Today I had the misfortune of hearing a stinking pile of rhetoric from Greg Combet, Australia’s climate change and energy minister.
In this speech, he stated with a straight face that “climate change is a decided matter” and that “there is no debate”.
It is true, there has NEVER been any serious debate as to whether climate change exists. The climate changes daily. The climate 11,000 ago was drastically different to that we live in now. The climate has experienced radical changes and shifts in the last 1,000 years even. In that time we have experienced temperatures far in excess of what we have now and a mini-ice age.
This line of rhetorical political hog wash is what makes debate such a farce.
This line of argument is a non sequitur for the reason that the debate is not as I alluded to whether climate change is real, no serious scientist has ever denied this point. The debate is the effects of anthropomorphic forces.
This is the logical straw man that is easy to knock down. The reality is that it is easier to confuse the masses with emotive hype than to actually address the real issues. The issue is not one of climate change. It is nothing so simple. There are multiples questions, none of which have been decided.
We have no valid models as to what is making a change to the climate or even if this was a part of some ongoing natural cycle. This is why the climate police cannot and will not state any testable hypothesis. Climate will change and WE can do nothing to stop it. That is all that is stated. Technology will fail and we will all die in a disaster as Gaia reacts to expel us. What hogwash. If you want a religion. choose a real one.
If you want to argue anthropomorphic global warming resultant from carbon emissions (and not those from other probable sources including alternative human induced ones), then you NEED to allow for test, timeframes and costs. This is not what is being done and the “low” cost of a carbon tax is actually likely to cost more than all the worst disasters multiplied. But why look to the economics of the scenario when it is simpler to argue from the emotive mass hysteria that is promoted.
First, will a carbon tax actually do ANYTHING? Well there is no evidence for this and no plan to test. It is unscientific, but it does make a great political tool. It creates more revenue for government and a means to extract another tax from us with the BS they feed.
Yet, this tax is touted as the ONLY way to actually make a difference. Even (and this point is still unproven) was the reduction of carbon to actually make a difference, would this tax lead to a difference in levels. Even this is debatable.
The argument by innuendo was played in this speech to assume the worst if we do not have this tax. That it will save the globe, whether or not any other nation follows suit.
Then, in repetition and Proof by verbosity, we see the audience drowned in the same calls that the debate is settled and those opposing it are enemies to the earth.
Those climate heretics who have the audacity to actually want to assume that a tax will not solve an issue that cannot even be modeled as yet should be burnt at the stake as the religious non-conformists that they are. For this is NOT science, it is theology with the great God Gaia punishing us for leaving nature and issuing her disapproval at our evil technology.