March 11, 2017

Opinion: There is no scientific justification for a carbon tax

Tim BallRebel Columnist

The target is not carbon, that is just one of many falsehoods. Carbon is a solid, and carbon dioxide a gas, yet, proponents of human-caused global warming (AGW) use them interchangeably. 

They know people connect carbon with soot, hence the inappropriate phrase carbon pollution as they try to link CO2 with pollution. It is "newspeak" that George Orwell would appreciate.

The question is, why distort information and demonize a gas that is a fraction of the total atmosphere and essential to life?

Figure 1 shows total atmospheric gases with greenhouse gases (GHG) exploded out as two percent of the total. The GHG are exploded to show CO2 is only four percent of the total greenhouse gases, and the human portion is 3.4 percent of that total.

(Figure 1)

In her book Cloak of Green, Elaine Dewar quotes Maurice Strong, the architect behind the greatest deception in history, saying the industrialized nations are the greatest threat to the planet and it is our responsibility to get rid of them. How do you do that? Simple, show that the by-product of its energy source, CO2 from fossil fuels, is causing runaway global warming.

Strong told Dewar he was carrying out his goal through the UN where,

“He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”

After five days with Strong at the UN Dewar concluded:

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Strong controlled the outcome with definitions and terms of reference that predetermined the results. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were told to examine only human causes of climate change.

This is impossible when you don’t know or understand natural causes.

However, it was necessary so they could ignore most natural causes of change, including solar mechanisms.

It allowed them to focus on CO2 while effectively ignoring water vapour (H2O), which is 95 percent of GHG and by far the most important. The IPCC acknowledge humans produce H2O but say it is an inconsequential portion of the total so assume the atmospheric volume is essentially constant.

It is likely that a two percent variation in atmospheric H2O would equal the temperature effect of any variation in CO2 and certainly any human portion.

Science produces hypotheses (speculations) or theories based on assumptions, which other scientists (as skeptics) try to disprove.

As Douglas Yates said,

“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”

With AGW, all the funding and research was directed to credit the theory. As MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

The major assumption with AGW is that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. The problem is, in every record we have from any period and of any duration, temperature increases before CO2. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models, and every forecast they ever made was wrong.

If they are wrong, your science is wrong.

The claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed with AGW was a deliberately falsified study. The reality is 97 percent of scientists have never read the IPCC Reports. When they do they find out what German Physicist and Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls discovered:

“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it…scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning CO2 adjustment knob.”

Finally, if all humans were removed from the planet except one scientist, she would not be able to measure any difference in the atmospheric level of CO2.

The human contribution is so small and well within the error of the estimates of the natural contributions, such as the oceans and decaying vegetation.

There is absolutely no scientific or environmental justification for a carbon or CO2 tax. In fact, reducing atmospheric level of CO2 is the worst thing we can do. At 400 ppm, it is already at dangerously low levels because most plants function best at 1200 ppm – they are malnourished.

These brief understandings of the corrupted science also eliminate the environmentalist’s favourite fallback position known as the precautionary principle; shouldn’t we act anyway. The answer is a blunt, justified, and unqualified NO.


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-05-02 13:41:58 -0400
Andrew … both Andrews, believe what you like, but any reasoning person knows that Anthropogenic Climate Change as it is presented by the IPCC is a lie.

The collection of tax money to combat climate as presented by the IPCC is a scam.

The money would be far better spent on infrastructure to mitigate the negative effects of extreme climate events and into technology to resolve problems such as:
1) cleaning up land fill sites and dealing with waste material properly,
2) cleaning up toxic waste dumps,
3) improving and extending recycling,
4) create air filtration on an industrial scale,
5) build water purification plants.
i.e. tangible pollution mitigation technology.

But as it is the mega billion spent on Anthropogenic Climate Change goes to nothing tangible at all, but lines the pockets of the greedy.

