This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Why the laws of physics make anthropogenic climate change undeniable

rolan's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by rolan

Comment 23 by Alan4discussion What billions of dollars? - Another gross exaggeration.

I was referring to the Carbon Tax legislation which is currently before parliament in Australia. It is a multi-billion dollar cost which due to the nature of the inbuilt compensations and allowances will ultimately line the pockets of multinationals and direct funds offshore for the purchase of carbon credits. (Actually an independent report released today has shown that, due to the structure of the tax, the steel industry will receive a net windfall and the coal industry has no need to change current practices).

Ironically, you may not have noticed, but for the rest of your post we are in agreement about funding policy and technology which directly addresses emissions. The Australian Government is not doing this.

Comment 24 by billzfantazy - thanks

Comment 25 by Jos Gibbons Perhaps I did utter opinions as fact - for that i apologise. The bull number of 1K was actually from the lecture as I was trying to differentiate between the 'raw' effect of CO2 doubling (well understood) and that indicated by estimates of climate sensitivity (arguably - but lets not go there again - less well). I guess I failed in making myself clear. I'd like to find out more about the predictive models - I only seem to be able to find conflicting, divergent ones - but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Any pointers appreciated.

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:29:59 UTC | #865821