Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 20 April 2011

Everyone has an opinion on carbon and this week we hear some more. Why not write in and let us know your thoughts on these or any of our other stories.

Re: Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 13 April 2011
Au contraire Peter Lawrence; it’s hardly scientific to take the word of the scientific community, and as for the notion that scientists have “been right about everything else so far,” more below.

Rather than confuse consensus with unanimity, I ignore both. My argument is based entirely on measurement, science and logic. Here are some scientific measurements.

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a recognised authority on monitoring CO2 emissions. Their data shows that in Feb this year 0.0391% of the earth’s atmosphere was CO2 . The number for 1960 was 0.0316% – an increase of 75ppm over the last 50 years – an average increase of slightly less than 2 ppm per year. The problem in making use of these data is that the annual increase fluctuates all over the place. In some years it was as high as 2.08ppm (1977) and in others as low as 0.88 (1999). Furthermore science cannot explain the fluctuations; for instance – why it was the increase 2.08ppm in 1997 and only 0.88ppm 2 years later? If science is still asking why, how can anyone say the “science is settled?”

Even more difficult is determining how much of CO2 emissions are man-made. The World Resources Institute in the US calculates that human emissions of CO2 were 32 gigatonnes in 1998. They reckon natural emissions from vegetation, animals etc, accounts for about 220 gigatonnes, and oceans release another 332. So they credit humans with a contribution of about 5.5%. That's 5.5% of 0.0391% of the earth's atmosphere.

One source says Australia contributes about 1.4% of the world’s total emissions. If your calculator can do the math, the 1.89% increase in emissions in 2009 comprises 1.79ppm of that which naturally occurs. Thus, science calculates Australia’s contribution is less than 0.00001% of the earth’s atmosphere.

So when I say it can’t be measured, I mean it can’t be measured in any metric that proves a cause and effect relationship to the point where there is no more discussion. If I have to resort to something as minute as 0.0001% of something to describe a problem, I’d have to confess I'm not yet ready to defend a scientific argument.

As for science being “right about everything else so far”, I don’t think you would find a bona fide scientist anywhere to agree with you. Your example of imposing a book is a great example of science at work. You can theorise what will happen if you measure, calculate and fold – then you can do it. Doing it proves the theory. There’s no parallel in the climate change debate.

Science talks in the language of hypotheses being disproved. Much of the language in the climate change debate rings of religious zeal rather than scientific discipline. Those prepared to defend climate change as a quantifiable scientific given proves they don’t understand science.

Despite this, our government is about to impose a multi-billion dollar tax because they accept a “science” based on an almost entirely theoretical number of 0.00001%. Those billions come from customers who buy things produced by many of the businesses which employ the readers of Print21, and from the businesses themselves – as if they don’t already have enough to contend with.

Finally, some historical context: About 150 years ago Thomas Huxley – who championed Darwin's argument for evolution in an age where religion decreed it was impossible and wrong – said, “Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed”. Climate change has become a creed, in which questions, an essential element of scientific endeavour, are dismissed.

Mark Reid

*******

Re: Tony Abbott pops in to Paragon Printing
After a couple of weeks reflection I’d like to express my disappointment over Print21’s reporting of Tony Abbott’s puff PR piece regarding a rise electricity prices - there has been no price put on the carbon tax yet - so how can he know by how much? So how can Print21 reprint it verbatim without backing up the amounts claimed with some fact? Quite simply it's a beat up. PIAA should be engaging all sides of the debate, right and left, presenting the case of the industry as a whole, and leave the politics to the politicians. I understand it must be hard for Print21 to find relevant news each week, but some basic effort - perhaps mentioning that no value had been apportioned to the tax yet, so the claimed figures couldn't be verified – would have been the right thing to do.
 
After all the nonsense going on in the Carbon debate, the last thing we need is more uninformed knee-jerk reactions.
Name withheld

*******

Re: ***What is the real elephant in the room? Ascent Partners 12 April 2011***
I have seen numerous insolvencies in the print industry and I too am amazed by how it operates. It isn’t economically rational.
 
I think that Richard should follow this up with a series on the issues raised.
Ben Sewell

*******

People considering the content of this article and its seriousness should keep in mind the benefits of engaging with in Federal Government’s Enterprise Connect program. There are qualifying criteria and it’s not for everyone. Of all the member companies that I have introduced to the Enterprise Connect program without exception, they all speak highly of the value it provided to them. Enterprise Connect will undertake a business review at no cost to the business and fund up to $20K of any tailored advisory program that comes out of their business review.
Paul Nieuwhof