Nuttiness to ensure: “big” anti-carbon tax rallies planned for next week. I’m excited! Are you?

Get ready folks, every denier and their dog will be out next week for a week of silliness.

Jo Nova, anti-science provocateur is helping to muster the troops:

“…We all have better things to do, but when the people who represent us call the greatest plant nutrient “pollution”, and label the volunteers “stooges” while calling their paid hacks “independent”; when they look at a color chart and say yellow is really red (and they call us “deniers”); we know things are running off the rails.

When they ask us to pay billions to change the weather, then we know the quicksand has come. And when even they admit if we succeed beyond our wildest dreams that the results will be too small to measure (how many thousandth of a degree will that be, Julia?) sometimes we just have to do something don’t we?

We can act now or pay the cost for years to come. Each time we let them get away with an untruth they grow stronger. Each time we ignore the Orwellian perversion of our language (Is it carbon (sic) pollution (sic)?), we feed the parasites who want our freedom and our money, and that hurts us, our children and the environment.”

Jo Nova promises they will be the “biggest” protest, like forever!

I mean, Jo really had NOTHING better to do than rally against the science, it’s not like she has other things on her plate…

Gosh darn it, if it wasn’t for those silly politicians Jo and her supporters could be spending their time denying evolution or visiting Roswell in the US… there are so many alluring conspiracy theories out there being neglected. Instead they have to tackle this massive global conspiracy designed to raise taxes.

“They canny take our lives, but not our FREEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMM!”


I feel for Jo and the other wanna-be protesters, with “Juliars” “Great big tax” disturbing their dreams of time-share apartments and day trading.

I’ll drop by the Melbourne protests out of curiosity.

Seriously, my prediction for the day’s turnout?

A few hundred mostly elderly, white, lower-middle to middle class “protestors” who are also angry at a range of issues like “refuges” and “speed cameras” and “the Family Court”…

You know…

The usual intellectual fringe dwellers that flock to causes such as “climate change scepticism”

I see a veritable sea of sensible cardigans, leisure wear and socks worn with sandals.

As it has been rightly said, there is a huge generational divide on the issue:

“…The war between old and young, past and future is playing out in two ways. Firstly, this debate is pitting the voices of the past against the views and perspectives of younger generations. Secondly, it’s a fight between staying locked into ancient 19th century energy technology versus unlocking the clean, renewable energy resources that will power Australia into tomorrow.

So who are these voices of the past? A mix of climate deniers, conservative columnists, right-wing shock jocks and the big polluters are driving the scare campaign over a carbon price. There’s also a high level of involvement from politicians from the far right of the Liberal Party such as Corey Bernardi and Eric Abetz — egged on by Abbott.

Advertisement: Story continues below The people they’re targeting to be part of their so-called “people’s revolt” are overwhelmingly senior citizens. Jacques Laxale, the man behind the national climate denier and anti-pollution price rallies starting tomorrow in Melbourne, said last week on Melbourne’s MTR radio that, “a lot of the response has come from people over 60s and in their 70s . . . nothing will stop them” coming to the rallies.

On the other hand, the strongest and most eloquent spokespeople for taking action on climate change are not the government or the representatives of the big environment organisations, but are instead mostly young people.”

I’m voting with the “kids” on this one.

And I’m not being “ageist”.

I know for a fact many of my readers belong to older demographics and are moderate in their politics and accepting of the science.

I’m in my early 40’s, so I can’t claim to “Speak for da yoof” of today.

However it is true… “angry white male syndrome” is helping fuel the “denial movement”.

“How dare you tell me how what to believe…. coz back in my day…not real science…you bloody kids, get off my lawn!”

To be frank, I expect next week’s protests to play like a really cheap, sad version of the Tea Party “events” in the US.

Should be amusing.

Photos and video will be posted for posterity on WtD.

Ohhhh, I wonder I’ll get tackled by angry carbon protestors…

They might think I’m a government/NWO/IPCC/UN agent… I mean I “look” like your typical conservative “salary man”.


I may wear one of my better suits, dark glasses and an ear mic.

That should stir em up!


25 thoughts on “Nuttiness to ensure: “big” anti-carbon tax rallies planned for next week. I’m excited! Are you?

  1. john byatt says:

    The funny part of the Monckton Noosa lecture was that the entire male audience consisted of white shoe wearing, hawaiian shirt clad comb over clones,

    great photo in the sunshine coast daily next morning, what is scary is that i am older than most of those that attended, so much for education under Joh in QLD,

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      It’s a state of mind mate 🙂

      Hey, I’ve been told many a time ot act my 41 years!