Disagree? Then name a technology that has been built (or is in the progress of being developed) to mitigate the effect of this excessive CO2.
commented 2017-04-15 16:28:27 -0400
“They’ve done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.” Climate ‘science’ in a nutshell.
commented 2017-03-15 21:50:18 -0400
What a ridiculous article. Every claim is misleading or false:
1. ALL net increase in carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution is attributable to fossil fuel emissions. What else does Tim think is responsible for sending CO2 from 270 to 405 ppm when CO2 levels were stable for centuries prior to the industrial revolution?
2. The increase- from 270 to 405 – is responsible (along with other GHGs) for the warming we see. There is not other explanation for the warming. The unmistakable fingerprint of fossil fuel emissions is seen in the stratosphere (the upper atmosphere), which is cooling while the troposphere (the lower atmosphere) is warming. This is what the physics and the scientists tells us will happen as a result of increased fossil fuel emissions; all natural influences on climate would warm the atmosphere uniformly.
3. Every national academy of science and every major scientific organization agrees with (1) and (2).
4. Increased water vapor is a side effect of increased temperatures and is not an independent variable that can be controlled.
5. There is no evidence that plants need more CO2. Flora did quite well at 270 ppm. To the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that as the earth warms forests and crops will suffer tremendously.
6. If we consume fossil fuels at the rate projected by the US Energy Information Administration (which forecasts that fossil fuel use will still account for 75% of world energy use by 2040) the IPCC concludes that the earth will likely warm by 4.5 degrees by 2050, and will continue to warm by yet another 3.6 degrees by 2100. That level of warming will be devastating – coastal cities will be flooded, many species will go extinct, political turmoil caused by mass migration as food supplies are diminished through drought, floods and degradation of marine ecosystems will be intense. A 2015 report by Citibank concluded that unchecked climate change will cost the world between $45 and $72 trillion in lost GDP by mid-century. These consequences are incompatible with an organized global community.
6. A carbon tax is the best and most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. Studies and empirical evidence point to job growth, lives saved and increased GDP with a carbon tax.
commented 2017-03-15 11:09:08 -0400
The 3.4% figure is wrong. It’s about 34% (present level 405ppm, pre-industrial 270, pre-industrial is 67% of modern levels or 33% is human, round up to avoid criticism), . Someone forgot to carry a ten.

Yes, we’re all aware that water vapour is the dominant effect. In fact, the problem is that it’s a reactive substance with significant feedback potential; warmer oceans evaporate more water raising levels, but there’s also the albedo effect as more water = more clouds = more reflection. The two effect seem to just about balance out. In a way, the water vapour doesn’t seem to make much difference, at least not at present. An interesting consequence of this is that higher water vapour is increasing precipitation levels in various locations, particularly at the south pole where it is actually overcompensating for faster calving rates as warmer glaciers move faster.

So… let’s go back to the 5% number. Again, not something anybody really disputes. We’re responsible for about a third of that, or 2% change in radiative forcing. To offset this effect, the planet needs reradiate at a higher rate and to increase the radiative efficiency of a black body at 290k by 2%, you need its blackbody temperature by about two degrees.

Which is about what we’ve observed.

So, yes, carbon dioxide is barely more than a trace gas, but a crucially important one with a disproportionate influence on atmospheric dynamics. This is why it, and other related greenhouse gases need to be controlled. We can’t do anything about water vapour; that’s reactive. But we can be proactive about the rest.
commented 2017-03-14 17:33:51 -0400
BETINA DUNCE can’t be real ? Or can she. If she is real then she surely she has the attention span of a retarded mosquito …. excuse the non politically correct use of the word ‘retarded’, but mentally challenged just doesn’t have the same flow.
commented 2017-03-13 17:44:45 -0400
David White, Don’t confuse Betina with the facts about the climate. A steaming angry vagina is a scary thought, naturally I have to ask why are women like Betina so angry all the time?
commented 2017-03-13 16:48:42 -0400
You can bet your bippy that if it is politically profitable to advance a cause, it will be joined at the hip by a scientific justification.
commented 2017-03-13 15:25:40 -0400
97% of global climate scientists agree that if they didn’t agree, 97% of global climate scientists would lose their government funding.
commented 2017-03-13 13:28:02 -0400
I have said this before Canada has all the oil,gas, coal, wood,and minerals to be self sufficient.
The coal seam alone spans three provinces and is some of the best in the world for quality.
Why shut down coal production in Alberta? We have and export the best coal clean burn technology in the world. We export this tech. to places like China they are bringing on a plant a month.

Why do we import oil now 750,000 barrels a day from OPEC countries like Saudis? Shipping oil half way round the world on tankers burning bunker C oil the lowest grade. To power these ships is a hell of a carbon foot print. They also wash their tanks out at sea fouling the shores of various countries. This is a lot of jobs being exported along with billions of Canadian dollars a year. Why does our oil and the jobs with it stop at the Manitoba boarder.

Ontario has all the minerals to supply us for hundreds of years, why do we import metal and export the raw ore?
With all the resources we have every Canadian should be receiving a dividend check each month.
We should not be in debt or out of work.
The incompetence of Justurd and Ratchel is unbelievable.
Stop selling our resources for peanuts. Our airports and seniors care to foreign governments.
Election cant wait.
commented 2017-03-13 10:07:45 -0400
BETINA DUNCE….How many times do they have to fudge the numbers (proven on several occasions), before you actually realize you are nothing short of a useful idiot? Did man cause all the radical climate change on Earth millions of years ago….when man didn’t even exist? Any man made global warming is coming from the hot air spewing from the desperate frantic voices of the kool aid guzzling low ifo idiots anxious to give the likes of Trudeau piles of tax money that will in turn do nothing to change climate .

Germany heads rapidly back to coal and natural gas electricity production in a big way. France backtracks away from its green climate rhetoric. Australia dumps CO2 tax shortly after implementation. What program is it we cretins, screwballs and ding dongs are supposed to embrace again? Oh ya, the one with the doctored figures, the proven fraud one. Good choice Betina.

It seems Betina is some sort of disgruntled angry leftard feminazi. Her comments on Rebel appear to come directly from her steaming angry vagina. ( beware….possible teeth). There may be some help in sight Betina. Grab one of Michael Mann’s hockey sticks….use your imagination.

Cunned Stunt of the year will be quite the competition….Betina Dunn has officially entered the race with her recent words of wisdom.
commented 2017-03-13 08:58:21 -0400
MARC DANYLCHUK commented “It would appear the climate change water hole is shrinking exponentially each day and, as expected, the climate alarmist trolls are growing proportionally ever more restless!”

Agreed. And not politely either!
commented 2017-03-13 03:58:09 -0400
Yeah… And on a night like tonight, with blizzards prevailing from Manitoba to Nova Scotia, there are “crickets” to be heard from from the “bicycle to work” gang… Hey Bunkey – coldest winter in Vancouver in some 26 years, eh, eh ???…
commented 2017-03-13 00:48:21 -0400
I’m with you Bettina.
Don’t confuse me with the facts. Justin has already made up my mind.
commented 2017-03-12 22:05:23 -0400
Bumper sticker:

Honk if you believe in Global Warming….I like to know where the fools are.
commented 2017-03-12 19:47:53 -0400
This is the famous quote by Maurice Strong.

“Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

The UN’s agenda 21 is how they plan to carry out their murderous genocide. A new article in Canada Free Press, says that agenda 21 is now agenda 2030. A lot of these measures to bring about their agenda we already see, or at hear about or someone is calling for. The worst thing we could do is ignore them, like our crawling cowardly so called conservative politicians do.

U.N. Agenda 2030 goals and recommendations include several types of social engineering:
Redistribution of population according to resources, a type of social engineering that includes removing any borders around the globe
Government control of land use in order to achieve equitable distribution of resource, hence the social justice movement around the globe
Land use control through zoning and planning
Government control of excessive profits from land use
Urban and rural land control through public land ownership
Regionalist authorities in control of development rights, superseding local and state government authority

U.N. Agenda 2030 aims to control:
Energy production, delivery, distribution, and consumption via Smart Grid, Smart Meters, and renewables
Food growth via FDA regulations
Education via a curriculum centered on the environment, Mother Earth, and global citizenship
Water through irrigation denial in agriculture, home use, recreation, limited hydroelectric generation
Land through abolishing private property
Finance through a single currency
Population by reducing it to “manageable levels” through sterilization and eugenics
No borders, no sovereignty
No national language and culture, no national history
Mobility restriction to 5-minute walk/bike to/from work, school, shopping, entertainment
Longer distance travel via rail use
No homesteading, stacking people in high-rise mixed-use tenements in order to designate formerly privately-owned land for wildlife habitat
commented 2017-03-12 19:23:57 -0400
Betina Dunn are you triggered snowflake do you need a safe place because someone dares to not think as you tell them to.
commented 2017-03-12 19:22:12 -0400
just another way to tax tax tax, its all about the money and the fools defend them, Useful idiots comes to mind
commented 2017-03-12 18:44:52 -0400
It would appear the climate change water hole is shrinking exponentially each day and, as expected, the climate alarmist trolls are growing proportionally ever more restless!
commented 2017-03-12 17:38:31 -0400
What a bunch of fucking cretins you are.

The only people who deny the impact of man-made climate change are a bunch of screwballs.

Get with the program you bunch of utter ding dongs.
commented 2017-03-12 14:33:48 -0400
Recently the NDP MP for my federal riding sent out a mailing (paid for by us of course!) spouting off about AGW, “Climate Change” asking if “we were with him”.

I checked the “NO” box and pointed out that the subject is a hoax to raise taxes. Curious (or not) I have not received a reply even though I did leave a name and address. Guess I’m on the carbon tax hit list now!
commented 2017-03-12 13:20:11 -0400
I think the relevant formula is:

parasites + gullible fools = gigantic scam
commented 2017-03-12 12:44:12 -0400
or .02 × .04 × .034 = .0000272 of the atmosphere is CO2 presumed to be caused by human activity.
commented 2017-03-12 11:52:21 -0400
Thank you Tim for another great column – refreshing to hear truth to power!!! Considering the numbers you provide, I arrive at the following:
if only 4% of greenhouse gases are CO2 and only 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity then only a paltry 0.04 × 0.034 = 0.00136 % of CO2, is contributed by human activity!!!!! That is a mere 136/100,000th of the CO2 supposedly causing global warming! Therefore, 999,864/100,000ths or 99.9864% of that “dastardly” CO2 is NOT caused by human activity! Why the hell are we paying a carbon tax or conning ourselves with carbon credits or cap and trade????
And precisely where the hell is all that faux climate posturing taxation money going? Woe betide the politicians supporting this “snake oil” salesmanship when the majority of taxpayers wake up!!!
commented 2017-03-12 07:21:44 -0400
The consensus “statement” the 97% agree with is another work of impressionist art & far from a sitting target. It like the data used to feed their model has evolved to suit their agenda. Decided science simply does not exist, those are called laws & even they are subject to abuse by this band of liars. Question authority. IPCC is a swindle.
commented 2017-03-12 03:37:10 -0400
Evelyn Cooper, since you asked:- “Is it really part of Trudeau’s supposed plans to get a U.N. appointment? And is the real plan also to damage the Canadian economy and independence, in order to reinforce U.N. political aspirations to eliminate autonomous Nations and create a World State run by the U.N.?”… I’m very much afraid you have answered your own question…. Trudeau Junior, like Daddy, is Hell bent on making the U.N. the “master of all things”…
commented 2017-03-11 23:47:02 -0500
Once again, Dr Tim Ball has given us an excellent explanation and justification why the Carbon Tax concept along with the related Global Climate threat is a farse with almost no scientific support or credibility. Whatever program the Federal Government implements to prevent Climate Change will fail and waste enormous money and labour, and result instead in economic disasters for the country.

Implementing a Carbon tax will negatively impact the economy, increase costs of goods and services, drive out specific industries and skilled citizens to other countries, increase cost of living for everyone, and become a source of federal income that is unaccountable, — and all this when National priorities are very high for other uses of money Including Health, Safety, Education, aging population, infrastructure, poverty and more. In all, an illogical, unjustified, economically destructive program.

But this knowledge is not new and it is known by most academics, scientists, economists and senior Government politicians. These people do know the facts Dr Ball outlines, although they may have personal reasons (financial most likely) to avoid participating in any debate.

So why then would the Liberal Government (and individual Liberal MPs) want to do this, knowing full well what the results will and will not be – with Europe as a close model to observe?

What is the real motivation? It can’t be to prevent Climate Change, except for the few who are literally naïve and stupid. Debating the Issue won’t change anything.

Is it really part of Trudeau’s supposed plans to get a U.N. appointment? And is the real plan also to damage the Canadian economy and independence, in order to reinforce U.N. political aspirations to eliminate autonomous Nations and create a World State run by the U.N.?

Or is Trudeau really just that annoying and embarrassing, immature, not very knowledgeable, political amateur who loves selfies? BUT we must be careful because that image might just be a cleverly managed diversion directed by his political and financial handlers.
commented 2017-03-11 23:20:45 -0500
" couldn’t believe Trudeau had a cabinet minister who could rival Monsef for supidity….Melanie Joly "

Amen on that, DAVID WHITE….turdo la doo has an intellectual equal.

And, as for the lack of justification for a carbon tax, please send your message to Ontario PC Leader, Patrick Brown and all his shiverin’ weenies.

Paddy Brown
His pants fell down
And everyone could see
A tiny pair
With peach fuzz hair
As green as green can be
commented 2017-03-11 19:21:07 -0500
Ok Canada wake up. I truly believe that Harper was voted out because of the liberal media bias against him, and we’re gonna get fleeced again! Anyone remember the Liberal Parties Boondoggles? Get rid of Justin Trudeau and all of his kind! Ya, thanx Justin, now I’m paying for plant food. BTW: Would you please legalize?
commented 2017-03-11 19:00:20 -0500
David White: Thank you for that link. It is unbelievable how idiotic that Melanie Joly sounded. She never even responded to Terry M’s questions and concerns, which were right on the button. If there is no Conservative MP in parliament who can tear Joly and Khalid’s arguments about “islamophobia” to shreds I fear that we are in deep, deep trouble.
commented 2017-03-11 18:25:17 -0500
But more taxes mean more of those liberal money trees will be planted and they will clean the air.