Turnbull’s climate crunch is coming
|
It’s rare that one side tells the truth about the other in Question Time, but Lindsay Tanner had it right yesterday when he referred to the Liberals as being held hostage by Nick Minchin and the climate denialists in Liberal ranks. The show of Senate strength yesterday by Minchin’s supporters in his war on the CPRS and — by proxy — on Malcolm Turnbull sent a clear message to the rest of the party: even if we’re not the majority, you can’t ignore us. Too small to win the debate, maybe, but too big to hope they will accept defeat gracefully. They can legitimately mount a claim that they need to be accommodated for the sake of party unity. And Tony Abbott, insisting that the Government must accept every single amendment or there’ll be no deal, has sent a clear signal to party conservatives that he’s no longer in the Turnbull camp on the issue. Earlier this year, Abbott was arguing that regardless of whether they believed in climate change or not — and he doesn’t — the electorate wanted action and the issue was hurting the Coalition. So now the party conservatives and denialists have a leadership candidate in Abbott, as opposed to Joe Hockey, who is strongly backing the Turnbull line on the ETS. The problem for the conservatives thus far has been that rolling Turnbull and forcing him out wouldn’t produce a leader with a different approach on climate change, given both Hockey, the likely successor, and Abbott wanted the issue dealt with and removed from the agenda. Now Abbott has signalled he’s their man. That goes some way to neutralising the problem that a partyroom vote on accepting a deal with the Government would be a de facto vote on Turnbull’s leadership. Turnbull’s only real option in the face of this entrenched opposition is to tell his shadow Cabinet and the partyroom the deal Ian Macfarlane has extracted from Penny Wong, no matter how good it is, isn’t good enough. That would hand victory to Minchin and his allies, but anything else risks a deep split within the Liberals or, worse, a defeat for Turnbull that will in effect force him out. And there’ll be very few of his colleagues, even among his former supporters, who will beg him to remain. Minchin might win the battle but he’s orchestrating the mother of all defeats in the war. The climate denialists in the Coalition might delude themselves that voters are “waking up” to green alarmism and the costs of an ETS. (Let’s see what a long summer of bushfires and heatwaves does to that conviction.) Any climate scientist worth a damn will say — contra Kevin Rudd’s antics in Question Time yesterday — that you can’t be sure higher temperatures have any relation to climate change, but voters persistently say they want action on climate change and that isn’t going to change as they sweat their way through Christmas and the New Year. In truth, the Liberal Party is caught in a terrible bind because neither side in the debate has the numbers to win a complete victory. The party was unified for so long under John Howard because, especially after the systematic execution of moderates in the late 80s, the party’s progressives always lacked the numbers and had to choose the issues on which they rebelled carefully. Now the party is led by two moderates in Turnbull and Hockey, but they lack anything faintly resembling the dominance Howard had, leaving conservatives like Minchin and Abetz to plot in senatorial safety. If it was the ALP, the issue would have been resolved — clumsily, with protests and anger and perhaps some bloodshed, but resolved — by the factions. They did it with asylum seekers after 2001. They’ve done it with uranium mining. In contrast the Liberals, bereft of formal structure and dependent on the authority of the leadership, look condemned to eternal war on climate change, until one side or the other manages to purge the party’s ranks of most of their opponents. The Liberals need a deal next week with the Government to get climate change off the agenda. If not, it’s going to wreak havoc in their party far beyond next Tuesday and even the next election. |
|
|
|
91 Comments
Why doesn’t Turnbull suggest a concience vote on this matter of national interest.
The fact is that it has to be Kevin Rudd’s ETS, and we will all be watching as it turns out to be an absolute dog of an idea, which will do precisely nothing to reduce our emissions or change the course of climate change.
Why cannot Minchin et al see this? Let Rudd do what he will - and condemn him for it as it all turns to s — t.
And the Coalition can get back to being a useful opposition, attacking the Government legitimately over the whole spectrum of government, for being just a do-nothing spin-driven mob of spruikers.
Oh please please please let Tony Abbott be the leader of the Liberal Party!
But neither this issue or the boat people has anything to do with political ideology. For that matter it has little to do with politics other than of the most junior student type.
Why is there no real debate about an alternative vision (direction) for the country?
yes but if Malcolm was to challenge Rudd to a conscience vote wouldn’t this put the spotlight back to the govt where it belongs….
Should thisbe the main topic
Malcolm
There is a discussion taking place at my local “the good ol xxxx which we believe should be the main topic at the next election..
That is, as Bob Carr” recent article in the SMH, the incredible proposal by Rudd that we increase our population to some 40 million in the next 30 odd years… without any explanation of why?
This increase will have to be achieved solely through immigration, as our own birthrate at 1.9 means we are actually in decline. So whilst we see the need for a modest immigration programme of skilled migrants we do not see the need for this
dramatic rise in our population.
