What is it with climate-change alarmists that they feel a deep-seated need to regulate, limit, and tax all we do — including our children?
A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Writing in today’s Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child’s lifetime.
Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.
And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.
Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.
I wonder if he’s willing to pay back taxes for all the damage he’s done to the planet so far by living? Shouldn’t he have done what this self-hating nitwit has done to herself? Maybe he should drop the pretense at rational policy and become the spokesman for these guys?
Meanwhile researchers publishing in a major scientific journal* have looked at the predictions based on models of atmospheric warming and have found no connection to greenhouse gas emissions — in other words, no evidence of man-caused global warming:
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Maybe they just want to avoid paying the baby tax.
LINKS: More at Contentions.
AU: David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
TI: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
SO: International Journal of Climatology
CP: Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society
AD: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA; Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA; Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202, USA; University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA
UPDATE: Here’s a link to the article that’s not hidden behind a subscriber wall.
(hat tip: LGF and Power Line)