Today in Australian politics we saw some extraordinary events centering around events that took place nearly 20 years ago.
Three years is a long time in politics: recall but three years ago Tony Abbott argued for a carbon tax:
He pushes the old “no temperature rise in ten years” myth, but listen carefully.
Quote: “If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a simple tax?”
Watching the Deniers 
Mike, I think you are reading too much into this.
Its a bit like when I argue that if you want to decarbonise the economy, the only viable option is nuclear power – so why do so many of your fellow travellers argue for useless non solutions like renewables? Why do you include uneconomical, unreliable renewables in your mix of energy solutions?
I’m not suggesting that decarbonisation is necessary when I do this, I’m just pointing out the flaws in the alarmist position from several different angles.
Which is what I think Abbott is doing, when he criticises the need for a carbon price, then goes on to criticise the implementation of a carbon price.
Eric,
Referring to the “alarmist position” is a bit like referring to the “skeptic position”. I both cases there are very diverse opinions, and some people on both sides talk absolute nonsense, showing that they have no understanding of the science behind the position.
Not all so called ‘renewables’ are uneconomic and unreliable, although I certainly agree that some people include uneconomic and unreliable things in their suggested energy mixes.
The only renewable which is even vaguely viable is hydro, and there are only so many river systems you can destroy.
One day solar will be economical and useful, but that day has not yet arrived.
Eric you are pissing into the wind,
Lets see what happens to US wind if congress (hopefully) does not renew their subsidy.
http://www.energytribune.com/66474/a-subsidy-thats-blowin-in-the-wind
It is false economy to continue to use a power source that is increasing the number and severity of extreme events around the world, now verified by numerous research papers. If a hurricane has caused 50 billion in loses when it would have only caused 10 billion without the increased wind speed , heavy precipitaion and higher storm surge contributed by AGW. then you might be able to claim that coal energy is more economical and efficient
the facts refute your position, your choice may be, do we pay 10 billion extra for energy and save ourselves 40 billion in damages.
renewable is and will be the far more economical choice.
Eric, your point about hydro schemes destroying river systems is certainly valid, but ALL forms of power generation are likely to have bad effects on the environment.
You suggest that solar power is not yet viable. This is true in many places, but it is already arguably viable in South Australia where I live.
Our perceptions of risk and how that results in bad choices
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/29/1256371/from-earthquakes-to-climate-change-why-our-biases-under-prepare-us-for-risk/
“climate change risks” Scholar search
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22climate+change+risks%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
impacts of continuing to use fossil fuels
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22climate+change+impacts%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
Let me help – we’ve gathered all the often contradictory claims of risk in one place, for convenient reference.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Eric says ‘we’…is he including the aliens speaking to him via gamma ray transmission or just the other voices in his head?
I don’t maintain the page, but I have contributed to it. Whenever one of your fellow travellers says something especially silly, I make sure I send the site owner a headsup, to make sure it is preserved for posterity.
Eric,
Some of the claims in your link are interesting, but some of them are to articles which are not about global warming or climate change, and which do not seem to have much bearing on the subject, and make no claims about climate change or global warming.
There may be a few duds, I haven’t audited the entire list. But some of them, such as the CRU scientist who predicted the end of snow, are rather funny.
Yep, poor old crazy Eric has been in communication again with his alien overlords on the gamma ray radio… backing away from the list once the lies and hatred are pointed out.
Deniers gotta deny…
[…] 2012/11/29: WtD: Tony Abbott “Why not have a carbon tax”? The 2009 video in which Abbott… […]
[…] Tony Abbott “Why not have a carbon tax?”, Watching the Deniers, November 29 2012. […]
[…] Tony Abbott “Why not have a carbon tax”? The 2009 video in which Abbott argues for a pri… (watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com) […]
[…] it would be very easy to doctor a video to show Abbott stating “If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a simple […]
[…] it would be very easy to doctor a video to show Abbott stating “If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a simple […]
[…] such. What Labor enacted was a fixed price period emissions trading scheme. Let us also recall that Abbott himself stated, “If you want to put a price on carbon, why not do it with a simple tax?”. Some might be kind […]