In a recent speech to the Australian National Press Club Prime Minister Julia Gillard said,
“Don’t write crap. It can’t be that hard. And when you have written complete crap, I think you should correct it.”
Wise advice, but Gillard should heed my admonition, “ Don’t talk crap, and when you make crap comments you should correct them”. It won’t happen here. Gillard doesn’t know she’s talking crap climate science. Besides, it’s used to justify a political deception of introducing a policy in absolute contradiction to an avowed pre-election promise.
Gillard’s problem is people understand the deception and the ‘crap’ climate science. In a wonderful a woman confronted Gillard for lying about not introducing a carbon tax to get elected and then doing so once in office. The response was classic, insulting, patronizing and nauseating political reaction. The woman was treated like a child with a condescending pat on the arm and words to imply, if you were as clever and well informed as me you would understand. It got the rejection it deserved. A Member of Parliament accompanying Gillard attempted to save his beleaguered leader, but was appropriately dismissed.
Realizing she was cornered Gillard put on the cloak of green, effectively saying, I didn’t want to do it but I must save the planet from “carbon pollution”. Unfortunately, the woman didn’t know this was a bigger deception. However, in politics, like the law, ignorance of the facts is no excuse, especially if you’re proposing potentially devastating policies. It’s even worse when you don’t know the policies are completely unnecessary and have failed elsewhere.
The term “carbon pollution” displays Gillard’s ignorance of science. The phrase likely came from an Obama comment to the British Parliament.
“No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved in Copenhagen and Cancun, to leave our children a planet that is safer casino online and cleaner.”
But he’s another world leader who doesn’t understand the science but exploits it for political gain. They ignore the corrupt climate science disclosed by leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit just prior to Copenhagen.
Carbon is a solid. Obama and Gillard really mean CO2, which is a gas. In addition, CO2 is not a pollutant. Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) among others created the myth in order to vilify a gas essential to life on the planet. They also argued it is at record levels when it is at the lowest level in 300 million years. Even if you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas warming the atmosphere, and many question it, there is no problem. No record anywhere for any time period has an increase of CO2 precede a temperature increase. The only place it happens is in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models. However, lets accept the assumption. Even if CO2 doubles or triples the temperature can only increase by a very small amount. As Junkscience notes,
“The estimated temperature increment range for a doubling of pre-IR CO2 (graphed as 300ppmv to 600ppmv) is just 0.6 °C to 1.5 °C and for a quadrupling (to 1200ppmv) 1.3 °C to 2.9 °C.”
These temperatures would put global temperatures below those for most of the last 9,000 years as Greenland ice cores show. The IPCC tried to manipulate the science by claiming a positive feedback mechanism that drove the temperature higher, but it was quickly proved wrong.
Why do they use the word carbon when they mean CO2? Ignorance is one explanation; deception is another. Carbon is associated with soot, which creates a very negative image and falsely links the issue with pollution. Should we reduce pollution? Of course and tremendous strides are made in most parts of the world. Scrubbers reduce soot emissions and most gases from burning fossil fuels, especially coal? Clean burning coal does exist. It makes sense to reduce energy use because it saves money. It is totally unjustified for climate reasons. Gillard’s opponents correctly argue that the costs of her proposals are unjustified because the amount of CO2 reduction is of no consequence. Actually they’re completely unnecessary because CO2 is not causing global warming or climate change.
Gillard was exposed for political deception by the confrontation. The woman didn’t know that the basis for the deception was Gillard’s ignorance about climate science.
Gillard told the media not to print crap. She is talking about those who understand and report the science. Crap is what doesn’t support her views. What makes it worse is that some of that crap details how others, like Spain, have tried and failed using the green approach she proposes.
Sadly, Australians are not alone as the world suffers a crisis of leadership. Western politicians of all persuasions pursue destructive monetary and energy policies. But it’s small comfort to people who elected them in good faith. They were deceived as the woman in the video attests, but, as usual, will pay the price.