We also see this programme is melding in peoples mind with the easing of border protection..
Also we see the current overseas student programme being rorted by dodgy courses in dodgy schools resulting in permanent residency…
In addition we see that any visit to your local Crystal car wash, Coles, or Harris Farm that these outlets are staffed by overseas youngsters who have come in on what programme?
particularly when our own teenage unemployment rate is some 12% and that is only those who have been employed..
We do feel that these issues are melding into one of a feeling of unease.
Please do not take this as some racist rant it is not and the discussions I have found are being had with agreement by all
different backgrounds..
Regards
“…Let’s see what a long summer of bushfires and heatwaves does to that conviction…”
You’re a real piece of work, Bernard.
And if it turns out to be the coolest summer on record will you eat crow publicly?
I doubt it.
You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.
“And if it turns out to be the coolest summer on record …”
Andrew Bolt, is that you?
I think a conscience vote on both sides of the parliament is in order. Then we can find out who is working for the people of Australia and who is working fore the global financiers who stand to gain most from this phony tax on carbon dioxide. The rainforests have lost half of their ability to absorb C02 since the IMF and World Bank started selling them off to their buddies. Lula is supposedly going to Legoland with a guarantee that the rate of performation of the world’s lungs has been cut in 2009 but I can only recall his then environment minister resigning early last year in disgust as he counternanced wholesale destruction of our planet. Still, I guess he doesnt want to be assassinated either.
It may be a cooler summer(in my dreams!), but it has definitely been the hottest Spring.
agree richard a concience vote would put Rudd on the spot or are their no doubters in the labour party that an ETS is the best way to go.. as against say a carbon tax….
One of the problems I see with the Rudd ETS is buying permits overseas and the Auditing….
MPM, DUNCAN - Listen to the firefighters. If you think it’s OK, get off your bums and give them a hand. I predict that the summer will be a horror, with Jan & Feb being really awful. I hope I’m wrong! I’m within a 10 minute walk to the ocean, and it’s pretty warm here today! I feel for those in the west! I used to live about 30 klms west of here - YUK!
Uh, climate change *is* higher temperatures?
Heat waves have always happened and always will, as have/will cold snaps. The daily weather proves nothing on its own, but the stats on average, typical and extreme temperatures *are* the climate. As they change over time (which they certainly do!) that’s climate change.
I see the gullible warming crowd still can’t discern between weather and climate.
Christ, even the IPCC knows the difference.
Sort of sums up their entire ‘argument’.
“…I predict that the summer will be a horror, with Jan & Feb being really awful…”
Based on what…the leaves in your tea-cup?
That’s about as scientific as “climate modelling”.
And just as accurate.
Its not the coolest summer on record here in Canberra today.
Abbott, Im not sure if he is more devious than Minchin or just less honest. Suppose Minchin has sung from the same song book all through. Abbott turning on Turnbull, not a good look 2 micks battling it out in public, wonder whose side Pell is on?
Most Peculiar Mama aparently missed this part of Bernard’s post, or willfully ignored it
Any climate scientist worth a damn will say — contra Kevin Rudd’s antics in Question Time yesterday — that you can’t be sure higher temperatures have any relation to climate change, but voters persistently say they want action on climate change and that isn’t going to change as they sweat their way through Christmas and the New Year.,
If we have a hot summer people will naturaly link it to climate change, whether that is correct or not, which it usually isn’t. They will do the opposite if it is a cold summer and think “what ever happened to climate change?”
Because most people really don’t know enough about the science beyond what they watch on the 6 o’clock news, or what they see and feel when they step outdoors.
For an alleged conviction politician, Tony Abbott has seemed mighty flaky lately.
That said, in his semi-defence, what philosophically consistent options are there if you are a climate change “skeptic” yet don’t want to be excluded completely from the debate? Why should we listen to the policy prescriptions of people who don’t even believe we have a problem? (A: we shouldn’t. But that doesn’t get a Lib leadership aspirant very far.)
And about the climate/weather scuffle, I think the point is a political one… people, for better or worse, are more likely to take the threat of global warming seriously when it’s 45 in the shade and not even December. High temperatures won’t prove a thing - not that we need them to - but hopefully they will at least mobilise the electorate again.
Rudd wants a larger population isn’t this in a contradiction to his climate ploicies?.
MPM your kind of thinking would have Galileo burnt at the stake. the science is there just denying it is isn’t arguing its just childish.
“…your kind of thinking would have Galileo burnt at the stake…”
Not astudent of history obviously.
“…the science is there…”
A statement like that shows you have zero credibility in commenting on this issue.
Obviously MPM, you are echoing here the know it all attitude you take on your mate Bolts blog. Apparantly you are free to be abusive there, perhaps the mods on this one should keep a close eye on you. The lack of manners you display, has no place on a mature blog.
Tony Abbott is on record as saying he thinks “the event formerly known as global warming” is a lot of cr@p. Minchin has made that pretty clear but past and present global bankers and political leaders take a different perspective as they are spawned from the loins of those annointed to administer the scam.
Just quietly, don’t you just get the feeling that little Australia is beginning to move gradually towards the hollowing out of the US which really started to roll in the Papa Bush/Winthrop Clinton years. Since then border protection went west as did any semblance of control over the financial system, the military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex. This was the time that the vaccine regime doubled and was first introduced to one day old infants.
I agree with Carr. To his credit, he has always been on about the capacity of Australia to sustain a western lifestyle for more than 25 million - never 40 million – at least not living a western lkifestyle as we currently enjoy. On the other hand, if the powers that be were wanting to do to Australia what in my cynical view has been done to the US since Papa Bush became VP, you would have a pretty solid case I reckon! And why are there so many US bases here now? Maybe its because the real rate of unemployment in the US is nigh on 20% and rising and some of the rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Fortunately, enough fearless war horses in the Liberal Party have been taking to heart the thoughts and words of the US Libertarian movement. They are waking up to the fact that countries that don’t make anything and spend everything, end up with nothing. They are learning that to participate in endless wars, become choked on over-regulation (which locks out small business and dis-empowers the individual), use totalitarian policing approaches to suppress genuine dissent, preside over the destruction of their manufacturing sector, the disenfranchisement of their rural sector; develop a dumbed down education system that attempts to usurp states rights at every step, while holding under their thumb a compliant and complicit media , is not in our collective interest.
If you want a wake up call just take a look at the top three share-holders in every major Australian business these days. Hint - none is AMP!
Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott ought to know better but they don’t want to. Abbott conceded on Lateline last night that he hasn’t even consulted with our Scientists(CSIRO) on his doorstep to clarify and get advice on the evidence of global warming. No listening to the firefighters, the Pacific Islanders, the peanut farmers from Kingaroy selling up and moving North, and the melting ice caps?
They are Conservatives because they hate change. They are for the status quo, but like Fielding, many of our politicians are going to Church too much and listening to the patriarchal theology that says its not man-made but God made catastrophe, so therefore leave it to God’s reasoning.
(They possibly are deluded they will be chosen to be saved from Armeggedon).
The Coalition are more likely to pay more attention to Nostradamus than 21century Science.
At least there is hope in all the science labs being built with the school halls, because Life on this planet is endangered because of Politicial myopia, but it will be too late for our kids- action has to be now.
Peter and others, There will be a conscience vote on the Coalition side. The Nationals look set to vote against the ETS and some Liberals as well. The issue has been around how many would take up the option to vote against the ETS even if Malcolm comes to an agreement with the government.
For a couple of weeks, nobody has fed trolls like MPM - it is obvious what the result is. Stop it all we’ll all go blind, scrolling past the bilge.
On the conscience vote, Jillian Blackall is right. Liberals always have a “conscience vote” unlike the ALP which has to make a ruling on each particular occasion (and usually only does when religion is involved). The Liberal equivalent is a “free vote” which gives the imprimatur to voting entirely to personal taste or conviction. When an ALP MP exercises what in Liberal Party terms is a “conscience vote” he or she will, prima facie, find him or herself out of the Party. Not so with Liberals, so they do it occasionally, judging only how much their colleagues or preselectors will tolerate. (Many Liberal preselectors can be relied on to take pride in their party’s tolerance of conscience votes ).
So, as Rudd knows, their will be conscience votes exercised anyway on the Opposition side and he doesn’t have the slightest reason to allow a genuine conscience vote on the government side. What is more few ALP sceptics would want there to be a “conscience vote” ALP version for fairly obvious reasons.
Turnbull must hope to end the shambles by letting some sort of bill through and then saying he will fix its many flaws when he is PM>
All this ignores the Machiavellian version of the Minchin game. He is making sure that, after passage of the CPRS and the inevitability that it will look worse and worse with every passing month of 2010 the Liberal Party is known to be the home of the majority of realists who saw through the Rudd rubbish and spin.
Will the negative impact of the CPRS necessarily be as immediate as that? It’s hard to imagine a scenario where the likes of Nick Minchin would come out on top (not my preferred scenario).
Julie,
I am responding to your comment that seems to be in moderation, but I received it by e-mail.
“…The Coalition are more likely to pay more attention to Nostradamus than 21century Science….”
That is uncalled for. It should be some sections of the Coalition and probably a minority…
julie that has to be the sillest comment..it seems that to disagree with the Rudd ets is to argue against a religion….
Jill Blackall, I agree that if, by some chance, Nick Minchin is playing the game I mentioned (without conviction) it is unlikely the ill effects of the CPRS will impinge on the electorate within a year. However, once the legislation is passed it will be much easier for the electorate to focus on it and not on the Opposition, at which point, though the focus will not be intense, the average voter will see that the CPRS is no triumph for the government and should at least begin to wonder what all the spin was about, and wonder whether the government isn’t too much about spin.
The Greens criticisms will begin to have much greater impact on the government than the Opposition at least until the election campaign.
Julius, there is no doubt in my mind that the government is too much about spin.
Author: Jillian Blackall
Comment:
Peter and others, There will be a conscience vote on the Coalition side. The Nationals look set to vote against the ETS and some Liberals as well. The issue has been around how many would take up the option to vote against the ETS even if Malcolm comes to an agreement with the government.
peter
What makes you so sure there will be a conscience vote Jillian…
I agree with Julius above that the Liberals always have a “conscience vote”, ie there is always the right to vote on the basis of conscience, even if it goes against what the party leader or majority wants.
jillian not sure about the “always” but on this occasion it would seem a good idea to allow the nats and libs to express an opinion and show labor up as a controlled regime…
It would be madness to try to stop them if they are determined.
“Tony 10” is about as electable as Tiny Tim. He has proven himself to be the shallowest of pollies by publicly abandoning his previous support for CPRS for purely personal political purposes. With the slogan “Bugger the planet, it’s my turn” he will see the remnants of the Coalition turn to a pillar of salt at the forthcoming election.
I noticed Bernard slimes Minchin with the ‘denier’ sobriquet as per usual whilst ‘balancing’ these egregious remarks by self righteously pointing to Rudd’s dishonesty in using weather to slime CC sceptics.
[Edit]
He has also derided Minchin on his belief that extremists infiltrated the ecological movement post the Reagan/Thatchers demolishment of Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR as yet another mad loon’s conspiracy theory.
But perhaps not:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQ1ZjZjM2EzNGM0YjliMDdiOTNmZmZhMmI3ZDhkZGY=
Not even the progressive liberal dominated MSM will be able to suppress this story.
JamesK, assuming you could prove the authenticity of these hacked documents, using them as a bullying point only shows a general ignorance of how science works.
Even if one group is manipulating data (which, admittedly, is possible, and does happen from time to time), do you really believe that it seriously discredits the thousands of results published in legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journals by research groups all over the world?
The sum of evidence tilts in support of anthropogenic global warming, and until there is an equivalent body of peer reviewed research that says otherwise, denialism can only be viewed as an ideological belief.
Debate over what steps we take in response to AGW is another matter altogether, and I’m not fully sold on a carbon trading system as the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions. If only economics was a science!
My “(b)ut perhaps not” = Jeebus’ “using them as a bullying point only shows a general ignorance of how science works”
Oh the irony………
Why not use that line on our PM or even our climate alarmist MSM or even BK, Jeebus?
I mean it would clearly be far more apposite
In answer to your second question: Yes.
The very first part in the critical analysis of a scientific article is to know who is writing it and from which unit or group.
These bona fides should point to an impartiality of the scientific work. Much of the scientific criticism of AGW theorists revolves around just this point.
[Edit]
If these emails are in fact accurate many of this clique are just that: an partisan conspiring group that cite each other and who have stooped to deplorable and potentially illegal means to massage the results that favour their belief system.
Their work would be scientifically valueless. It is that serious.
It’s potentially a really massive crisis in confidence with potentially extraordinary sequelae.
Lastly please define what you mean by “denialism”.
I suggest that it might be you who is ignorant of the scientific method.
JamesK, quoting from you in this thread at 1:46pm 12 Nov:
“Here is the method leftists unfortunately nearly always use to respond to any criticism:
1. Polite: Call into question the quality of their opposition’s thinking or even better their sanity. Roll eyes…”deniers”…yawn…”the science is settled” etc. after tiresome etc…….
2. Angry: Alarm!!! Danger!!!!
If the oppositions arguments win the day then “the world will end!!!!”….. “This is the greatest moral issue in the history of the mankind” etc. after tiresome etc……….
3. Sleazy: Call into question their opponent’s motives:
They’re greedy. Malevolent Big Oil/Coal/Any industry that disagrees with us, any rogue scientist no matter how well hitherto well respected who disagrees with us is being funded by Big Oil or some dark Right wing Conglomerate…..”
Can you explain how that conspiracy theory with no chain of evidence linking it to the alleged source does not demonstrate the third category?
And without any such chain of evidence, convincing us it’s not either invented, or real emails that have been doctored by the conspiracy theorists — assuming the scientists were that dishonest and evil, how credible is it that they’d record evidence of scientific misconduct so blatantly in emails?
I’m not saying no scientist would ever do so, but an accusation needs a bit more than “after a few days of scrutiny appears (to the kind of people who would know) to be legitimate” before there’s a case worth answering. Or the whole world would be doing nothing but answering fabricated accusations.
a letter in todays Australian
The Senate debate over the ETS has been stalled by Coalition disunity, while the PM has added some heat of his own
AT this exact time last year, I was on a mountain-bike ride in the Kosciuszko National Park where, after a very cold day and night, we woke up to find half-a-metre of snow everywhere outside Mackey’s Hut and could not get out for two days.
This was a record snowfall for November and was the coldest November day on record in Canberra, Sydney and most other parts of south-eastern Australia. Where was Kevin Rudd then to push the idea that this was “proof”’ of a global cooling trend? (“Heat’s on to approve carbon plan”, 20/11).
Regardless of one’s views on the global warming debate, only a fool would use a single heatwave, or a cold snap, to “prove” one’s point of view.
George Reeves, Normanville, SA
I disagree that the Senate debate has been stalled by Coalition disunity. The Liberal Party is in negotiations with the government to try to reach an agreement that will enable a majority in the Senate to support the legislation.
@James McDonald
Explain why it is you think my: “But perhaps not:” equates “Sleazy: Call into question their opponent’s motives”?
I did not invent these emails and documents nor did I hack the Hadley Centre nor did I publish them but at least some of which appear already to be undoubtedly true.
Nor did I state that they were true.
I merely gave two references both of which are very cautious.
What precisely is your allegation?
@Jillian.
If the Liberals do not unite and vote this down they will be rooted as a political force.
Its now politically near impossible for Turnbull.
All he can hope is that he can say that Labor failed to move far enough to reach agreement and seem even partially credible.
He has been outmaneuvered by Minchin.
JamesK, my allegation is that you take a dim view of sleaze from some sides of a debate, but a reluctance to recognise sleaze for what it is, when it comes from another side.
In fact, either side engaging in sleaze proves nothing either way. Propagating it while saying “Hey, I didn’t say it was true, I’m just the messanger here” is a bit disingenuous if the material looks likely to be no more than a smear campaign.
And it does. There is no provenance. On face value based on blogosphere summaries, hints, and tiny extracts, it is supposed to give an impression of being evidence of conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. On real examination it may be genuine emails which show no such thing. But without provenance, it’s not even worthy of real examination. It’s just something somebody posted on the internet.
I allege that you’re not following your own standards; instead propagating information that lowers the tone of discussion without informing us of anything substantial.
To clarify “not worthy of real examination”: Someone will examine it closely, of that we can be sure, and they have a right to do so. But unless and until anything substantial comes of it, it wasn’t worth mentioning publicly.
Real conspiracies and fraudulent scientists do exist. But there is usually a human informer at some point willing to stand up and blow the whistle, or else lay a verifiable trail of evidence, or else cause questions to be asked which a conspirator is unable to answer satisfactorily. Unless and until that happens, to use your phrase the other day, it’s a case of “Nothing to see here folks, move along.”
@James McDonald
I just informed you of a great scandal without passing judgment.
You should be conveying your gratitude to me.
I reject your view that I engaged in “propagating information that lowers the tone of discussion”.
Such a sentence in and of itself says more about you than me.
I hope it does. And thank you.
The interesting stuff that JamesK has quite properly linked for consideration does smell a bit. From the Grech family cheese factory perhaps. If it really stinks it will give unwarranted assistance to the warmists in their deciding first round match with the denialists.
How can the Liberals vote down the CPRS without also jettisoning Turnbull? What sort of campaign could they run with a leader who has been rolled on the issue and who has committed himself to an ETS (whatever he actually believes about the scientific evidence)?
HOWEVER - in recent Business Spectators there has been a great new prospect for the Liberals, provided they can find an excuse for letting the legislation through. According to the BS a couple of the big La Trobe Valley generators are likely to be in administration owing to insolvency within a very short time after the legislation is passed. It wouldn’t mean immediate problems with electricity supply, though, like bush fires which are actually coincidental, any outages would be laid at Rudd’s door, but would be a running sore for Rudd.
On conscience votes, don’t forget the possibility that Liberal conscience votes could get the CPRS over the line and passed even if Rudd and Wong pull the rug from under an agreement acceptable to Turnbull. Rudd would know this so must be calculating that he could end up with the Liberals able to criticise everything that ever goes wrong as a result of the CPRS or which can be attributed to it or predicted to follow from it because it was Liberal policy to oppose it and that he doesn’t have the failure to pass as a double dissoluton trigger or a stick with which to beat the Opposition. So…. small odds on that there will be a deal.
Read this and it makes the whole topic pointless.
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-bombshell-hacker-leaks-thousands-of-emails-showing-conspiracy-to-hide-the-real-data-on-manmade-climate-change.html
@Julius
The articles by Gottliebsen and then Kohler were first class.
Minchin would vote for this ETS in the circumstances of an international agreement. It’s not The ETS/CPRS per se that he’s making his stand against.
Terry McCrann suggests the one amendment that would unite the Liberals but it is not there as far as we know:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/no-carbon-cut-unless-world-cuts/story-e6frg9k6-1225797528270
The reason that such an amendment is absolutely necessary is outlined here:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/climate-policy-failure/story-e6frfig6-1225796277396
Rudd’s need to pass the legislation before Copenhagen is insane.
I predict Aussies will be not quite so keen on this legislation next year after Copenhagen’s seemingly inevitable non-agreement.
McCrann, Gottliebsen and Kohler talk sense.
Whilst our PM talks drivel with no substantive criticism from the progressive liberal MSM and certainly none from Bernard Keane who attacks Rudd from the Left if at all.
JamesK, now that is a good idea from McCrann. Then again, it would be irrational for Rudd to do so — how could he then wedge the opposition?
climate schlimate
I for one prefer to stay on topic, and I think it is amazing how much bad press our NON sceptical politicians get. When Rudd, Gillard and Tanner line up it is formidable. When Turnbull, Hockey, Michin and various others line up it is still a force to be reckoned with. I reckon these are interesting days for politics in Australia. I am pleased to be in a tough place where things get thrashed out; it is one of the things I admire about the americans, self eviscerating themselves over their mistakes and lack of foresight.
But Tony Abbot - I know you’re right about the creation of a gap in the market in his recent behaviour and communications, but Jayzus no! don’t let it be true. His halting oratorio could, ah, put rudd to sleep.
A size 12 boot Bernard, squarely aimed up the date of these momentary glamour seeking journos that are blocking the public’s clear view of the issues. Just like these crikeyblog regulars that consistently and immediately reframe your articles with their wretched closed-minded promotion of inaction in the face of the downside risk of AGW on the future of our kids.
I agree James.
On the other hand the tide could well turn against Rudd after Copenhagen, if as expected, there is no real deal.
@ Evidently
The level of political debate in America on any topic is streets ahead of here.
Cap and Trade has been effectively killed in the US Senate.
Are you suggesting that our MSM and Bernard Keane has done anything other than push the alarmist agenda?
WRT WTF’s hyperlink reference:
There is a brilliant interview with a respected climate scientist BEFORE the release of the hacked emails and documents from the Hadley Centre.
This senior climate scientist strongly makes the point I made an earlier post on this article:
“Much of the scientific criticism of AGW theorists revolves around just this point”(the bona fides of the investigatorS showing the necessary impartiality of their scientific work).
Many critics have suspected that these climate alarmist scientists have been politicking and not presenting honest scientific work but rather massaging dubious data to say what they believe it should say.
That’s not science. It’s rather an abomination of science.
It looks like the cat is out of the bag.
It’s big. It’s very big. It will be interesting to see how the MSM spin it.
JamesK, your admiration of the paranoid hysteria that has infected America’s fourth estate says a lot, and it shows in your style of debate.
I’m not even sure what you do believe, but your emotional language undermines any pretext of objectivity.
And your final three paragraphs belong on a poster for Godzilla.
@Jeebus
Sanctimonious.
With not one single answer to my criticism.
Just generic smearing assertions.
Not a single argument.
Two climatologists opine on this topic:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/comment-on-the-hacking-of-the-cru-website/
The beginnings of an answer to the question I posed yesterday:
“It will be interesting to see how the MSM spin it.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
Finally…looks like possible vindication of my scepticism.
Can we get a question up in parliament this week?
Something along the lines of:
Is the PM aware whether the hacking of the CRU servers is genuine
and that the 14omb(?) of emails posted on various sites around the world
is genuine?
Also try: If the emails hacked from the CRU server and posted on
several websites around the world are genuine, how will this affect the government’s position
on APG Climate Change and the ETS? SDoes this expose the ETS as nothing more than a ruthless tax on the unsuspecting Australian people who have been “sold a pup” by the powers that be and their client followers the MSM?
And endless permutations thereof…
Well done James SK and Peter H
As an environmental advocate who happens to also be a small government advocate, if this is as genuine as the multitude of blogger copmments would suggest, I hope we can now return to the real business of stopping the world’s money insitutions from destroying the third world and stealing its resources. What a distraction this is!
Plenty of different takes on the CRU email leak. Here’s what RealClimate have to say about it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Like a lot of other pieces of information, there’s plenty here for either side. I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of a world wide conspiracy for example…
The CRU was definitely hacked according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
MSNBC looks like they are going to run with this!
Glen Milne in today’s australian points out the danger of joining Rudd and alienating the growing band of doubters regarding this ETS. Once you vote for it you own it….
“If the Coalition votes in support of the ETS, what else is it going to fight the election on?”
Before we go to that answer let’s briefly bring Barnaby Joyce into the argument.
Joyce made the point to me recently that if you pass anything through the Senate, ultimately you have ownership of it. A point Meg Lees the former Democrat leader came to understand to her grief when she negotiated John Howard’s GST through the upper house.
Joyce said to me: “I got $3.4 billion in concessions for the bush in return for the Nats supporting the privatisation of Telstra. And every time I walk into a front bar in a pub out west a farmer sticks his big finger in my chest and says: `You’re the bastards that sold Telstra’.”
“Your base never forgives you,” Joyce said. “Ultimately, no matter how much you get for them in the bargaining process you end up with ownership of a political problem that wasn’t yours in the first place.”
I hope the legless in the Libs take heart from this - the public admire strength and conviction whether they believe in the position or not. Ultimately it is the best test of honesty going.
If a politician holds the course in the face of endless ad hominen attacks from the encumbents and the client follower media, then what he speaks is either true or he/she is being true to her own convictions.
So let’s hope we get a ripper of a week in parliament. Mind you, any former Goldman Sachs employees or current bankers who were former Liberal leaders will be pushing the Trilateralist barrow but I think the game is almost up! Now all we need is for all the honest and decent members of the government who still believe in Australia to stand up and be counted. I know there are many who also knbow this is a scam.
Amazing, now we are asked to read Glen Milne. James K is obviously an avid fan of Fox TV’s Bill OReilly and now peterhatch pushes the ramblings of Australias answer to Lord Haw Haw. I await Akerman to enter the blog (there goes my breakfast).
I see Raymond Church is [Edit - play nice]
Lord Lawson former Chancellor of the Exchequer in The Times:
“But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
We might also ask whther the Australian ETS legislation also has a madatory carbon rationing program as per the UK model?
See link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/
@JamesK, and I could link you out hundreds of peer reviewed research papers on topics ranging from ice cores, fossil records, atmospheric gas readings, and satellite photos in support of the scientific consensus, but it appears you’ve already made up your mind.
You’re the one peddling assertions, as though there is a smoking gun in the hacked documents from one organisation to tar entire fields of science.
I support an investigation into whether the documents are authentic, and what they mean in their proper context. If they are genuine, and there is any evidence of wrong-doing, I would then be interested in knowing how many people were involved.
Until that information is public knowledge, your comments regarding ‘abominations’ and things being ‘big, very big’ are little more than begging the question.
It’s no surprise that you didn’t answer my question of what it is you do believe. You probably don’t want to sound like an out and out crackpot by writing the words ‘global conspiracy’, without credible evidence, in a forum where people will be able to quote them back to you.
The hack has been reported by the CRU itself and has been run by the MSM and the Beeb.
I guess we could debate whether the emails and papers hacked have been altered post hack. All 1000 odd.
Science has oproven to be as guilty of fraud as any other profession. Father of the scientific management method, Fred Taylor has been shown to have not only made up his data on productivity improvements , he proved that if you force people to work like slaves you get higher productivity until such time as the jack up and tell you to drop dead, which is what Taylor’s hardworking lab rats eventually did. Still in true business spirit he went on to make scientific managment the business approach of choice and the one currently behind globalisation of the work force.
Wow who would have believed that reputable scientist would have altered data to protect their
grants…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html
Good stuff Peter Hatch. A book, reported in the Daily Mail in the UK is proof that the planet’s not warming. Talk about rigour!
evan did you read the report….did you read about the alarmists altering data or did you just re-act…. did you read about the billions that this fashion will cost us?
I was part of the Club Of Rome in the seventies when these same scientist were warning about global cooling….
Cognitive Dissonance has got to be setting in with the Warmists!
I wonder how many are going to be out on the tarmac waiting for the “cargo” after Copenhagen?
Peter Hatch, Richard Wilson, you’re both lost down the rabbit hole. You can only overturn a scientific consensus with new science. The extent of both your abilities thus far appears to be regurgitating and prosthelytizing blog comments.
It’s a good thing you nutbags weren’t this loud and hysterical in the 80s, otherwise the Montreal protocol would never have passed. Did the sky cave in when they phased out CFCs?
@Jeebus
So I’m now informed that your statement:
“I’m not even sure what you do believe, but your emotional language undermines any pretext of objectivity”
…….. is not an assertion but is, …… apparently, a question which for some presumably bizzare reason is:
“no surprise that you didn’t answer my question of what it is you do believe.”
On the other hand, you understand my thinking well enough to state:
“You probably don’t want to sound like an out and out crackpot by writing the words ‘global conspiracy’, without credible evidence, in a forum where people will be able to quote them back to you.”
I don’t need to be too concerned about sounding like a crackpot on this thread Jeebus.
Not with you around anyways.
jeebus
Peter Hatch, Richard Wilson, you’re both lost down the rabbit hole. You can only overturn a scientific consensus with new science.
peter
What consensus? New Science? We have theories one of which says that a beneficial gas in the atmosphere representing 0.004% of the atmosphere is bad and caused by man and we must spend billions on reducing by giving traders free permits to trade and corrupt foreign governments the right for our industries to buy audited by corrupt auditors..
Now that is crazy…..
ad hominem ad hominem
when you are no longer connin’ em
OH and the coalition must agree to this according to Rudd today within 24 hours of being given the compromised bill…
I hope they (the Libs) have “the bottle” to hold the line against the global taxers (possibly we’ll see Turnbull alone cross the floor, resign the Libs and rejoin Goldman Sachs).
When introducing any behavioural change, I have always found that reward works better than punishment - particularly in the long term. Rather than punishing people for polluting - reward them for not polluting. (Notice I say polluting, not emitting C02 which I regard as the climate change version of the war on terrorism - terrorism is no enemy, its a concept). Only the scientific management Nazis and Bolsheviks revel in torture and human sacrifice.
Peter, there are two issues here. One is a scientific theory, and the other is an economic theory.
The scientific process that has culminated with the IPCC report supporting AGW has come about through decades of work covering thousands of independently researched and reviewed studies. It’s very rare to find a consensus in any field of science, and yet the vast majority of experts in climate research support the conclusions of the report due to what they see as overwhelming evidence.
What really unnerves me is the way denialists so confidently dismiss the science. Ignorant laymen and people of faith have no place in arguing against scientific facts, because gut instinct, statistical interpretation, and beliefs written 2,000 years ago do not hold equal footing with observation, experimentation, and reproducible results.
We do have a place in the economic debate, though. I’m not convinced that an ETS is the best economic incentive to lower carbon emissions, and would love to hear a convincing explanation from the government as to why it’s better than a direct carbon tax.
It’s not just their emails.
It’s not not just their collusion to remove journal editors.
It’s not just their collusion of “peers” to peer review in certain journals.
It’s not just their whoops of joy at the news of the premature death of a well known climate sceptic and the musings of assault of another at an upcoming conference.
It’s not just they collude to prevent ‘unfriendly’ papers from being considered by the IPCC.
Its their data manipulation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/
“Any climate scientist worth a damn will say — contra Kevin Rudd’s antics in Question Time yesterday — that you can’t be sure higher temperatures have any relation to climate change, but voters persistently say they want action on climate change and that isn’t going to change as they sweat their way through Christmas and the New Year.”
Prof. Barry Brook disagrees with you:
“Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is.”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/14/three-record-heatwaves-seaust/
Prof Barrry Brook the author of:
“Scientists must work harder at making the public aware of the
stark difference between good science and denialist spin.”
http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/294conScience.pdf
Why doesn’t Prof. Barry Brook submit his reasoning set forth above by Connor in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
I mean he has proven the worldwide phenomenon of AGW in Adelaide. No need to concern ourselves with the climate anywhere else apparently.
This could save the spending of billions of tax payer dollars worldwide overnight.
It doesn’t take much by way of deduction to figure out why Turnbull has come out this morning with his lockstep globalist position before the CRU Hacker story is allowed to go mainstream. What a farce! Throw him out Liberal Party!
Nothing I can find in the Aussie papers today, other than Andrew Bolt’s blog yesterday, about the hacking of the Climate Research Centre’s computers at East Anglia in the UK and the publishing of 1000 emails many of which expose the whole climate change thing as the fraud it is. This is the biggest story in the world and, as usual, the MSM let us down. One of them better break ranks soon or they will all be laughed off the planet.
By the way, some of the emails from the CRU Hack expose the entire peer review process for the fraud it is. Getting your mates, who already agree with you, to mark you paper is not valid in my view. I thought the way it worked was that independent scientists/researchers - whether they agree your position or not review your work on the strength and quality of the conceptual framework, the methodology and discussion of results.
You can read the alleged emails as well as latest updates here and make up your own mind:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/11/hadley-hacked-roundup-with-updates-and.html
And Lord Monckton who challenged Al Gore to debate him on climate change:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/2/ below….
“What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.
“No, they’re not. They’re criminals. With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute”.
feel pleased that Turnbull won in that he is the only credible leader…
sorry that he won because this ETS is bad policy and the coalition is offering no alternative…
Connor, I agree with Jeebus about non-experts second-guessing the scientific community. It’s the equivalent of people challenging quantum theory on the strength of having read a few New Scientist articles.
But Barry Brook is wrong if he thinks Adelaide’s heat waves prove anything. That is a local phenomenon which there could be (and probably are) lots of local reasons for. Adelaide used to be a lightly forested basin; now it’s an artificial desert, all the treas are gone and every drop of water is bled from the creeks. It’s a travesty.
When you argue using anecdotal evidence like this, you invite similarly meaningless anecdotes from the other side. Such a debate will not end until all the weather-related anecdotes in the world have all been told.
agree richard
What a quandary Malcolm is acting against the grass roots.. no ETS
Joh….. is malcolm lite…
the monk is unelectable….
why not draft minchin…..
sorry Joe…. Joh was malcolm heavy