      • john byatt says:

        even Cox was calling me young man and i think that porkie called me lad , ridley thought that i was a young female activist ,

        the secret, don’t stop shagging ,

  2. Marg says:

    Unfortunately “elderly” people have memories, and they have education and life experience and they know stuff.
    There is a divide between Gen Y and anyone older. They have been educated via the Internet and Al Gore!
    Now a tax on Hydrogen Fluoride pollutors or mass land clearing I could get behind! Just to target carbon is ridiculous. What carbon? Diamonds, trees, humans, dioxide, monoxide, fish? Might as well tax oxygen as well. Or what about water? Oh no need, it is already polluted with fluoride by government decree.

    • john byatt says:


      My memories are probably longer than theirs , it is in effect a fossil fuel carbon dioxide tax

      They may know stuff, but they know stuff all about the physics of atmospheric CO2 increase and the consequences,

      They willfully claim to not understand what is meant by carbon tax ,

      plants have been recycling oxygen for eons, they can no longer keep up with the human added component, the proof is that as carbon emissions increase then oxygen levels are dropping
      your reply may reveal more

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      There’s something with an even longer memory.

      The scientific record.

  3. ‘people who represent us call the greatest plant nutrient “pollution”’
    Right – when a large amount of it gets absorbed by the ocean and the world’s forests are shrinking by around 2% per year, restricting “air-borne fertiliser” is the biggest scam of the century (oh, any denier who would like to suggest 2% isn’t so bad for natural veg loss – well carbon taxing will reduce GDP by less than 2% -you can’t have it both ways!).
    I’ve heard a lot of talk over recent months about the age divide in regards to ACC. Arguably the denial is more the boomers, who grew up when ‘we’d never had it better’, being unable to accept the good times came at the expense of future generations.
    Marg makes a silly point and taxing carbon. It’s very clear what carbon – carbon in GHG forms that are emitted due to fossil fuel use. Of course it would look ridiculous when you make it ridiculous – let’s tax fish… hmmm…
    Then again, she buys into the fluoride phobia…
    It’s a pity that people like Nova and Dolt have a place in the media; but both appeal to a fairly common denominator that seem willing to ignore critical faculties in favour of an easy, blameless existence – I don’t get why such people would turn away from ‘the good book’ (as Dolt is an agnostic) – I mean, it largely tells the same meme; no accountability.

    • marg says:

      “At one time we all thought that thalidomide, smoking, antibiotics, vioxx and numerous other drugs were “safe and effective” – they weren’t!
      Just because a scientist or politician says something is true – doesn’t mean it is true.
      The majority of scientists and politicians once thought our planet was flat and the centre of the universe – it isn’t! Do a little research, become informed, don’t become a mindless ‘repeater’. It may take you a little time and effort, but it is worth it for your children or grandchildren’s future.”
      Carbon dioxide is only one of the greenhouse gases. On an incomplete list are also included water and methane, plus 26 fluorine based gases.
      Rushing in to a carbon tax because some one has to go first is very immature behaviour for a Prime Minister learning her job.
      20 years ago we were heading into an Ice Age

      • john byatt says:

        Marg “20 years ago we were heading into an Ice Age”

        marg according to the climate kleptics we still are!

        i know a bit about Vioxx as i was one of those involved in the original trial, you need to look at the consequences of taking or not taking vioxx,
        glad i took it as i would probably have been crippled by now,

        if Agent orange and Malaria has not killed me then i have very small concern over your uninformed commentary

      • What a load of rubbish – I’m referring to papers, you’re mindlessly repeating ridiculous memes and hypocritically you accuse me of needing to do a little research! I actually went to the effort and expense to to go to uni and gain qualifications in ecology and have seen worked largely on environmental monitoring, including eddy covariance monitoring. I’ve done my research, maybe you should give it a shot rather than pretending to know what you’re talking about.

        Nicolas Stern said it best;
        “The basic scientific conclusions on climate change are very robust and for very good reason. The greenhouse effect is simple and sound science: greenhouse gases trap heat, and humans are emitting ever more greenhouse gases. There will be oscillations, there will be uncertainties. But the logic of the greenhouse effect is rock solid and the long-term trends associated with the effects of human emissions are clear in the data. The arguments from those who would deny the science look more and more like those who denied the association between HIV and Aids or smoking and cancer. Science and policymaking thrive on challenge and questioning; they are vital to the health of enquiry and democracy. But at some point it makes sense to move on to the challenges of policymaking and accept that the evidence is overwhelming. We are way past that point.”

        As for the Ice Age nonsense – that wasn’t a very popular hypothesis when it was bouncing around (which was largely the 70’s – so more than 30yrs ago; and again, you’re trying to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about). I get sick of how many people are trolling around the blogospere pretending to be experts. It’s a complete disgrace to the enlightenment – people like you act little better than prophets with “revelations”. Read the science literature rather than conspiracy books on the subject, or even better, attempt to at least acquire a degree on the subject.

  4. john byatt says:

    That explains it moth , i am pre- boomer

  5. john byatt says:

    At unleashed, check out the final contradiction

    Why is AGW a religion? Why smear skeptics of this theory as deniers to put them in the category of holocaust deniers? The demonization of anyone not part of the AGW groupthink is appalling.

    It is not a left/right divide Why do you claim it is?

    I am not of the right, have studied this issue and have come to the conclusion that man cannot reduce the temperature of the Earth in any significant way with any method proposed to make it cost effective in the slightest.

    Direct action is the best way. More trees, less degradation of rainforests, good soil management is where it is at.

    Stop the religious style promotion of this theory. Stop the demonization of skeptics and stop the bizarre claim of left/right battle.

    I not that this article was written again by someone gaining from this AGW industry. Sadly I think money is at the heart of the now hysterical desperation of those determined to cash in on the trading of hot air for monetary gain.

    Carbon is life.

    • I agree that a few degrees is inevitable and unavoidable. I don’t think carbon taxing will, in the short term, make much difference to emissions and by looking at human behaviour, I think people will bitch about cost, but for the most part unless it really hurts (which such taxes won’t on general householders) people will continue as per usual.

      What I’d like to see is the money from the taxes go into research and development of new cleaner tech. I’d also like the fossil fuel subsidies removed or at least extended to better include renewables. I’d also like to see better public information and political will regarding ACC; thereby encouraging practical measures of adaptation to the inevitable climate changes of both human activities and assistance to biodiversity adaptation (largely promoting biodiversity resilience).

      None of it needs to be so bad if we’re willing to be honest and accept the challenges at hand.

  6. Marg says:

    For every molecule of CO2 released into the atmosphere, the single carbon molecule is used by trees for growth or sequestration, and 2 molecules of oxygen are released back into the atmosphere. Answer to your question is that we should all plant trees, especially in cities to negate all the hot air and overheated black roads and cement. High CO2 is useful in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth

  7. john byatt says:

    We cannot even in Australia plant enough trees to even offset the losses from landclearing, we all understand the Carbon cycle ,

    during summer NH trees take in CO2 , this is reversed during winter as leaves fall putting back the CO2 , many studies have been done on how many and where trees would need to be planted,

    for Canada alone Three trillion trees,

    all trees have to be planted in the wet tropics to gain year round sequestration.

    The summer Arctic ice loss would overwhelm albedo efforts elsewhere,

    there are many studies on high Co2 and plant growth, enough to cancel out each sides single points,some plants are already adaption to higher co2 by reducing stomata size, some plants really love high levels, we call them weeds,

    scientists in the 90’s were excited about biomass increasing due higher CO2 and sat data showed that this was occuring up to 2000 that has now stopped and latest data shows that biomass is now in decline, this is not forest clearing caused loss but actual observance of untouched forest,

    last year the second major drought in the Amazon resulted in the total forest becoming a net carbon emitter equiv to total output of china and india combined ,

    pse discuss

  8. “For every molecule of CO2 released into the atmosphere, the single carbon molecule is used by trees for growth or sequestration…”
    Wrong – or else CO2 levels wouldn’t be on the increase. Greater emissions that can be sequestered are currently increasing (ie. emissions are increasing as photosynthetic collection and ocean absorption are decreasing).
    “High CO2 is useful in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth”
    Only demonstrative in small experiments. It’s very likely, from recent work on crops, that increasing CO2 concentrations decreases the nutritional value of the crop. See Högy et al. (2009)
    As the atmosphere warms, absolute water content can increase relative to saturation point – ie. it can “hold” more water – so it won’t rain as often, but when it does it will be heavier (something we’re already witnessing at only 0.8 degrees C above 1850 temperature anomaly).
    You’re conveniently focusing on half of the available story.

  9. john byatt says:

    Are we on the verge of creating a hyperthermal ?

  10. klem says:

    The average age of Autralians is just under 40. So yes you are right most of the people who attend this march will be elderly, white, lower-middle to middle class “protestors”. But guess what, these are also the people who actually vote, unlike young folks who are too busy being posers and hipsters to get their fingers dirty marking a ballot. These old cranks are the ones who willl determine the future of your government and you. So you can drop by the protest out of curiosity if you want, but when the cameras broadcast it to the country and the rest of the elderly Australians see thier demographic on TV, marching against a bizaar tax, you can bet your boots it is going to resonate with them. Good luck voting with the kids in the next election, they don’t actually vote.

  11. Ross Brisbane says:

    For the record I am 58 years of age. What’s more I have kept up with the science whilst plenty of those sandal socked walkers are stirred up by non-science commentary and unsubstantiated facts. Truly those shock jocks have their minds on a platter. Beauty queen of them all – that anti-climate and anti-science Jezebel minded web site leads many of these elderly over the cliff in mindless negative thinking about the real science. They are left in the wilderness of confusion in a poor cranky state. The mind is so confused and ready cliche denial phrases drop out of their mouth like canned recordings from denier web site I read only few minutes ago.

    Going and hearing phrases like Hitler Youth, the Socialist threat, population control, world governments – scary pictures of the world coming with science and the finding overlaid over this junk like some master plan.

    This is paranoid rubbish – you elderly folk should take a few KARMA. This has no foundation in TRUTH. The science findings of even the last TWO YEARS back up the claims that this world is HEADING FOR A VERY DANGEROUS PERIOD of CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGES IN VERY SHORT SPANS of TIME. We are heading where the changes over the next century WILL BE RELENTLESS like an ONSLAUGHT of disasters HITTING one new week after the next.

    Unless GOVERNMENTS get their heads and act to together over the next 5 years and somehow by a miracle stop PANDERING to VOTERS of certain SECTORS our future prospects of having RESERVES of plenty will be gone.

    And say it I will. Those JEZEBELS are PROPHETIC LIARS. The falsehoods are plenty. They spew their venom daily on the air ways – these ultra over paid fat men. Not only that – we now have beauty queens acting like expert spokespersons on every issue. These shallow JEZEBELS will not lead anyone to safety.

    In Egypt a person was given a dream. In that dream there were years of plenty followed by years of famine.

    The same WILL happen again. We will have a certain time to stock up on SURPLUSES as we TAX the present mineral wealth. As so do we begin to and SHOULD invest in planning fro many things we will face into the future. One example of our short sightedness. IT MAKES absolutely NO sense to close down desalination plants under development when we could face yet another 10 years – even 20 years of crippling drought outbreaks across Australia.

    The climate is going phases RIGHT NOW. Without the planning and INVESTMENT – WITH A CARBON TAX as the beginning phase – WE WILL end up in a BIBLICAL Apocalyptic Egypt UNPREPARED.

  12. john byatt says:

    based in singapore many years ago in the Navy HMS TAMAR we often went out with the pomme sailors in civies

    they turned up in immaculate suits wearing socks and open sandals ,

    still cannot help laughing when i think about it,


  13. […] few day’s ago, Mike of WtD had this to say about the CO2 tax protest; I’ll drop by the Melbourne protests out of […]

  14. Stop and Think says:

    Here are some facts about CO2:

    1. CO2 is about 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.

    2. The amount that is produced by people is around 3% of that, ie 0.0012% of the atmosphere.

    Now how about some common sense:
    Does anyone really think that if all industrial activity on earth stopped and the amount of human-caused CO2 was removed (ie 0.0012% of the atmosphere) , it would actually affect the global climate?

    Stop and Think

    The government is wanting to introduce a tax that will force costs up, make business less competetive, and drive industry offshore. For what purpose? Australian emissions of CO2 have been estimated to be 1% of the world’s total, or 0.000012% of the atmosphere. If it was all removed would it make any difference?

  15. john byatt says:

    Ok so you have no understanding of the carbon cycle,

    here is some homework, In 2005 Australian territorial emissions were 1.5% of world total {human}
    Q, how much extra CO2 as a percentage of world total did we export as coal and methane ?

    peeking allowed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: