Lep­rechauns, would you be able to prove that they didn’t exist.

    All the scep­tic can do is to pro­vide infor­ma­tion that is incon­sis­tent with the pro­pos­al in ques­tion (as Mon­ck­ton has done above).

    The onus is on the warmists to prove that CO2 caus­es warm­ing, and they have not yet done so.


  17. Sad­ly I must admit that John Howard was cor­rect in his scep­ti­cism of the glob­al warm­ing scam.
    How­ev­er I must admit that I self­ish­ly would have still vot­ed against him because of his indus­tri­al relations,..ahem,..reforms. If I was a vot­er i.e.
    My my how eas­i­ly we are led to the slaughter.

  18. This is some of the most ridicu­lous non­sense I have ever read. If you folks had the courage to accept the real­i­ty about human made cli­mate change, you would actu­al­ly try and do some­thing about it. Nice work on your dis­tor­tions, lies and selec­tive blind­ness so that you don’t have to change any­thing. The evi­dence is over­whelm­ing, and you’re being con­trary out of com­fort. Deal with it.

  19. Dear All,

    I am involved in the Lord Mon­ck­ton tour of Aus­tralia 2010.  We now have com­plet­ed tour dates.

    Any­one inter­est­ed in details on any of the tour loca­tions can con­tact me via email and I will email out the fly­er to them for their location. 

    Tick­et prices range from just $2 to $20 depend­ing on hire costs of the venue. 

    It was par­tic­u­lar­ly impor­tant to Lord Monckton’s sup­port­ers and to Lord Mon­ck­ton him­self, that prices be kept to a min­i­mum in order for as many Aus­tralians as pos­si­ble to see this speak­er, on such an impor­tant matter.

    Whether you are for or against, take the oppor­tu­ni­ty just to “lis­ten”. 

    One thing that is obvi­ous is that there is far too much con­tro­ver­sy, which is grow­ing dai­ly with new reports of “doc­tored” data etc, for our gov­ern­ment to be mak­ing such a vital deci­sion to give away our tax pay­er dol­lars (I’ve seen fig­ures of $4550 per year per tax pay­er) on some­thing unproven.

  20. to the anony­mous above who writes about how ridicu­lous we all are. can he/she please explain to us how a con­sump­tion tax is going to help the envi­ron­ment? are we going to use less elec­tric­i­ty? are we going to eat less food? are we going to cun­sume less of any­thing? the answer is no and your govt.knows this, that is why they are tax­ing us, sim­ply to raise rev­enue, its a sim­ple fact and if you knew any­thing about govt’s you would see this for what it is.

    or if tax­a­tion is a bit too con­fus­ing for you, think of it this way, think of it in terms of free­dom and lib­er­ty. my wife and i are about to have our sec­ond child, this child from the moment it is born, to the day that it dies, will be sub­ject to this con­sump­tion tax. what right does any govt’ have to decide that just because a human being is born in a par­tic­u­lar coun­try, that it should become an imme­di­ate source of tax rev­enue? it’s abhor­rent, evil and it sick­ens me that my unborn childs lib­er­ty is already dimin­ished because of this pro­posed legislation.

    and for your info. i live in syd­ney but i also own a large farm, that uses no elec­tric­i­ty, par­takes in no agri­cul­tur­al activ­i­ty and stores its own water, so i guess some­one like you would say that it leaves a ‘neg­a­tive car­bon foot­print’ or some such oth­er con­trite classification. 

    so you see, i could almost guar­an­tee that i am doing much more for the envi­ron­ment than you ever will.

    look at the ETS/CRPS and see it for what it is, it is a new all encom­pass­ing tax on the mass­es, it is rev­enue rais­ing at the expense of our qual­i­ty of life and liberty.

    unfor­tu­nate­ly in Aus­tralia a large % of the pop­u­la­tion fail to realise how insid­i­ous and manip­u­la­tive gov­ern­ments are. a lot of peo­ple gen­uine­ly belive that govt. is serv­ing in our best inter­ests, and that is where the dan­ger lies.


  21. Matt

    if all we are wor­ried about is that the ETS is a tax on the mass­es why are we not so indig­nant about all tax­es espe­cialy the GST which IS a tax on every­thing not just carbon . 

    The attack on “our qual­i­ty of life and liberty ” 

    I dont see it as such I see as a oppor­tu­ni­ty to mve away from using car­bon inten­sive resources by mov­ing to solar pan­els and even­tu­al­ly elec­tric cars charged from those panels .

    the oils going to run out any­way might as well be ahead of the curve .

    and as for your farm well your for­tu­nate to be in a posi­tion to afford such a thing , the smug cloud is just pour­ing from you with that state­ment , just a hint .


  22. As an Envi­ron­men­tal Sci­en­tist who majored Geo­science as an Under­grad and Min­er­al Resources as a Post­grad, I find it some­what dis­turb­ing that Aus­tralian Uni­ver­si­ties are now attempt­ing to punch out a gen­er­a­tion of pseu­do-sci­en­tists in the form of Envi­ron­men­tal Man­agers who reli­gious­ly wor­ship at the alter of anthro­pogenic cli­mate change. The study of real Sci­ence, the devel­op­ment of hypoth­e­sis and the­o­ries, togeth­er with peer review are and should con­tin­ue to be a core val­ue of how we oper­ate.
    It seems many Uni­ver­si­ties in Aus­tralia who offer Degree lev­el edu­ca­tion and train­ing to Envi­ron­men­tal pro­fes­sion­als have been overun with left wing philoso­phers and green fanat­ics who have been appoint­ed as Lec­tur­ers and Depart­ment Heads. I have heard some of these peo­ple speak, read course mate­ri­als and not­ed the dooms­day mes­sages they spruik. What hap­pened to Science?

  23. @matt The ETS and oth­er sim­i­lar schemes work by mak­ing the emis­sion of CO2 by indus­try pro­gres­sive­ly more expen­sive, and there­fore less desir­able. The mon­ey raised by the ETS doesn’t sim­ply evap­o­rate, it will be re-dis­trib­uted by the gov­ern­ment to encour­age non-pol­lut­ing approach­es to busi­ness and min­i­mize the costs to indi­vid­u­als.
    Of course it is implic­it that the ben­e­fit to the envi­ron­ment, the only one we have, is that putting an upper lim­it on atmos­pher­ic CO2 con­cen­tra­tion is the only means by which we can lim­it the effects of anthro­pogenic cli­mate change.
    If you don’t accept that human activ­i­ty has an impact on the cli­mate, then I would point out that the vast major­i­ty of pub­licly account­able cli­mate sci­en­tists dis­agree with your posi­tion:

    And also that Mon­ck­ton has been shown to delib­er­ate­ly mis­rep­re­sent the facts to sup­port his view, and even to fab­ri­cate evi­dence for his own ben­e­fit:



  24. Hel­lo, I’m new to this site. Just come across it after doing some of my own research on the ETS after see­ing a man by the name of Lord Mon­ck­ton have his say at a press club. I haven’t read all of what’s print­ed in these web pages, only some. I have also only watched some of thes­peech giv­en by Lord Mon­ck­ton on Aus­tar chan­nel APAC. I am inter­est­ed in this sub­ject as I am con­cerned about our plan­et and how we as humans are doing some bad things to her. I am also an installer of Grid Con­nect Pho­to­voltaics.
    For a start, unless a per­son lives and breathes this sort of stuff talked about i.e. whether Cli­mate Change is real or unre­al, or Lord Mon­ck­ton is bull­shit­ing or not, or the Fed­er­al Labor Gov­ern­ment is bull­shit­ing or not, or the Lib­er­al Par­ty is bull­shit­ing or not, or the Greens Par­ty is bull­shit­ing or not, or MOST impor­tant­ly, the Media is bull­shit­ing or not. The world is run by the Media and we are all fed what­ev­er the Media want us to watch, read or lis­ten to so who the hell knows if it’s bull­shit or not.

    All I want and hope­ful­ly many oth­ers is for the bull­shit to end and con­struc­tive changes made to penalise big pol­luters with­out us Mum and Dad tax­pay­ers bear­ing the brunt of huge price increas­es by them (to recoupe their penal­ties) and oth­er indus­try using the ‘Green’ word as an excuse to charge us more for things. Admit­ted­ly they might cost a lit­tle more but that’s it. Some parts of indus­try and busi­ness­es are using this cli­mate change emo­tion to rip us all off.
    Stop feed­ing us spin and mis­lead­ing infor­ma­tion and be fair about your deal­ings with us.
    It’s no bloody won­der soci­ety is like it is at the moment because we are the prod­uct of Gov­ern­ments, how they gov­ern, and their policy’s that they imple­ment. Most of us try hard to do the right thing but we are the ones who are made to pay for everything.

    Labor has been in oppo­si­tion for 11 or 12 years and is now in pow­er but they are on the verge of los­ing the opor­tu­ni­ty to do a decent job because the Lib­er­als are hit­ting them hard in the polls with their attempts to keep the ETS sim­ple and I fear this will work and get them re-elect­ed. Kevin Rudd maybe the undo­ing of what was look­ing like a good change from a long reign by the Lib­er­als but he alone will be the one that los­es it for Labor. I hope they pull the pin on the 3rd time round ETS and even, give our deputy Prime the posi­tion. Would be Australia’s first woman Prime Min­is­ter and could win a lot of votes that Mr Rudd can’t and couldn’t.

    The ETS appears to have ele­ments in it which are ‘uncon­sti­tu­tion­al’, if you believe Lord Mon­ck­ton about the farm­ers land being able to be tak­en away by the state or Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ments, but on the oth­er hand how the hell are we sup­posed to know unless we spend hours and hours read­ing every­thing that is out there in news­pa­pers and the inter­net and who has got this time? Prob­a­bly not even 80% of the pop­u­la­tion.
    Why would Labor take 140 peo­ple to Copen­hagen? As Lord Mon­ck­ton said, what a mighty car­bon foot­print that was and I’m sure they would have had a great time, ate lots of geat food, drank lots of great alco­hol etc at the expense of us the taxpayer.

  25. i dont sub­scribe to Mon­ck­tons opin­ions, and i have only ever read the one that is here, to be hon­est i find his let­ter a lit­tle underwhelming. 

    what i can say is that i majored in bio­log­i­cal scince at UNSW. one of the first and sim­plest things we learnt when study­ing ecol­o­gy (1st year stuff) was that glob­al temps always fluc­tu­ate, up, down, up down etc. temps in the past have been warmer than they are now. when you look at the ‘scary’ tem­per­a­ture rise charts they show you, have a look at both axes and see the scale they use. the x axes invara­iably starts at 1880 (indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tion oooohhhh!),and stops just beyond 2000. the y axes is in incre­ments of 0.1 or 0.2 degrees. this makes it look scary, but when put into per­spec­tive of mil­lions of years, a 0.6 or 0.8 degree rise in temps over the past 100 odd years IS NOT unusu­al. in fact if you plot glob­al temps from the year 850AD to cur­rent you would actu­al­ly see that temps are low­er, it is just a mat­ter of choos­ing the right start­ing point.

    dur­ing the medieveil warm peri­od, for exam­ple, temps were high­er than they are now, and there have been many peri­ods where temps have risen just as quickly.

    does any­one with a sci­en­tif­ic mind (or an ounce of com­mon sense) tru­ly belive that glob­al temps should be constant? 

    @dave. when oth­er tax­es are intro­duced, they are ‘sold’ to us as tax­es. rudd and wong tried to slip this TAX through as envi­ron­men­tal sal­va­tion. cmon, be hon­est, you did­nt even realise it was, at it’s very core a TAX. At least with the GST, we were told it was a GST…a tax…

    pleeeeease, ryan, are you real­ly going to tell us that allow­ing gov­ern­ments to redis­trib­ute our wealth is a reli­able, viable solu­tion. that is laugh­able, i mean, we are not 12 years old any more, we dont actu­al­ly believe that our govt’s are hon­est­ly act­ing in OUR best inter­ests do we, god i hope not, that is pure fairy tale stuff.

    and please, can any one give me a legit­i­mate expla­na­tion of why our gurus stopped using the phrase ‘glob­al warm­ing’ in favour of ‘cli­mate change’…any one???? some one???? didn’t think so.
    have a look at the above link, i don’t sub­scribe to it or read it i just used it here to show you some graphs, in par­tic­u­lar have a look at glob­al mean temps.

  26. also @ dave, as far as the GST there is no GST on fresh food, if it was up to rud­dy, he would have taxed my fam­i­ly and I on fresh food also, leav­ing no where to run. 

    and with regards to the farm, i was mak­ing a legit­mate point. were not in a social­ist utopia yet mate, so hope­ful­ly it’s still OK for peo­ple to own stuff?

  27. It seems that we are look­ing every where to find a lie or per­pe­trate one. Use your brain not your ani­mos­i­ty to TRUTH.

    Cli­mate Change has been hap­pen­ing for ever and a day, when this plan­et was devoid of humans there was cli­mate changes, numer­ous ones. Read your his­to­ry books!

    What makes you arro­gant lit­tle peo­ple think that you can change that, by a TAX, or ceas­ing to use all things mod­ern and go back to your caves.

    Some of you sound like you may have just come out of the trees drag­ging the knuckles.


  28. Oh real­ly do you think iam that stu­pid that i think the cli­mate should nev­er change and has nev­er changed before of course it has . you talk to us as thou we are chil­dren just like the govt , its not that gob­al temps should be con­stant but there a range that they move in and and the trends whether up or down or neu­tral .
    Har­ry and so dig­ging up all that car­bon that was bury over the course of mil­lions of years and putting it into the atmos­phere in the space of 200yrs is not going to have an effect on the cli­mate .
    also Har­ry why do you insult peo­ple “Some of you sound like you may have just come out of the trees drag­ging the knuck­les.” its only form of augue­ment you use when you have no facts .

    Hey Matt you stud­ied bio­log­i­cal “scince” so are you studing the cli­mate now are you doing research in the field ? 

    this is all going in cir­cles , there are to many oth­er issues being attached to the debate giv­ing peo­ple cuase to deny or ignore what could be valid sci­ence on both sides .

    Carl , I think you right over the years I have so many “green ” prod­ucts come out all rid­ing on the back of cli­mate change fears all to make more money . 

    Time will tell as always

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *