Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

The Rest

Jul 29, 2011

Sceptics on the menu at Rinehart's
luncheon

Billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart hosted a lunch with WA Premier Colin Barnett with a presentation from a prominent Australian climate-change sceptic, writes Graham Readfearn.

Share

Billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart hosted a lunch with Western Australia Premier Colin Barnett and the Chinese Ambassador Chen Yuming to hear a presentation from one of Australia’s most prominent sceptics of human-caused climate change on the same day that the government was launching the details of its carbon tax proposal.

The lunch, on Sunday July 10 at Rinehart’s Perth home, was billed as a welcome to delegates at the high-level two-day Boao Forum for Asia conference, which started the following day.

Rinehart, Australia’s richest person with wealth estimated at more than $10 billion, told the audience that climate sceptic Professor Ian Plimer, of the University of Adelaide, was a “reasoned source” of information on climate change.

Geologist Professor Plimer, a director of several mining companies, has not published any peer-reviewed research on contemporary climate change. His 2009 book Heaven & Earth was heavily criticised by climate scientists.

Speech notes from the lunch released on the website of Rinehart’s lobby group Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (ANDEV) reveal former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who is now the Boao chairman, was also in attendance.

The chairman of Hancock Prospecting, Rinehart told the lunch crowd, thought to be about 85-strong: “Today, dark clouds are gathering. In Canberra (thousands of kilometres away), the minority federal government is announcing today the details of its new carbon tax, which will increase the costs of commodities we export and costs in Australia’s economy.

“This is such an important problem for Australia I have asked one of the leading sources of reasoned and factual information in Australia on global warming and climate change to address us, Professor Ian Plimer.”

Referring to her fears over a carbon price, Rinehart urged the high-powered  lunch crowd: “Warnings or reminders from yourselves would be welcome!”

A spokeswoman for WA environment minister Bill Marmion confirmed to Crikey he had attended the lunch, but declined to comment on Professor Plimer’s views on climate change.

Cheryl Edwardes, a former WA environment minister, is Hancock Prospecting’s executive general manager responsible for external affairs, government relations and approvals.

This is the second time in recent months that Rinehart has personally hosted senior politicians and personally provided a forum to climate sceptics.

In June, it was revealed she had flown two members of federal parliament to India on a private jet to attend the wedding of Mallika Reddy.

Nationals senate leader Barnaby Joyce and Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop were flown to Hyderabad for part of the extravagant three-day wedding.

Mallika Reddy’s grandfather is GV Krishna Reddy, whose GVK company is looking to negotiate a reported $2.4 billion deal to buy large stakes in two of Rinehart’s major coal projects.

Rinehart helped finance controversial climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton’s 2010 Australia tour. She also arranged for Lord Monckton to speak to an invited audience at Notre Dame Unversity in Perth on June 30 as part of his 2011 Australia tour.

The Boao lunch event, in a marquee at Rinehart’s Dalkeith home on the banks of the Swan River, did not appear on the official program of the Boao Forum for Asia Energy, Resources and Sustainable Development Conference.

As detailed in the Boao conference program, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd was an opening speaker at the conference. A spokesperson for Rudd confirmed he did not attend the lunch.

Barnett and Minister for Trade Craig Emerson were also speakers at the conference.

Business leaders included Andrew Forrest, of Fortescue Metals Group, Ryan and Kerry Stokes, directors of Seven Group Holdings, and senior representatives from BC Iron, CSIRO, Rio Tinto and BP China. Senior Chinese government officials were also speakers and panelists.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Crikey

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

274 comments

Leave a comment

274 thoughts on “Sceptics on the menu at Rinehart’s
luncheon

  1. Flower

    @ Ian: ” Surely it doesn’t have to be one or the other?” Precisely my point Ian in case you didn’t get it. Human abuse – bad. Animal abuse – good. And that my good fellow is the message the Commonwealth has conveyed to an outraged international community.

    If you want confirmation of human abuses, look no further than Australia, a “first world” nation with a rampant free market ideology and a fake democracy. A merry band of greedy, ignorant and unregulated cowboys that have not only trashed our arid lands and resources without remorse (and with impunity) but are joyfully destroying the livelihoods of the Indonesian peasantry through graft, corruption and a compliant Australian government at taxpayers’ expense:

    An open letter to all Australians. “The Live Cattle Row and Food Sovereignty: the perspective from Indonesian farmers” by Henry Saragih the Chairperson of Indonesian Peasant Union (SPI) and also the General Coordinator of International Peasant Movement (400 million) La Via Campesina.

    Excerpts:

    “Indonesia has 4.6 million cattle producers; of these 43.5% raise two or less cattle per year. Those two million small producers do not abuse their animals; the cattle are treated as highly valued contributors to family and community well-being, and the cattle’s own health is paramount.

    “Indonesia currently imports approximately 35% of our beef requirements, around 135,000 tonnes, of which two-thirds are supplied by Australia. This import-dependency places Indonesia at the mercy of the international beef commodities market, of which Australia is a major player and beneficiary.

    “Why do Indonesians eat Australian beef, why don’t we all prefer Indonesian beef? The short answer is that Australian beef is cheaper than the local produce. Indonesians consume on average approximately 2.4 kilograms of beef per annum, less than a tenth of the average per capita consumption in Australians.

    “Indonesian cattle farmers were already suffering through the live cattle trade by before the current ban. The numbers of commercial-scale Indonesian producers have fallen by a third since 2003, with many unable to compete with the big Australian producer’s comparative advantage of scale.

    “The live trade exists due to the economic imperative to make a profit wherever legally possible – regardless of the consequences to either the animals or local producers and their communities in Indonesia. Successive governments, within the framework of a global ‘free trade’ ideology, have encouraged Australian farmers to participate in this trade.

    ” Australia has encouraged us Indonesian farmers to press our own government to support the domestic industry, and raise our capacity to meet our own food needs. We ask Australian farmers to step out of the current agribusiness and commodity trade paradigm, and to look at these issues at the human scale, for the benefit of the animals, and for small producers and their communities.”

    “Don’t be stupid Flower and pick on someone to insult who is a real enemy.” Oh no problem Ian. What if I pick on the wealthiest man in the world, the Sultan of Brunei, the hit and run grazier who owns six cattle stations in Australia with a controlling interest in a live export company? I mean would he give a fig about Australia’s ignominious carbon budget, the Indonesian peasantry, dumb animals or Australia’s workforce that’s been robbed by live exporters?”

    Ed: Post edited – name-calling is unnecessary.

  2. Ian

    Don’t be stupid Flower and pick on someone to insult who is a real enemy. By being against human’s inflicting pain on other humans, like going to war in far off lands to prove to the mighty US empire “we’re one of them” does not mean I’m FOR human’s inflicting pain on other species. Surely it doesn’t have to be one or the other?

    I am against live exports and factory farms and all those inhumane practices that humans are guilty of. Even so it has not been one of the areas of abominable behavior by humans that I have focused on. There are so many horrible things going on in this world now that warrant fighting against and I don’t have the capacity to be well informed or to do battle on them all. Do you?

  3. Flower

    It seems Ian’s gorn orf Venise. Pity since I wanted to ask if his ideological leaning was towards anthropocentrism or speciesism. That is humans are the most important entities in the universe, the most powerful species where morality ends at the point of a gun or in this case, a blunt knife in a primordial abattoir. That’s it – might makes right. All together now: “We are the champions………”

    Naturally if we go with the “what is born of woman” argument then we can trace all animal life back down the evolutionary ladder to common ancestry. And you can often witness throwbacks in ‘civilised’ society mimicking our ancestors like those with their “snouts in the trough – oink oink?”

    The bottom line of an anthropocentric view is that the “people” in charge have proven to care for other people like a snake cares for a frog. And the speciesist has as much respect for animals as Jack the Ripper had for the reproductive organs of a prostitute.

    Considering the wrecked planet for which we humans are responsible, I would say elevating humans over all other species amounts to chauvinism.

    Of course live exporters – those sheep and cattle barons would be incensed if someone tortured their working dogs wouldn’t they ? I mean you could risk prosecution or perhaps thrown in the slammer for committing such a despicably cruel act on a valuable and profitable animal.

    Conversely the trafficking of food animals by the live exporters – animals that are tormented and tortured with impunity, have a similar (if not superior) IQ than a human infant or a mentally retarded person, therefore are we not entitled to torture them too?

    All of the aforesaid animals are of such a kind that it is impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice. And human infants, many mentally retarded, shockingly deformed people and animals don’t even speak our lingo. No speaka da English, Bahasa Indonesia, Arabic, Swahili or Double Dutch? Is that it? What about equal rights for torture eh?

    After all, Mark Latham did claim that our blood-thirsty speciesist, the Prime Minister asked him to “stand by for emails explaining George Bush is a great statesman, torture is justified in many circumstances and those Iraqi insurgents should just get over it.”

    The snake and the frog………….?

  4. Ian

    I will say no more but to point out that that this article was about skeptics and Rinehart so I certainly am not the first to stray from the topic.

    That’s it from me.

  5. Venise Alstergren

    IAN: If you wish to cry out about cruelty to humans it might be better to wait for a leader specifically written about the subject, rather than trying to usurp the ground that someone else has staked out.

    FLOWER staked out the ground here with his commendable concern about animals. Stop trying to poach his territory. Humans have millions of people screeching their heads off about cruelty to children and people in general. Far fewer have the courage to defend animals.

  6. Ian

    Flower,

    What I was driving at is that there has been an outcry about this cruelty to animals (a legitimate one in my view which I support) but there has not been such an outcry against all the other cruel and inhumane things our governments are party to,
    not least the wars and, right next door, West Papua.

  7. Flower

    Dear Prime Minister

    Today’s rejection of the live export bills exposed the criminal intent of the gutless wonders strutting our halls of parliament. “For the politicians, by the politicians” immune from prosecution. Here the people of this nation witnessed a repugnant assortment of arrogant pettifoggers elevated above human morality – an assortment of animal abusers, breaching the nation’s animal welfare laws with impunity – sycophants to a corrupt and brutal industry.

    Today we learnt that Malaysia has banned live exports due to the Hendra virus. Karma acts in mysterious ways Prime Minister and industry sycophants will not stand in the way of the great wave of compassion that sweeps this shamed nation.

    Our children are our future leaders and similar to Tommy the trembling black steer at the Indonesian abattoir, we will now permit our children to witness the abominable torture of their animal friends at the abattoir in Turkey, the footage released only this morning. Offending children’s sensibilities is a small sacrifice to pay for the millions of livestock you send to be brutalised and hacked up live in the lands of the barbarians.

    http:// www.

    animalsaustralia.org/take_action/turkey-live-export-investigation/

    The people are calling for a strike on meat. The people are banishing meat from their diets in protest of your refusal to permit your politicians a conscience vote to ban live exports. And cowards do not cross the floor, do they Prime Minister? When the producers, the butchers, the restaurants, the supermarkets, the fund-raisers, the abattoirs, the treasury suffer heavy financial losses, only then may we witness a smidgin of justice for the voiceless and helpless critters you send offshore with cold-blooded ruthlessness.

    Lest we forget Prime Minister.

  8. Venise Alstergren

    PPS: Went one better and emailed O’Dwyer as well.

  9. Venise Alstergren

    PS: I spoke to someone at O’Dwyer’s office who promised to pass on the message.

  10. Venise Alstergren

    FLOWER: Left the following message at your link. Give me an email address and I’ll protest to the appropriate MP. Mine’s O’Dwyer, Higgins, but don’t have an email address as I told them I didn’t want any more of their mail-outs.

    “”If any new rural company wished to start up a business today with the intention of breeding animals to be tortured and killed to benefit a stone-age religion, the public would riot.

    Why is it that because there is profit to breeding these animals, that it’s OK to treat them in any way the buyer wishes? Is there anything our beloved rurals won’t do for a buck?””

  11. Frank Campbell

    Flower- I did indeed make a fuss about the live export scandal…I bet the pollies manage to fudge it- very like Gillard and coal (“coal has a fantastic future”).

    Interesting about WA’s early wind turbines at Salmon Beach. No doubt even mor eeconomically silly than the recent versions.

    You’re simply regurgitating windspiv propaganda when you say Collgar will “supply power to 125,000 homes”. Nonsense. The power is simply shoved onto the grid whether the grid needs it or not. Usually not. There’s nothing local about it. And wind can’t power a single liught bulb 24/7. Just a waste of money.

    I’m pleased to say the wind waste is now becoming understood by the MSM. BBC report just now on the ABC rubbishing the vast expense of British offshore wind.

  12. Flower

    Frank – The Salmon Beach farm in WA was commissioned in 1987 and operated efficiently until 2002 when it was decommissioned due to urban encroachment. The Ten Mile lagoon wind farm, a more cost effective technology, has been operating successfully since 1993 and the Nine Mile beach wind farm since 2003. These operations supply some 20% of Esperance’s energy requirements and are a great tourist attraction and nobody’s complaining least of all the locals.

    The Collgar wind farm, 25 kilometres southeast of Merredin in the wheat belt was connected to the main power grid around April this year and is set to supply power to 125,000 homes. It’s the largest wind farm and the largest single stage wind construction in the southern hemisphere and, to the best of my knowledge, everybody’s delighted.

    Wind farm opponents – a collection of ideologues, including nuclear proponents and fossil fuel greed merchants should try living 200 metres from a poppet head where the cages clang-banged 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Strewth Frank we couldn’t even hang our stockings on the clothesline for fear the sulphur would gobble them up. And the cyanide and mercury? Tell ya what Frank. It’s a miracle I’m still standing upright.

    Now Frank, enough of the side-shuffle quickstep. Have you contacted Julia’s office and your federal member about a conscience vote and a vote to ban live exports? Today is the deadline for such action. Life’s not all about schizoid man’s “I, me, myself” that demands a merciful life and a merciful death for himself but not for the “inferior” species.

    2.5 million “inferior” species dumped overboard by this evil trade while a billion humans go hungry every year. Think occasionally of the suffering Frank for which we cowardly homo-saps are responsible but spare ourselves the agony.

  13. Frank Campbell

    It’s true Flower that WA doesn’t really exist as far as the E.S. (translation for foreigners- Eastern States) are concerned…perhaps WA planners have indeed sited wind turbines out of sight and earshot. I’ll check. (Maybe there’s some point in WA being so big after all)
    But I’m sure turbines have not been operating in WA for decades as you claim. Modern (massive) turbines didn’t arrive in Aust til after 2000.

    And unlike Gillard who said a fortnight ago “we can chew walk and talk gum at the same time”, (and that’s no Hyper Bowl) , I can. Cattle-prod the pollies….

  14. Flower

    @ Ian: “or the weeping and helpless wife of an innocent victim of our occupations in Afghanistan being interviewed.”

    Yes good try at throwing in the red herring Ian. Nevertheless, you are free to lobby against human rights abuses while we are free to lobby against humans who abuse voiceless, weak and defenceless critters. The grim reality is that it is humans abusing humans, humans abusing animals, rich humans abusing animals, poor humans abusing animals, Australian, Afghans, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, Indonesians humans abusing animals (and each other.) And who was that famous person who said?: “The more I learn about men and women, the more I prefer the company of dogs.” Touche!

    Frank – Wind farms have everything to do with location and proximity. Wind farms have operated in my state for decades and not a peep out of the locals who do not reside within cooee of these operations. Locals can’t hear the wind farms nor can they see them. However, I’m not going to be sidetracked at the moment as there are pressing and urgent actions required.

    Last Sunday, an overwhelming 20,000 supporters lined the streets and spoke up for the victims of the live export trade at rallies across Australia. Animals Australia is asking everyone who has a heart to contact their Federal representative tomorrow and request that they support the legislation on Thursday to ban the brutal trade of live exports. If Gillard allows a conscience vote we could see a smidgin of justice for these brutalised and tortured critters:

    http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/national-call-your-MP-day.php

    Thank you Frank – good lad.

  15. Venise Alstergren

    IAN: I think I’ve lost the plot. Um, why would a weeping lady add to the visual imagery of cattle being tortured?

  16. Ian

    @Venise

    “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone going into MacDonalds had first to be fronted by film footage of what happens to their meat before they get to eat it!”…

    or the weeping and helpless wife of an innocent victim of our occupations in Afghanistan being interviewed.

  17. Venise Alstergren

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone going into MacDonalds had first to be fronted by film footage of what happens to their meat before they get to eat it!

  18. Venise Alstergren

    If any entrepreneur had started a company whose policy it was to torture, by any conceivable means terrify, and sacrifice for religious purposes, Australian livestock
    for the pleasure of people living in foreign countries, our much vaunted RSPCA and our collective citizens would have thumped the company so hard that it would never have got off the ground.

    Because our barbarian rural companies, aided and abetted by the blindness of the Australian people who can only see footy and sport, have been so kowtowed to by successive and obsequious governments, they are quite happily murdering, slaughtering and torturing animals with everyone’s B L E S S I N G. Work that one out my fellow Australians.

  19. Frank Campbell

    Flower: “Will you forget about your wind farms for now and concentrate on this abomination, the outrageous lies, the propaganda? Wind farms are a mere peccadillo…”

    Wind turbines are not mere peccadillos- they’re a fraud consuming billions, and they ruin lives.

    The abominations, lies (and the propaganda that protects them) are linked. Corporate capitalism has neutered the state, infiltrated it it, coopted it. Extractive capitalism causes the immediate, direct pain (mining, much of “agriculture” and “forestry”, wind turbines etc), so that’s where progressives can make some headway.

    Each one of these “issues” (live export, Barrier Reef poisoning, turbines, Coal Seam Gas, asylum seeker abuse etc) are unlikely to be solved politically until progressives comprehend the nature of corporate capitalism and act accordingly. Capital does as it pleases. The controls and redoubts built over a century to moderate it have degraded. Capital is not only inside the gates, it owns the gates, installs the cameras and evicts the inhabitants. The ALP has been colonised. The Greens -in less than a decade- have degenerated into a millenarian cult.

    The first task is to kill climate millenarianism, which is ruining progressive politics (such as it is). It is dying now, but given its institutional penetration may take another decade.

  20. Flower

    Spot on Venise. The live export industry has perpetrated the greatest rort ever on the Australian people. The abominable revelations of Australia’s live exports, to the lands of the barbarians, went viral as early as 2003.

    Graphic footage continued to show the unspeakable cruelty that the industry and the Howard, Rudd and Gillard government knowingly permitted to be inflicted on defenceless animals, in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and in 2011 with the Indonesian atrocities. In 2005, shocking treatment of our animals was documented and filmed in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Egypt including in the infamous Bassateen abattoir in Cairo:

    http://www.animalsaustralia.org/about/track_record.php

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ythR2vOP1qsJ:www.animalsaustralia.org/media/videos.php%3Fvid%3Dmiddle_eastDec2007+animals+australia+8+investigations+one+conclusion&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

    Despite the Indonesian revelations, MLA recently brought two Dakota cattle ranchers, the Hadricks, to Australia to advise the livestock industry on how to cyber attack any company that donates to animal welfare agencies (to the orgasmic applause of Queensland’s beef producers.)

    You can view this on last Sunday’s Landline where the cowboy and his partner Charlotte – um Stacy, boasts of their triumphant win over Australian wine exporter, Yellow Tails whom Hadrick states made a huge mistake in donating $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States.

    Cowpoke Hadrick made it his business to ensure through the social media that Yellow Tails was heavily accosted from all sectors of the agriculture community in the U.S and the firestorm that fell on Yellow Tails induced the company to abandon any future donations to HSUS. Hadrick then went for HSUS’ jugular. The filth that’s been propagated across the web about HSUS is nothing short of despicable.

    To add insult to injury, Australia’s savagely sadistic influential graziers and pastoralists rank with the mining industry as the largest saboteurs of climate change action in Australia. The heinous MLA, up to its dirty tricks, has, to the delight of the remorseless livestock industry, sponsored two cowpokes from the largest meat consuming country per capita on the planet, with the fattest slobs in the world, with the most intensive factory farms (which gave the world swine flu) and the worst polluters in the history of human existence.

    You reading me Frank? Will you forget about your wind farms for now and concentrate on this abomination, the outrageous lies, the propaganda? Wind farms are a mere peccadillo in comparison to what these thugs have done and continue to do to Australia’s fragile landscape, its precious resources and its defenceless animals.

  21. Frank Campbell

    Venise: “I simply cannot buy the fact that the really big meat companies are not aware of these wretched animals’ ultimate destination. ”

    Everyone seriously involved in this “industry” has known for years about the routine mistreatment of exported animals…

    Corporate capitalism’s greatest success in the past twenty years has been to escape independent regulation (replaced with risible “self-regulation”). Once offshore it’s even easier.

    Regulation is one of the broad ideological/policy questions rarely discussed in this country.

    Cruel treatment and neglect of “stock” at Ballarat saleyards has made regular local headlines for years. These yards are inside the town itself, visible to all. Things are improving- slowly….

    so imagine what happens in the bush….

  22. Venise Alstergren

    WTF have I done now? MODERATOR.

  23. Venise Alstergren

    FLOWER, @FRANK CAMPBELL: Is there another way at looking at this problem perhaps? I simply cannot buy the fact that the really big meat companies are not aware of these wretched animals’ ultimate destination.

    Any animal being sold for slaughter in a Muslim country will have little, or no chance of NOT being tortured before death. Accordingly farmers should have some sort of license to own cattle. They bred the animals, they nurtured the animals, and now they can bl^oddy well make sure they are responsible for making sure the animal does not meet with a hideous death….All this bitching around by the rurals screaming that everything costs too much. If they don’t have the wherewithal to fund a decent departure for them, then they haven’t got the wherewithal to breed the animals in the first place. Now, of course, it’s all the fault of the standard of living in these third world countries. They can’t afford the refrigeration costs for chilled meat from Oz-slaughtered in Oz.

    Tough. Half the people in Oz had parents/grand-parents who couldn’t afford to have refrigeration-mine included, but quite-rightly no-one sought to have cheap meat slaughtered by barbaric practises on the basis of need or religion.

    These big meat companies are lying to the Australian people. And Julia Gillard just capitulated to the rural vote. Hopefully a large number of the city dwellers will remember this at the next election.

  24. Frank Campbell

    ‘The stinking ships that fly the flags of convenience to evade regulatory enforcement in other nations are exporting some 5 million animals each year from Australia and dumping millions of tonnes of drug-laced animal waste into the oceans and feeding diseased livestock to marine life. The filthy bunker fuel is polluting the atmosphere , humans, animals, ports and oceans with CO2 and lethal fossil fuel chemicals.’

    As usual, Flower knows what he is talking about. Why then is his conclusion wrong- that Gillard will lose not because of the carbon tax but because she ‘sells cruelty’?

    1. Revulsion at cruelty depends entirely on vision, literally. Reading about slaughter (animal or human) is no subsitute for moving pictures. Without more video this issue, like many others, will slide down the agenda-pole. Most “issues” never get up the pole because they aren’t or can’t be turned into vision.

    2. Hypocrisy: there’s rage in the bush about routine cruelty to animals (“stock”, a revealing word). The rage comes not from the thinly-scattered Greens but mainly from farmers’ wives. They understand. They see it every day. Sheep left in the roasting sun without shade. No protection from cold, wet windy weather. Fly-strike and starvation…note the rare prosecution last week- the Mayor of some rural shire in WA nailed for appalling cruelty.

    Our place had 400 dead sheep on it when we took over. He’d shoved the corpses under cypress trees to hide them from the road. The RSPCA made feeble efforts to pursue the previous owner, but he’d bought a bigger place interstate.

    3. People want a concession on live export- they’ve already got it. Vague, unenforceable- but a concession. We wait for the cameras to record the result…

    4. General ignorance, as Stephen Fry would say. General knowledge should be booming (google), but you have to ask the question first. Bunker fuel? What’s that? Does a “flag of convenience” signal a mobile toilet?

    The “knowledge” of urban progressives is so limited they cannot even ask the right questions. Their ignorance is no match for the insistent demands of their ideology. Likewise many farmers and graziers: most are driven by the engine of industrial and chemical production, debt and desperation. Others are just slovenly. For most, the environment comes last.

    Whether you’re a lizard, a roo or a sheep- Australian agriculture is a grim existence.

    5. Cleaning up Indonesian cruelty? What about Egypt, Iraq and Bangladesh? They’ve all been filmed in recent years…

    Gillard will have no trouble ducking the live export ishoo.

  25. Flower

    Tell you what MWH. The environmental groups have many important environmental matters to attend to and are not just concerned about their own backsides or the jingle in their pockets like most Crikey punters.

    Rest assured, Gillard’s skating on thin ice when she talks about a carbon price but lifts the ban on live exports. The stinking ships that fly the flags of convenience to evade regulatory enforcement in other nations are exporting some 5 million animals each year from Australia and dumping millions of tonnes of drug-laced animal waste into the oceans and feeding diseased livestock to marine life. The filthy bunker fuel is polluting the atmosphere , humans, animals, ports and oceans with CO2 and lethal fossil fuel chemicals.

    Snigger all you like when I predict that the Gillard government will not lose the next election by selling us the carbon price. She will lose government by selling cruelty. Constituents (particularly the young) are far more au fait with cruelty than they are on the science of CO2.

    SUNDAY 14 AUGUST – LIVE EXPORT PROTEST

    SAY “NO” TO CRUELTY AND “YES” TO CHILLED AND FROZEN MEATS FOR EXPORT:

    FIND YOU NEAREST RALLY:

    Perth: The Esplanade, Fremantle from 12pm. Speakers include Senator Rachel Siewert and Lynn McLaren (WA Greens MLC)

    Sydney: City Recital Hall, Angel Place, 2.30pm. Speakers include Senator Lee Rhiannon

    Melbourne: Steps of Parliament House, 10.30am. Speakers include Adam Bandt, MP

    Adelaide: Around the Rotunda – Elder Park, 12pm. Speakers include Mark Parnell (SA Greens MLC)

    Hobart: Parliament House, 12pm

    Canberra: Lawn of Parliament House, 11am

    Brisbane: King George Square, 2pm

    Speakers are not limited to those listed above.

    http:// www.

    banliveexport.com/rally/

  26. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Flower,

    I’ll assume that you missed my main point, and so it is not a waste of my time clarifying.

    The compromise that The Greens have done is in the negotiations for a carbon tax. Without reaching a compromise there would have been no price on carbon this term. And this time (unlike the ETS) the deal reached is a step in the right direction.

    The Greens have not compromised on what they think needs to be done. (But though they have publicly said it is not all that they want, they are not shouting from the rooftops that if action on climate change is meant to minimise future warming, then the carbon tax is such a small step forward that Australia’s contribute to global warming will be for temperatures closer to 4 degree warming, and only 2 degree warming is probably now unachievable.)

    The environment groups have sold out because they should be shouting from the rooftops that real action is needed. The EEC I think is still cutting its emissions by 20% from 1990 levels. They are on track to meet this, and if it was not for the conservatives in the European parliament a few weeks ago, the target would have moved to 30% on 1990 levels by 2020.

    Australia is still only aiming for 5% cut, but this is on 2000 levels. At the moment our emissions are rising about 2% a year, so the cut we talk about, if the base year was 1990, is either about a 1% increase or decrease from 1990 levels, i.e. maybe not even a cut.

    The environment groups achieved many great things in the past by lobbying the major two parties.

    On climate change both Liberal and Labor have moved so far against taking action that it is not surprising that on this issue the strategy of ‘remaining friends’ with the major parties has failed.

    Rudd never intended to do anything much, and this was clear before he won office (I know because as a candidate I followed the debate closer than most). The environment groups all supported Labor. At the Higgins by-election climate change was the biggest issue, and as Labor did not run, it was between Green and Liberal. NO MAJOR ENVIRONMENT GROUP TOOK PART.

    At the last election Labor had promised no price on carbon during this term. And Labor had a track record of not doing all the other things needed for climate change action which were budget issues and not ETS / Carbon Tax. And the ETS Labor had tried to push through would have locked in failure.

    Instead of strong criticism of Labor (and educating the public about this) the last election still had the environmental groups giving Labor a “sort of good, but could do better” approval, and no major environment group came out strongly against Labor (and Liberal) and none strongly urged people to vote for candidates promising real action (Greens and there could have been other independents deserving support).

    Of course we will never know what would have happened if the major environment groups had lobbied against Labor’s inaction and spin, and strongly urged people to vote Green.

    But the result of them all trying to remain friends with Labor is clear – just now our emissions are INCREASING 2% per year, most of the public fears that the carbon tax will have us ‘leading the world on action’, and most of those who accept climate change and want action think that the carbon tax is somewhere close to us doing our share. It is hard to imagine how what has happened over the last ten years could be worse.

    At one stage Labor looked like a more compassionate party on how we would treat boat people. Most who wanted compassion thus supported Labor. Look at the result! So climate change is not the only issue where Labor have moved to the looney right (is there any other OECD country which is as bad on boat people? is there any comparable country worse than us on lack of action on climate change?).

    And of course I’m not suggesting that the major environment groups be politically biased. They should be speaking out on the true environmental policies and track record of all candidates, and supporting those who support the environment, and saying why the others do not deserve a vote.

    If things had been different, I don’t think action would have happened because The Greens would have won power. But if enough people had changed their vote from Liberal to Green, and Labor to Green, the major parties would have go the message.

    If you care about the environment, and voted 1 Labor or 1 Liberal, then you are part of why we are in this current mess.

    The environment groups should have been making this clear. They didn’t. Greens votes changed little. And the current lack of action is the result.

  27. Frank Campbell

    This just in: Crikey climate extremists can suck on it for breakfast:

    “Danish Forest sacrificed to wind turbines: Environmentalists against bulldozers

    Thousands of Danish citizens are determined to save a forest located in Østerild which is to be transformed into an experimental field of giant wind turbines over 200 meters high.
    Danish television shows police officers with dogs facing environmental activists in the tops of trees or lying in front of the bulldozers which are ready to ravage the site, illustrating one of the hidden aspects of the wind industry that flouts ecology”

  28. Frank Campbell

    Flower: Good question. I’ve got no idea-been far too busy lately to give a stuff. Perhaps Colorado was/is a hotbed of heresy against the climate cult. (The Pielkes I’m familar with- bona fide scientists, correct?)

    Your question does underscore the intensity with which the hill-fort of the climate cult is defended. You’re looking for the mark of Satan on Salby, who you’d never heard of ’til I mentioned him….clue: his upper left arm, faint tattoo (666).

    Flower is one of the very few posters here who has any serious knowledge of environmental degradation in Australia. I look forward to the time when the burden of climate hysteria is lifted (won’t be long now) so he can concentrate entirely on the brutality of extractive capitalism.

    I caught some of the coal seam gas/coal victims conference on APAC TV yestderday…it’s sickening that Alan Jones ran the show and took the credit. A vulgar peformance- he comes across as an unctuous, hyperbolic, patronising priest consoling a sobbing peasantry. They’d have kissed the hem of his shirt if he’d been in drag…

    He even took time out to praise the sublime righteousness of…Murdoch.

    This is now a common pattern: the cane toads of the Right standing up for victims of feral capitalism. We can now add the creepy new DLP Senator Madigan to that list- he is an ally in the fight against corporate rapacity, while my party, the Greens, ram industrial wind down the throats of the rural poor.

    What clearer example of the debility of the Left and the hypocrisy of the Greens could one want? (though at least Drew Hutton was at the meeting). The Left is now the party of extractive capitalism, trashing basic human rights, crushing defenceless victims.

  29. Flower

    @ MWH: “The Greens are clear about what action they want on climate change, and the carbon tax is very far from what they want. But (unlike the ETS) it is a step in the right direction, one reached by compromise.”

    Love it MWH – the best oxymoron I’ve read in a year. So the Greens can reach a compromise but the environmental groups can’t even though they too are clear about what action they want on climate change. ROFL!

    @ Frank Campbell: “Here’s the blurb on Salby. Be interesting to see the Crikey trolls scramble to the Spitfires……..Professor Murry Salby…..Chair of Climate, Macquarie University.

    Hey Frankie do you think Salby consulted with his anti-AGW buddies from their days at the University of Colorado – Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Snr and Roger Pielke Jnr?

    Just askin’ Frank.

  30. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Flower,

    I do know my history. No major environmental group took part in the Higgins by-election. Why not?

    I don’t think that the major environment groups can take any credit for the current situation either – there was not strong push by any of them for voters to vote Green.

    We have a carbon tax on the table now because the Liberals gave preferences to The Greens in the lower house seat of Melbourne, and enough voters changed their vote to Liberal so that Labor did not have enough lower house members to form government on their own!

    Certainly many people have worked very hard over the years on environment issues. Certainly there are many major achievements to be very proud of. But what about on climate change action in Australia?

    What I am saying is that the policies of the major environmental groups in Australia are (in a small part) responsible for Australia’s complete lack of significant progress so far (we are on the way to a 24% increase). Hopefully the carbon tax will change that.

    As Ian said above, where is the pubic hearing what cut is needed by 2020 for Australia to play its fair part in limiting climate change to 2 degrees?

    Why am I the only one saying that the evidence shows that Labor never really wanted to take any action on climate change? Instead the environmental groups seem to be praising Labor.

    Higgins is my seat, and in the election before the by-election I was the Greens candidate (I now speak only for myself and I am no longer a Greens member and have not been to a Greens meeting for several years).

    I have handed out Greens election material at booths in the area at every election for I think over ten years, and I spent about a month in the streets of Higgins when I was candidate.

    People talk about having to make compromises in politics, and I agree. The Greens are clear about what action they want on climate change, and the carbon tax is very far from what they want. But (unlike the ETS) it is a step in the right direction, one reached by compromise.

    But the Greens have never compromised on what they believe should be done.

    Apparently we are at the stage now where if the world meets its current reduction commitments (which includes Australia cutting its emissions by 5% by 2020) we will get to about 4 degree warming. The Age had a report on a conference held in Melbourne looking at what the effects of 4 degree warming may be. VERY scary stuff.

  31. Ian

    Flower,

    Of course environmental groups have been instrumental in many important steps forward in the past and probably now too but in the main they are too timid by far and do try to always paint an optimistic take on thing rather than a realistic one.

    The framework for their arguments has been set by the enemy and they seem trapped by it. Also they have very limited access to the media who I hold primarily responsible for the corruption of our democracy.

    I would be saying something like… “The package is pretty abysmal, marginally better than nothing but better nonetheless and we thank the Greens and independents and the people who voted for them for getting us this far.” The environmental groups always seem to put it the other way round, ie praise before condemnation.

  32. Flower

    @MWH: ” My view that the environmental organisations are party to blame for Australia’s dismal lack of action on climate change is based on much more than what they say about the carbon tax. ……….Even when Labor was not standing, none of them were brave enough to strongly support The Greens at the Higgins by-election. Rather than p*ss off Labor, they kept out of it’

    That’s a load of old cobblers MWH. The carbon proposal is a result of pressure from environmental groups, not the lack of it. Know your history.

    Just how many environmentalists do you think reside in the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Higgins? And did you hand out how to vote cards for the Greens? The swing to Hamilton was outstanding considering the Australian Greens did not achieve full political party status until 2007.

    Rather than beat up on environmentalists we should thank them for no longer being force-fed DDT, dieldrin and PCBs on our dinner plates every day. And be grateful for those environmental group members, here and abroad who have worked their butts off for zero dollars, have been gaoled, abused, ridiculed, bashed, shot or blown up defending humanity and Momma Nature.

    In 1976, Australia’s Friends of the Earth (FoE) published “Alternative Technology Australia”:

    1976 FoE: “ATA is a source of ideas, information and inspiration to all those who have an interest in alternative technology (solar housing, power from wind and sun to waste disposal and methane). It is a guide to energy self-sufficiency and technology which works in harmony with the environment rather than destroying it.”

    Thirty five years hence, the arse has been chewed out of the environment, the schizoid corporate polluters scheme and plot, no matter how sordid; Australia’s bogan community rejoices and refers to environmentalists as “nutters.”
    .

  33. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Flower,

    My view that the environmental organisations are party to blame for Australia’s dismal lack of action on climate change is based on much more than what they say about the carbon tax.

    As I said before, imagine having a referendum on climate change and all the environment groups keeping quiet. It happened, the Higgins by-election with Green vs Liberal.

    The ACF in particular seems more concerned with keeping its supporters feeling good, and staying relevant to Labor, than lobbying for the environment.

    A few weeks ago I travel on a peak hour train out of the city in Melbourne (I work from home now, so train travel at this time was a rare event for me). The train before was cancelled, and the train I was on was so full that when it got to the last city station people could not get on.

    Melbourne’s train service is not that different from what it was in the 1950’s (some lines may even have has MORE trains than currently run).

    How has this occurred?

    Very simple really. We live in a democracy, and for the last forty years the vast majority of voters (and people on that crowded train) had voted for a party that was committed to no significant improvements in service.

    On climate change, for the last decade, the vast majority of voters have voted for parties not committed to doing anything (I very much include Labor in this).

    Telling Gillard that she should do better is a waste of time. How much time do you think she has spent with environment groups compared to polluters?

    The only way to change is for people to vote for those who are committed to change. Thus the environmental groups should have been educating anyone who will listened about the reality, and urge them to vote for the climate.

    Of course The Greens are one party that they should urge people to vote for, but an environmental group should also just as strongly support any other party that is committed to real action.

    Even when Labor was not standing, none of them were brave enough to strongly support The Greens at the Higgins by-election. Rather than p*ss off Labor, they kept out of it.

  34. Frank Campbell

    Ian: “From your passage by Prof Salby; “those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation”. What is he saying “is controlled by properties of the general circulation”? What properties? How?”

    Hey, I just saw some of Salby’s lecture by chance on APAC TV…I’ve been far too busy to pursue it… presumably you can chase it up on the net or via Macquarie uni…

    the basic argument seems to be that climate drives CO2 and a lot more besides…

  35. Flower

    MWH and @ Ian: “ I find it hard to understand your seeming reluctance to point a finger at conservation groups for their silence re the inadequacies of the proposed legislation…..”

    Gentlemen – There is no reluctance on my part and we must agree to disagree about the suggestion that environmental groups have rolled over. I believe it’s premature to say that these groups have remained silent, considering their very limited resources, the complexity of the proposal and the limited period since the release of Gillard’s paper.

    The point is nobody has responded to my question: “What is the alternative?” Abbott and his whore boys?

    I do agree that Gillard’s proposal is flawed but it’s the best on offer and opportunities remain to hold the Labor government to account before the proposal is passed. And no Ian I do not believe Gillard would ‘voluntarily’ reduce emissions – none of the ignorant bastards would but remember she’s now on trial to commit to that in the longer term.

    We don’t have time to fluff around. Grim reapers like the maniacal Premier Barnett are wrecking the environment at an incredible speed and other states are running amok. The carbon price is at least a start so let’s keep working on it.

    1) ACF: The starting price of $23 per tonne of carbon pollution from 1 July 2012, rising by 2.5 per cent every year for three years, is less than ACF proposed, but we welcome a legislated 2050 target of 80 per cent to set the long term tone for Australia’s emissions reduction effort….

    ACF opposes taxpayers supporting coal-fired electricity generators. However the use of scheme revenue to accelerate the closure of up to 2000 megawatts of brown coal generators guarantees a level of emissions reduction that will help to drive the transition to a clean future.

    2) BZE holds some reservations regarding how the scheme will play out once it is implemented. These reservations predominantly concern the role the carbon price package will assign fossil gas-fired power, and the amount of faith Labor places in the market to bring about the mass deployment of large-scale renewable power..”

    ‘While the carbon price package is a step forward, hard yards remain,’ said BZE director Matthew Wright.

    3) Mark Diesendorf: “Can a carbon price cut greenhouse gas emissions – Why a carbon price is not sufficient”

    4) Greenpeace: The let-downs:

    A price of $23/will not drive all the change needed across our economy, other climate policy measures must be introduced by the parliament,

    There is too much compensation for the polluting industries. High emissions intensive companies, like Bluescope, will receive 94.5% of their carbon tax compensated.

    There was no Emissions Performance Standard included in the package – it is essential that the parliament set pollution standards for new power stations to rule out new dirty coal power .

  36. kd

    If we’re the knitting circle, does that make Franks the angry man going around grabbing people’s needles, stabbing himself in the eyes with them and then angrily complaining that he can’t see any more?

  37. Venise Alstergren

    MWH: I know, but it’s irrelevant. It’s an issue which has to be faced, so why is everyone bug’gering around and crying r#ape?

    I know it’s petty of me but I almost wish Tony Rabo†† had got into power withthe help of the Greens. The screams of pious incantations and justification and superiority would have been music to me. Malcolm Turnbull in particular, would have had a field day.

  38. Ian

    TTH,,

    For your information solar panels attached to the grid do not supply power to the home when the grid is down as I found out when my own electricity went off after a general power failure. The reason is obvious when it is explained. The electricity suppliers want to hold on to their repairmen and not have them electrocuted when responding to failures.

  39. Ian

    FRANK,

    From your passage by Prof Salby; “those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation”. What is he saying “is controlled by properties of the general circulation”? What properties? How?

    and; “emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission” Is this net emissions as opposed to gross (because CO2 circulates within the natural system)? If its net emissions and it accounts for 96% of net increases in emission where have all those human induced emission gone?

    Perhaps theses are stupid questions in which case some of those commentators who have a better understanding of the science than I have can point me in the right direction.

    Perhaps these questions are answered by Prof Salby himself in which case they will no doubt be debated by other scientists in due course.

    At any rate it would be nice if you could perhaps give me the answers and if it turns out that you think the questions are stupid explain to me why?

  40. Ian

    MWH

    I agree with all your arguments and observations. What I really think has happened to the environmental movement is that they are all busy congratulating themselves on the little success they think they have had. They feel they need a win now and then to keep their spirits up and so take this minute step in the right direction as a win.

    What they don’t seem to realize though is they are never going to win anything as long as the two, as you say, virtually indistinguishable right wing parties have a hold on power. Their (the environmental organizations) steadfast refusal to openly come out in support of the Greens on these issues is truly perplexing. They try to form coalitions with labour, social justice and religious groups but refuse to give overt support to the Greens.

    Flower,

    For the most part I believe you and I are on the same wavelength so I find it hard to understand your seeming reluctance to point a finger at conservation groups for their silence re the inadequacies of the proposed legislation and for their failure to push the point that Australia’s responses to climate change are grossly inadequate and don’t even bring us into line with the still inadequate responses from most of the rest of the world.

    Do you believe that if Labor retains power in its own right next election they will voluntarily do more to reduce emissions? I don’t.

  41. Frank Campbell

    p.s. Crikerions- while you’re fulminating, Italy is heading for the grease-trap….

    I think the real world is about to move Hamilton, the Knitting Circle, Bolt, Planckton and co. to an ante-room of history…

  42. Frank Campbell

    MWH: “As I said at the start of this post, if Frank is not paid to do this then he should be.”

    I agree. Send a petition to Sophie Black…

  43. Frank Campbell

    a warm and cheerful day brought out the Crikey blooms…light relief in a long, wet, sunless winter…

    let me smell the flowers…

    MWH: “Rather his comments are designed to waste our time and make us go around in circles.”

    But you’re already doing that. Just look at the 240 comments here…we’re making a lightweight piece look pregnant with meaning, significance, portent, gravitas, journalism even…..Jesus’ll be doing a Cadell Evans in a minute…(don’t you just hate emotional sportspersons?)

    KD, the perennial dandelion, says “Frank: you’re clearly scientifically illiterate, (you seem to have very limited skills in physics, chemistry and statistics, and absolutely no knowledge of how the scientific process works)”…not so, dear KD…when I was born my mother took one look and said “Bugger, not another damned polymath…”

  44. Sancho

    Quite, MWH. I’m reminded of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbdjYy20q8Q

  45. kd

    Frank: you’re clearly scientifically illiterate, (you seem to have very limited skills in physics, chemistry and statistics, and absolutely no knowledge of how the scientific process works), so how would you know?

  46. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    If Frank is not paid to muddy the waters here then he should be.

    If you analyse his comments I think they are much more than just someone who is ill-informed or someone with different values. Rather his comments are designed to waste our time and make us go around in circles.

    Climategate – how many times has this been discussed on Crikey?

    Criticising the IPCC for giving a range of projections – of course the range of projections is them doing their job properly. But Frank turns this into a weakness.

    Frank says that their maximum projections are “mildly catastrophic” (which they are) as if this is a criticism of the science. Often Frank claims to be more informed than most of us, yet anyone following the debate would know that if the IPCC have got it wrong, their main mistake is to be too conservative as the current situation tracks the worst case predictions of earlier reports.

    Frank, and others like him, have been incredibly successful at preventing any discussion in Crikey that moves things forward.

    As I said at the start of this post, if Frank is not paid to do this then he should be.

  47. Frank Campbell

    KD: you have’t read the Climategate emails, so how would you know?

  48. Frank Campbell

    MWH: “A child from next door screams “The whole city will burn down” (This is the Armageddonists).”

    Read what I said carefully: Anderson is not a fringe nutter. He’s a very large Stilton. Use your keyboard.

    The IPPC gives a wide range of scenarios, ranging from the very modest to, ummm, mildly catastrophic. That’s part of the problem. The current policy shambles is partly due to the vagueness of future projections.

  49. kd

    Aah, Frank “I am not a denier” hauls out the discredited denier/climategate arguments again. For some reason I’m reminded of the classic trap question “when did you stop beating your wife?”.

  50. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Frank,

    So if your definition of Armageddonists is far beyond what the IPCC say, and far beyond what most supporters of climate change, what is the relevance of talking about them here?

    Your house is on fire, and you run out shouting “call the fire brigade”. (This is the rational response to a real crisis).

    A child from next door screams “The whole city will burn down” (This is the Armageddonists).

    So do you now decide that because a ridiculous claim has been made that you will not bother calling the fire brigade?

    I’ve just googled “Murry Salby” and the first thing I came up with is an article written today by Andrew Bolt. Not a good starting point. As what Salby is saying is so recent, there are not the usual google results putting things into perspective.

    As for the science being settled, it all depend on what you mean.

    You run out of your burning house, flames are obvious, the fire is growing. The ‘science’ of your situation is settled.

    In a similar way the big picture of climate change is settled – we know it is very likely that is is happening, why it is happening, we have a good idea that very bad things will happen if we don’t stop it, so we should take action to prevent it.

    But how exactly is the house burning. If left alone, will the roof cave in in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. What is causing the green flecks in the flames? What started the fire? Clearly there is still lots to learn. So now the science is not settled.

    In a similar way we still have lots to find out about climate change (which is why lots of science is still being done).

    As for temperature driving CO2, that is what the fully informed all fear.

    It is thought that many warnings of the past were started by other means, and the increase in temperature from other means then led to a large increase in CO2, which then drove much higher warming.

    What we are doing now is starting the increase in temperature by emitting CO2. But this little warming may then start other large emissions of CO2 (such as major methane emission) which lead to much greater warming.

    Note that major tipping point events are NOT fully taken into account in predictions by the IPCC because we don’t have good data on how likely this is to happen and when it might happen.

    I feel that I can safely make one prediction: the climate change deniers will all jump on what Salby has said, as reported by Bolt, but none of them will continue to investigate to find out how other climate change researchers respond.

  51. Frank Campbell

    Here’s the blurb on Salby. Be interesting to see the Crikey trolls scramble to the Spitfires…Maybe A. Crabb, the ASBC’s resident unintellectual, wll interview him…

    “Professor Murry Salby

    Chair of Climate, Macquarie University

    Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

    Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

    Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.”

  52. Frank Campbell

    Planet: “until now you have been quite definite that AGW is a complete hoax and an utter fabrication”

    Absolute lie. I’ve said many times that I expect the AGW hypothesis to be weakly confirmed.

    I don’t know whether you’re a deliberate verballer, or just obtuse.

    MWH: Armageddonists define themselves: everyone’s favourite is Kevin Anderson (virtual extinction in a few decades from now). Is that sufficiently Neolithic for you?

    Anderson is no Lord Planckton (i.e. fringe nutter…incidentally no one seems to think the Lord’s description of creepy new Senator Madigan as a “great man” is worthy of comment. Planckton actually wore a DLP tie for his Press Club address)

    Anderson runs the Tyndall Centre. This was a creation of the Climategate computer modellers (all from East Bumcrack universities, you’ll recall- Annabel Crabb inadvertently nailed it. University of East Anglia, as you can see from the Climategate emails which none of you have read )

    As I’m writing this, a certain Murry Salby is droning on APAC TV. I watched his lecture- haven’t investigated his provenance yet, but he’s essentially saying modellers have failed to realise just what drives CO2 vs climate. His bottom line is that temps drive CO2, and that human emissions are a minor part of the story.

    I kept thinking of the wretched Penny Wong as climate change minister under Rudd, endlessly muttering “the science is settled, the science is settled”, like a depressed cockatoo…No doubt you’ve noticed how much happier she is in her new portfolio.

  53. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    And another question Frank, how do you define a Armageddonists?

    Is this someone who thinks that the IPCC middle predictions are likely?

    Or is it someone who thinks that the IPCC maximum predictions are possible?

    And are you aware of the good reasons for thinking that the IPCC maximum predictions may have understated the threat?

  54. Captain Planet

    @ Frank Campbell,

    Most people think that AGW has some merit (though few are Armageddonists). I’m with them, the majority.

    I’ve been following your contributions for some time with some interest, Frank (not least for your quite incisive wit, despite it being, in my opinion, rather misdirected).

    This seems like a pretty drastic about – face for you. I am not going to bother trawling old comments threads but until now you have been quite definite that AGW is a complete hoax and an utter fabrication. You’ve gone into quite some detail about it and I’ve taken you to task about it on more than one occasion.

    Well, if you have come to accept that the vast bulk of scientific evidence supports the AGW theory, I’m only too pleased to hear it.

    So, since you now accept the need to reduce CO2 emissions, but still maintain your fervent opposition to some of the best and most powerful tools we presently have to reduce CO2 emissions (Mature Renewable Energy Technologies and an Emissions Trading Scheme), Please enlighten me…

    What is your plan for reducing global CO2 emissions to a level which will support sustainable human life on earth for the next few centuries and beyond?

    Please don’t mention investing heavily in R & D for renewables. This has to happen anyway but I am sure you are aware we need action NOW.

    So what’s your plan?

  55. Sancho

    I’m sure we can bare the pain. You’ve been dodging the same straight and simple questions for four days, and now you claim you’ve got some sort of response but it’s being censored by the moderators.

    Sure. Sure it is.

  56. Frank Campbell

    Sancho/Pete50: I don’t abuse other posters either. Yet every single thing I write on Crikey is censored. Some very mild things get chopped, while the Knitting Circle are free (most of the time) to personally insult…

    take the example from serial offender Skeleton above: “go back to destroying printing presses”. Quite mild by his standards (whatever he means by it- not sure), but if I said it, it would be chopped.

    So spell out just what is being censored guys…let’s see if the “moderation” is consistent.

  57. pete50

    SANCHO, it wasn’t due to links or abuse. I don’t abuse posters and I and others have posted links here without incurring the wroth of those in charge.

    No, the problem has to do with . . . I better not say, some would find it too painful.

  58. kd

    Wow, the thread that keeps on giving.

    From my perspective, we should call a spade a spade. Delusional ideological posturing is delusional ideological posturing. We see it in spades from the right from pete50, THEIDIOCYHURTS and Suzzane. We see it in spades from greens like Frank. We see it from the hysterics (i.e. those who think that George Monbiot is insufficiently radical).

    If Kev had done less ideological posturing, bit the bullet and decided to negotiate with the greens as well as the libs, rather than freeze them out (play political pass juggling rather than political football if you like) then maybe we wouldn’t be in the situation that we are today. Both nationally and internationally.

  59. Suzanne Blake

    @ The Truth Hurts

    “Looks like we were right about that double dip recession. Seems the lefties in here jumped on the “the economy is all alright” bandwagon the government has been pushing and have been caught with their pants down”

    I am now convinced many of the posters here are working in the ALP Media Manager / Spin Room. They must be part of the 990 Gillard PM & Cabinet team.
    Their strong views are at tangent to rest of massive majority.

    “Goodbye 2012 budget surplus(not like it was ever going to happen under Labor anyways), hello recession and budget deficits we just had to have.”

    Yes interested to see how the Teflon Swan will fly out of this.

  60. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    the remnant $13bn mostly will end up in the hands of wind spivs, solar rorters and geothermal fantasists

    Good news! Maybe then you can go back to destroying printing presses.

  61. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Further to my last post, I can’t help thinking of what Howard and Costello would say when they were in power if shown the budget from 2010.

    I’m sure that the lack of spending or income from climate change would very much surprise them, and they would ask how they would be able to get away for so long having done nothing.

    And I’m sure that they would be disappointed that the boat people problem was still around.

    It is fun (at least for me) to try to think of what would please or surprise them.

    I’ve yet to think of something significant that would prove to them that it was a Labor budget that they were looking at.

  62. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Cleaning the kitchen I thought of the following thought experiment.

    Take the last federal budget. Remove any mention of names or party. Take this back in time and show it to economists and political people of both the left and right. (You would probably need to mention the GFC and how most countries stimulated their economy to get through this).

    Now, what would be in that budget that would provide a clued to whether Labor or Liberal were in power?

    My guess is that most would guess that the Liberals were in power. Clues would be:
    still funding private schools,
    no reduction in fuel or company car subsidies,
    funding troops in Afghanistan,
    funding camps for asylum seekers,
    and probably lots more, but you get my drift.

    Now I’m sure that anyone who looked at this budget from the future would be able to tell that The Greens were not in power. But I doubt anyone would be certain that it was a Labor budget.

    Really, there is not that much difference between Howard and Rudd / Gillard.

  63. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    TTH,

    I am no supporter of Rudd or Gillard, but you need to look at the facts and not tea-party style hyperbole.

    The major waste of Labor are the same as Howard – protecting us from boat people, funding private schools, war in Afghanistan, middle class welfare and baby bonuses, huge concessions to business, etc etc.

    You say that Labor “won’t have the money to stimulate the economy this time”. If I remember correctly, it was the Liberals that basically ignored the economists and said that there was no need for any stimulus? Yes, there were some sorts in some of the stimulus schemes, but the money lost in rots is trivial compared to the budget, and thus irrelevant to this debate.

    And is there any reason for thinking that Abbott would do any better? And what will Abbott do on climate change? If he does what he says he will have to spend much more than you accuse Labor of wasting.

  64. TheTruthHurts

    [Compare Australia’s public debt with other OECD countries.]

    Compare it BEFORE the GFC between OECD countries.

    Australia is one of the few OECD countries to have had large budget surpluses before the GFC.

    This saved us in times of downturn, a rain day fund if you will. If you blow all the money on waste and leftwing projects and rack up budget deficits it removes the option of economic stimulus in times of downturn.

    Labor will learn this the hard way. Next year they won’t post a budget surplus, they will post a massive budget deficit and will blame “the world economy”. They won’t have the money to stimulate the economy this time round and we may well be going into recession.

  65. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    TTH,

    Do you really believe your bullish*t?

    Compare Australia’s public debt with other OECD countries. Whilst the problem for many countries is their huge public debt (many owe over a years GDP), Australia’s public debt is so low that, if necessary, we could borrow significantly to take us out of trouble.

    As economic managers there is not much difference between Labor and Howard. Yes. Really.

    What is now very questionable is what would happen under Abbott. He and many other Liberals now publically ridicule expertise when it goes against their direction of the day. It is not only climate change scientist that can be ignored, but even economists.

    Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Bob Brown all respect treasury expertise (the Greens supported Labor’s stimulus packages after receiving briefings from Treasury). I can see a future Coalition cabinet calling Treasury advice “bunk” and demanding some balance to the problem.

    And I’m still waiting for an Abbott supporter to tell me what they think Abbott would do on climate change if he become PM. Would he tweak Direct Action so that he meets the 5% reduction target that is his current policy? Or are is this a “non-core” policy and will he decide that the money can be better spent on other things?

  66. TheTruthHurts

    [TTH – A double dip recession would require that we had a recession in the GFC, which we didn’t, and a recession now which hasn’t appeared yet. How were you right?]

    Because of Howards cash splash. I already covered that.

    Howards cash is now long gone and we have massive Labor deficits to look forward to now.

    How will Gillard dodge a bullet this time?

  67. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Flower,

    Speaking up about what really needs to be done to tackle climate change, speaking up against flaws in policy, and speaking up for democracy (i.e. we get what we vote for, so if you vote Liberal, Labor, or National – you are a major part of the problem).

    After all, their tacit support for Labor has us currently on track for a 24% increase in emissions by 2020.

    Hopefully this will reduce a bit if the carbon tax gets through. But I wonder if anyone really thinks that even with the carbon tax we will get to a 5% reduction. And of course a 5% reduction is so little compared to what is needed ….

    @Frank,

    Rational people still accept the major conclusions of the IPCC, Stern, Garnaut, etc. Despite reading numerous posts from climate change deniers, and following up many of the references, I’ve yet to find any rational rebuttal to these conclusions, let alone a coherent and rational alternative to the science, and explanation for how so many got it so wrong.

    I agree with you that there has been much bad policy.

    The carbon tax is certainly not what The Greens would want, but it is at least a good start.

    For the record, I disagree with many of your other points. I’ll not waste my time saying which or why because it has all been said before.

  68. Jimmy

    TTH – A double dip recession would require that we had a recession in the GFC, which we didn’t, and a recession now which hasn’t appeared yet. How were you right?

  69. Sancho

    Yeah, this functioning economy and low unemployment is horrible. We missed out on the chance to join Ireland and Greece in fiscal paradise. What a waste of the surplus.

  70. TheTruthHurts

    Hey Suzanne,

    Looks like we were right about that double dip recession. Seems the lefties in here jumped on the “the economy is all alright” bandwagon the government has been pushing and have been caught with their pants down.

    Luckily Australia has tens of Billions of dollars in surplus money left over by Howard… oh wait no we don’t, that’s right Labor blew the lot last time round. The money that Howard saved(wasted money according to the leftie brigade) saved Australia’s arse last time GFC hit.

    This time round we’ve got Labor deficits to deal with. So rather than a cash splash, we’ll be having tax increases, service cuts and economic pain…. just the way Labor Governments like it.

    Goodbye 2012 budget surplus(not like it was ever going to happen under Labor anyways), hello recession and budget deficits we just had to have.

  71. Flower

    @ MWH: “The alternative is for at least some of the major environmental groups to accept that speaking up properly will get them into Labor’s bad books.”

    Speaking up about what MWH?

  72. Sancho

    Pete, the only reason your post would be “zapped” is if it contained links or abuse. Remove either or both and post it again.

  73. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Jimmy,

    Rudd/Wong never believed in taking real action. The first Rudd budget made this very clear – it would be business as usual.

    To protect the vested interests, Labor tried to do a deal with the Liberals which would have locked in failure. They very nearly succeeded.

    If Rudd/Wong had wanted to take action then every federal budget would have been VERY different. Instead of SPIN they would have achieved things. (As the carbon tax has not yet been legislated, I think it is fair to say that so far Labor has done nothing of significance about climate change – without the carbon tax we are on the way to a 24% increase in emissions).

    If Rudd/Wong had put up a good ETS and failed to get it through because of the Liberals, then I think it likely that the community would have given them the credit for trying.

    At the moment Labor just moves to the right in an attempt to get the support of the the working families in marginal seats. On so many issues there is little difference between Howard / Rudd / Gillard. Exhibit A – how we treat asylum seekers arriving by boat.

  74. Frank Campbell

    MWH wants:
    “significant and cost-effective action on climate change”

    That’s what all this tangled, futile mess is all about. Most people think that AGW has some merit (though few are Armageddonists). I’m with them, the majority. (Armageddonists are slowly losing the scientific argument- even the perpertrators are busy trying to explain why temps have plateaued.)

    There have been three stages of policy thus far:

    (i) MRET, mandatory renewable energy target- this came in when people had no idea about the technology or economics of solar and wind, the only two serious candidates here. The productivity commission has now said what was obvious to anyone interested from the start: both wind and domestic solar are an economic and technological joke. But both parties want (and wanted) to be seen to be doing something, as you said.

    Many people are now aware that MRET is a class-biased subsidy which wastes huge sums on useless technology.

    (ii) The raft of subsidiary “climate” schemes, from pink batts to cash for clunkers. These have been dumped. Mostly for economic reasons, and because they would make little diff. or make things worse.

    (iii) Carbon tax: truly god-awful public policy. Unilateral, can’t effect global temps, the revenue given in bribes to households and “polluters”, the remnant $13bn mostly will end up in the hands of wind spivs, solar rorters and geothermal fantasists. Plus the (eventually) sharp increases in power and other costs- pain for no gain. And pain for the poorest, not inner city Greens and Turnbulls.

    You’ll never see anything on Crikey which analyses the performance or prospects of any of these technologies. Check out geothermal for instance, which looks like a really bad bet in this country (for geological reasons). Flannery’s Geodynamics, Petratherm etc for example. Yet the carbon tax hangs on shifting to renewables. The sickening cant about “transitioning” to a “clean green energy future” will turn everyone off when they see what happens in practice (if it ever happens). This is why I saw climate extremists are the worst enemies of rational climate action.

    What are you all going to do if Abbott wins the next election?(as I predicted in Dec 2009 when you all thought he was a dud) A decade of the Right. Where will that leave climate impropagandists like Hamilton et al? Not to mention Crikey itself, the worst single example of cult extremism in this country. What are you going to talk about, Crikey? Booming coal exports? The gas bonanza? The state of nature strips in Malvern? Come out to the bush to help fight the redneck scourge? Picket the cane toad (Alan Jones) or the geriatric boys club at “The Australian” for “causing” the collapse of the Left?

    First remove the beam in your own eye.

  75. Jimmy

    If Rudd/Wong had of pushed for something more meaningful we may well now have Abbott as PM and then where would we be?

    Politics is compromise and while this may not be all that you want it at the very least puts in place a mechanism that can achieve what you want.

  76. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Jimmy,

    I agree that Gillard is finding it hard to sell the carbon tax. But I’m sure that if she had the choice she would have preferred to hold power in her own right, and that she would then have kept her promise to the electorate not to put a price on carbon during the current term.

    So “the hard” way was forced upon her as one of the costs of becoming PM.

    And yes, I agree that this carbon tax is a very good first step (unlike the Rudd/Wong/Turnbull ETS).

    But imagine how different things would be if Labor (Rudd/Wong/Gillard) had actually wanted to take action. Oh what could have been.

  77. Jimmy

    MWH – If she is bringing in a carbon tax “just so she can stay in power” she likes doing things the hard way!

    But even if she doesn’t believe in climate change as you say, who really cares, she is doing the right thing for the country by putting a price on carbon, it doesn’t matter if she believes in what she is doing, the fact that she is actually doing it is the point.

  78. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Venise, you don’t really believe that Gillard cares about climate change do you?

    To stay in power she needs support of the Greens, and she has ‘bought’ that support by committing to a carbon tax. So she is working hard to get public support for a carbon tax just so that she can remain in power

    As I’ve said before, Abbott is even worse because we don’t know what he will do if he got into power. Either he is lying about his commitment to the 5% reduction target or he is lying to the climate change deniers by all the comments from him and his party questioning the need for such action.

  79. Venise Alstergren

    FAILURE OF TRUTH: “”How am I meant to support something our Prime Minister doesn’t believe in?””

    This is just about as vacuous a question as I have ever read. Politicians lie; get over it. All you do is loll around in the bleachers and make pie-eyed, and cock-eyed pot shots at a politician who is working her guts out to steer the great land-mass of twenty-one million apathetic, die-hard conservative voters whose only ambition is to remain fixed in the previous century. Voters who are influenced by little men with loud voices, called shock jocks, and whose knowledge of the world begins and ends with th’ fouttee. Th’ sportz paiges end th’ commicks.

    I trust you were equally as outraged by John Howard’s lies. Please provide links to the fervid protests you wrote when the Oz public was asked to believe that asylum seekers were throwing their children overboard to drown. You were forthright in your condemnation of the continual lies John Howard told Peter Costello when he told him he would inherit the leadership of the Liberal Party. (He actually had the poor fool believing leadership of a political party was by inheritanc) You were speechless about John Howard’s rigging the vote on the issue of the Republic. As for Tony Abbott…he didn’t say that AGW was crap before doing a complete volte face on the issue in order to make his supporters and the voters happy. Great indeed are your protests against Tony Rabbo††’s denialist tactics.

    How do you justify your own lies in order to get back at Julia Gillard? God alone knows what she did to you, or is it because she’s a woman who attained the top job despite people like you? The smoothest piece of political lying I’ve ever seen was when Malcolm Turnbull was the leader of the Liberals. There he was on Channel Two giving a speech about the latest political development and why he was in favour of it. Suddenly one of his minders leant over and whispered something into Turnbull’s ear. Without missing a beat Malcolm Turnbull changed horses mid-stream and explained why he was against the scheme. It turned out that another of Turnbull’s minders had given him the wrong notes.

    All the above mentioned outright lies are forgiveable provided they come from the right-wing conservative parties. Lady, you are full of cr^ap.

  80. Ian

    It does concern me greatly that the effect that the carbon tax legislation will have on the concerned electorate will be to let the ball drop on the issue for fear that criticizing the legislation as too weak or pushing for the adoption of more measures to reduce emissions might play into the hands of the right wing bigots/fear mongers.

    In fact the proposed carbon tax etc is far too little to achieve anything like what Australia must if it is to do its fair share to prevent runaway climate change and its obvious catastrophic consequences. We should not forget that Labor was quite prepared to give the whole thing up (as it did the super profit tax on mining companies) in response to the demands of the vested interests. Unless the Greens/thoughtful independents retain a balance of power this tiny step in the right direction will be the only step.

    This is not a game and the facts don’t go away just because we might want them too. The ice sheets and glaciers are already receding at current temperature levels. The planet will have to cool if this melting is to be reversed. We can’t expect the Europeans and China to tackle this problem by themselves can we?

    And if our economy takes a bit of a hit because we act vigorously to tackle climate change in our own interests, so be it.

    What do Monckton, Plimer and the other deniers hope to achieve with this charade, some extra $$$ to pass on to their heirs to purchase more sandbags when they need them?

  81. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @Flower,

    The alternative is for at least some of the major environmental groups to accept that speaking up properly will get them into Labor’s bad books.

    Imagine holding a referendum on climate change and not one major environmental group speaking up?

    Well it happened.

    The Higgins by-election (when Costello quit) was probably the closest we will ever get to a vote on climate change. On one side we had Clive Hamilton wanting real action, and on the other Kelly O’Dwyer for the Liberals (at the time when Abbott had just won the leadership).

    Not one major environmental group become involved in this by-election. Not one.

    The Rudd/Wong ETS is another example. Even most Crikey readers could not say why some thought that the environment was better off without it because the ETS would have locked in failure. I’m not suggesting that everyone should agree with that position, but if people were informed then they would at least be able to give an accurate summary of the opposing position.

    Of course The Greens failed to get this across, but in the political debate it was an almost impossible task. But the environmental groups failed to explain it to their members or to the general public.

    The only way I think we may have got some real action on climate change would be if enough people moved their intention to vote to The Greens (or anyone else that came along that was committed to real action). Of course I don’t think that this would have meant that The Greens would have gained power and fixed things (I wish). But what would have happened is that Labor would have realised that to stay in power they would need to take action on climate change seriously.

    When future generations look back to try to work out why we failed to tackle climate change, I believe that one component of our failure will be seen to be the failure of the environment groups (especially ACF, but even Greenpeace and Beyond Zero have been next to useless).

  82. Flower

    @ MWH: “And even the environment groups have become lame as they have decided that to stay relevant they cannot offend the government too much.”

    So what is the alternative MWH? Ecocidal industry thugs running amok – business as usual?

  83. pete50

    ” . . . we’d have to conclude that Pete50 has run out of arguments to support his position and doesn’t believe he can defend his statements any further.”

    Not quite SANCHO. My last reply was too much for the moderator and was zapped entirely. I know you would have enjoyed it too.

  84. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    Frank,

    I agree with you that Australian domestic solar schemes are a very inefficient way of reducing emissions. But Howard, Rudd, and Gillard all like them because it gives them the appearance of taking action.

    Under Rudd the solar scheme was even changed so that installing solar actually resulted in more greenhouse emissions than if the home had remained non-solar (I think the scheme has changed so that this is no longer the case).

    Of course the reason that we are in this mess is that all objective and rational debate has been hijacked by wasting time with climate change deniers, and concentrating on the political circus of Labor vs Coalition.

    Another reason we are in this mess, as seen by Crikey comments, is that most people have now been trained to blindly support their side of politics and to just throw mud at the other. As Abbott has proven, throwing irrational and inconsistent mud is very effective. So why bother with sensible criticism of policy.

    And even the environment groups have become lame as they have decided that to stay relevant they cannot offend the government too much. Without them lobbying hard for significant and cost-effective action on climate change even most who support action on climate change remain unaware of the real situation.

  85. TheTruthHurts

    [This is why Gillard and the state govts are abandoning the domestic solar rort ASAP.]

    Actually the solar panels rebate is probably the 1 measure I support.

    I realise it is expensive compared to other green power production methods, but what better way of making homes self sufficient then having solar panels on every roof to produce their own power? Better yet it’s a way to produce power even when the power lines are down due to storms(common up here in NQ)

    Rebates should be limited however in my opinion to high solar radiation areas where you get the most bang for buck.

    Also as for the price, the Chinese are popping these things out like there is no tomorrow. Can only see the price coming down even more, possibly to half the price they currently there are.

  86. Frank Campbell

    Jeebus: presumably you know that Germany spent $70 billion on solar subsidies- to produce 0.1% of total German power output.

    This is why Gillard and the state govts are abandoning the domestic solar rort ASAP.

  87. Captain Planet

    @ TTH,

    the Indo’s don’t have refrigeration

    That is probably the single most condescending and idiotic thing I have read on this blog.

    They say travel broadens the mind.

    Perhaps you could consider travelling outside of Australia one day.

    I suggest you make your first stop Indonesia. I predict that you will be there for less than 5 minutes when you encounter your first refrigerator.

  88. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Heavylambs, it goes further than that. “Climate change” was first used in the 50’s, while “global warming” was first used in the 1970’s.

    Facts, eh?

  89. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

    @THETRUTHHURTS,

    I think that you are right that Gillard (& Rudd and Wong, etc) never believed in taking action on climate change.

    But what does Abbott believe? And, more importantly, what would he do if he became PM?

    Would he implement Coalition policy and tweak Direct Action so that it met the Coalition’s commitment to cut emissions by 5% by 2020?

    Or does the fact that many in the Coalition publicly question climate change science, Abbott had done so himself, and that Abbott has said that the 5% cut is “pointless” suggest that the Coalition is deliberately lying.

    Gillard did not deliberately lie. We both agree that she is not committed to action. So I think we would both agree that if she had won a majority in her own right she would not have introduced a tax/ETS etc during this term.

    But of course things changed. And as Abbott seems to care about nothing except winning power, can Liberal supporters really blame Gillard for deciding to work with the Greens and independents to become PM? And after all, the carbon tax is probably not enough to reduce emissions by the 5% by 2020 that Labor has promised. So introducing the carbon tax is not too high a price for Labor to win power.

    For Gillard the situation changed. So she never deliberately lied.

    But Abbott is lying now. Either his climate change questioning is a lie to win support from the deniers, and he intends to take real action (albeit at much greater cost to the community than the Gillard plan) and reduce our emissions by 5% by 2002 (the same as Gillard). Or he is lying by pretending that he is still committed to reduce emissions yet he knows that when he gets into power things will change.

    The real scandal is that with all the debate between those who accept climate change and the deniers, and the endless circus of Labor vs Liberal vs vested interests, the real science is being ignored. If the world meets it current commitments (including Australia meeting the 5% cut) we are on the way to 4 degree warming by 2100. Most people, even those who ready Crikey, probably don’t know that.

  90. Suzanne Blake

    Will be interesting to see how the News Ltd papers, report the mercy dash by Gillard this evening.

    I think she was shocked to see TV cameras there.

  91. Flower

    @ TheTruthHurts: “Gillard on the other hand went specifically to an election promising NO carbon tax.”

    1. Federal Election Policy 1990: “The Liberal Party commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2000.”

    2. John Howard: “We are determined to join other countries to deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.Its chemical and biological weapons which, even in minute quantities, are capable of causing death and destruction on a mammoth scale.”

    3. John Howard: “I can’t comprehend how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard.”

    Oh ye hypocrite!

  92. TheTruthHurts

    [Why are you so much against Australia embracing new technology and keeping up with the rest of the world? It isn’t because of the money.]

    I dunno, why was Gillard?

    How am I meant to support something our Prime Minister doesn’t believe in?

  93. Venise Alstergren

    THE LACK OF TRUTH: Obviously you are a woman. You are determined to always have the last word, only with you it’s an obsession.

    Why are you so much against Australia embracing new technology and keeping up with the rest of the world? It isn’t because of the money. If you can use so much internet time writing again, and again, and again, and again, and again in an attempt to emulate King Canute’s telling the tide to go out-I know why he did it, I know-then either you, and/or your boss has bags of money to spare for the internet. Taxes are always going to increase so what difference does it make if it’s a tax which will be refunded anyway?

    You know what you should do? Every time you are going to let off another bleat, just enter your name and an asterisk. We all know what you are going to say anyway. Boring! At the end of the month look at the A/c from your ISP, note the money you have saved and put it away in a jam jar. When this ‘tax’ comes in you will have already paid your first instalment. Problem solved. Now run along little girl you’re clogging up the ether-net. Give me a nice curtsy and I will give little diddums a mint choccy.

  94. TheTruthHurts

    [She has stopped shopping centre visits, cause of the anger, and now does highly scripted ones with “friends”]

    Yeah she did a Labor love-in stop with some old Labor voter in hospital. Poor bugger looked bed ridden so couldn’t even escape her nails down chalkboard voice, I actually felt sorry for him.

    [TTH – “Howard got less votes than Labor at the GST election” which is exactly my point, Suzanee believes the “voters” are right because polls are against the Carbon tax, but the polls were against the GST and more people voted against it than for it (I voted for it by the way) and yet it has been a success so how could you argue the voters got it right?]

    Well it could be argued that the voters didn’t want a GST without really knowing what it was about, and once they had it couldn’t care less.

    I don’t think the Carbon Tax will be like that. I think the punters will be absolutely furious once the tax is introduced for these following reasons:

    1. Gillard has NO mandate to introduce a Carbon Tax. Howard could claim he won a mandate(even if he didn’t get the most votes) because he won the election promising a GST, Gillard on the other hand went specifically to an election promising NO carbon tax. Australians therefore see this Carbon Tax as an attack on democracy and an attack on Aussies views and values. It’s like saying thanks for voting for me, now shut up i’m doing whatever the hell I want.

    2. The Carbon Tax is NOT real tax reform. It could be argued that the GST was a major tax reform to reduce tax avoidance, simplify the tax system and significantly reduce income taxes. The Carbon Tax makes the tax system much more complicated, the tax cuts seem to be mainly for people who don’t pay taxes and the whole idea of the tax is to increase costs on Australians. Thats NOT tax reform.. thats a socialist tax grab.

    3. Gillard does not believe in a Carbon Tax. This is a point that the Labor supporters just can’t get around. 12 Months ago this same woman got Rudd to dump the ETS. 12 Months ago this same woman wanted to take the Abbott direct action route. 12 Months ago this same woman said there would be no Carbon Tax under her government. She doesn’t believe in a Carbon Tax, never has… never will. The ONLY reason she wants one now is to save her job. Thats it. No conviction. No vision. No nation building, just a desperate little gutless wonder trying to keep her gutless wonder arse in the lodge.

    How can you fight for something you don’t even believe in?

    And thats really where Gillard fails and what ultimately will be the death knell for the Carbon Tax.

  95. heavylambs

    Pete50 never runs out of arguments because he does not understand simple answers and he has NO knowledge of the topic that so exercises his passion.To his rhetorical claim that “By 1997,the warming had stopped[sic],they changed it to ‘climate change”,from ‘global warming’,I pointed out that the IPCC was formed in 1988. They were calling it ‘climate change’ then,Petey. A lot. In a heap of papers from the start of the 1980s.

    Look at the literature: Manabe and Wetherald identified ‘it’ as ‘climate change’ in the title their paper ‘Of The Distribution of Climate Change from an Increase of CO2 Content of the Atmosphere’ back in 1980. R.D.Cess wrote a paper in 1976 using the words ‘climate change’ in its title.

    Pete50s just make shit up. No more,no less.

  96. Sancho

    Can someone ask the denialists where they get those special internet browsers that exclude posts containing questions they have no convincing answers for?

    Because if no such thing exists we’d have to conclude that Pete50 has run out of arguments to support his position and doesn’t believe he can defend his statements any further.

  97. Flower

    Pete50’s ignorance on fossil fuel chemicals is exceeded only by his stupidity.

    Those who fail to pursue knowledge are a danger to society.

    1. Hydrocarbons are ‘prescribed’ pollutants. All hydrocarbons burn to CO2.

    a) Benzene is a Class I carcinogen and a ‘ prescribed’ pollutant. Benzene emissions burn to CO2. Benzene that escapes the burning process, through incomplete combustion, contaminates air, soil, rivers, oceans, animals and humans.

    b) Carbon monoxide is a ‘prescribed’ pollutant. Carbon monoxide elevates methane and tropospheric ozone before oxidising to CO2.

    c) Enforcing permissible levels of fossil fuel emissions mitigates CO2 emissions. Catch on Pete50? No? Mitigating stack emissions of fossil fuels chemicals mitigates stack emissions of mercury, lead, chromium, formaldehyde, nickel, dioxins, SO2, particulate matter, NOx, hydrochloric acid, etc etc. ‘Huh?’ says Pete50.

    2. Fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are waste gases that harm marine life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building micro-organisms that form an important part of the food chain. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and makes the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells.

    3. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 2 April 2007 that CO2 is a pollutant and that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (No doubt ‘rocket scientist’ Pete50 knows better?)

    4. Definition of Pollutant: In general, substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Pollutants may be classified by various criteria: (1) By the origin: whether they are natural or man-made (synthetic). (2) By the effect: on an organ, specie, or an entire ecosystem. (3) By the properties: mobility, persistence, toxicity. (4) By the controllability: ease or difficulty of removal. (Source Businessdictionary.com)

    Pete50 is either pimping for polluters or he’s a chronic aliterate. Which is it?

    Definition of an aliterate person: Able to read but too feckin’ lazy to do so.

  98. Jimmy

    TTH – “Howard got less votes than Labor at the GST election” which is exactly my point, Suzanee believes the “voters” are right because polls are against the Carbon tax, but the polls were against the GST and more people voted against it than for it (I voted for it by the way) and yet it has been a success so how could you argue the voters got it right?

    “she has a mandate given to her by the Australian people for there never to be a Carbon Tax under the government she leads” she also said in that smae interview she was “determined to put a price on carbon” so she has a mandate to put a price on carbon but just not in the form of a tax, is that your argument?

  99. Suzanne Blake

    @ TheTruthHurts

    Dont worry, women have especially turned on Gillard. She is history, nothing will save her.

    She and her 990 strong PM & Cabinet department cant even arrange a focus group in Lindsay with Laborites. 100% were against the Carbon Tax.

    She has stopped shopping centre visits, cause of the anger, and now does highly scripted ones with “friends”

    its all over red rover

  100. TheTruthHurts

    [TTH – No, she forgot to do “the lefty trick” of thinking intelligently, reading what was actually written and realising that the figures I was quoting related to the 1998 election (well before the LNP merged in QLD) where more people did vote Labor and therefore against bringing in a GST.]

    Howard got less votes than Labor at the GST election, but he did win more seats.

    But you have to give it to Howard he had the guts to take it to an election. Gillard took a hand over heart pledge that if we voted for her she’d make sure there was NO Carbon Tax.

    Given that, she has a mandate given to her by the Australian people for there never to be a Carbon Tax under the government she leads. Unfortunately she has deceived the Australian people and has broken her mandated promise by announcing one.

  101. TheTruthHurts

    [The live cattle trade is designed to _minimise_ work in the NT.]

    God not one of you idiots again.

    Firstly the Indo’s are a Muslim country so they like Halal meat, a brutal practice from the dark ages that is just as painful and disgusting to perform in Indonesia as it is here.

    Secondly the Indo’s don’t have refrigeration so sending 10 tons of frozen meat will be good for about 6 hours once it gets off the boat, whereas cattle can be killed as demand requires.

    Thirdly cattle sent to Indonesia are not full sized beasts, they are young cattle fattened by Indonesian farmers for several months before being slaughtered. That means you need feed/maintenance/room to look after them and that costs money. It is cheaper for Australian farmers to get the Indo’s to feed and care for the cattle to full size, then it is to do it here.

    If Cattle farmers could make more money doing it your way they would… but guess what, you aren’t a cattle farmer and they are, and they know a lot more about what they are doing then what you learned sitting in your inner city apartment building reading news on the internet.

  102. Jimmy

    TTH – No, she forgot to do “the lefty trick” of thinking intelligently, reading what was actually written and realising that the figures I was quoting related to the 1998 election (well before the LNP merged in QLD) where more people did vote Labor and therefore against bringing in a GST.

  103. TheTruthHurts

    Oops should read claim more people voted for the Labor Party

  104. green-orange

    “Well Labors on the nose in Tas(stale state government), there are only 2 federal seats in NT, 1 of which is already Lib the second of which is probably a write-off thanks to the absolute stuff up with the live cattle ban putting thousands out of work.”

    The live cattle trade is designed to _minimise_ work in the NT.

    “A stale state government and boatpeople camp setup on the outskirts of Adelaide, so another wipe out there.”

    It was the Federal govt on Federal land, in a blue ribbon Liberal seat.

    Honestly.

  105. TheTruthHurts

    [2010 results (First Preference)

    ALP 4,711,363 37.99%
    Coalition (LP/NP) 5,370,295 43.31%
    Greens 1,458,998 11.76%]

    You forgot to do the lefty numbers trick and pretend the Queensland LNP doesn’t exist as part of the Coalition.

    That way you get to include Labors QLD vote, but exclude the coalitions QLD vote and then claim more people voted for the Coalition.

    Oh yes and don’t forget pretending the WA Nationals are actually a leftwing branch of the Nationals party so you can exclude their vote and their one MP as well so you can claim Labor won more seats.

  106. green-orange

    “I heard the oyster farmers who have been farming oysters for 40 or more in that area and also on the south coast of NSW, say there has not been any sea level rises and they would know. They are on the water 5 or 6 days a week. Their piles and oyster trays are in exactly the same position as they have been for decades.”

    Come on, that’s nonsense.
    They move their piles all the time ; they don’t last very long, the estuarine seabed changes continually from sand movement, and there are also geo-morphic effects on the seabed.

  107. green-orange

    “I heard the oyster farmers who have been farming oysters for 40 or more in that area and also on the south coast of NSW, say there has not been any sea level rises and they would know. They are on the water 5 or 6 days a week. Their piles and oyster trays are in exactly the same position as they have been for decades.”

    Come on, that’s nonsense.
    They move their piles all the time ; they don’t last very long, the estuarine seabed changes continually from sand movement, and their are also geo-morphic effects on the seabed.

  108. Ian

    Jimmy N,

    Thank you for your informative post in response to the Pete50’s ignorant one-liner.

    In some ways it is useful to have the idiot fringe making ridiculous assertions in these dialogues as they often illicit responses that do further educate the rest of us even if they flow lake water of a duck’s back off those die hard ideologues that make the comments in the first place. ( Actually I’m not so sure these ideologues are truly a fringe element.)

    I read somewhere that total refugees now number about 43 million ( I can’t remember my source) although these probable include those fleeing conflict and political persecution. Of course many conflicts themselves are primary the result of increasing environmental problems combined with expanding population growth that render areas incapable of supporting the inhabitants. There is a new book out by Michael Parenti called Tropic of Chaos which I have ordered. It draws a link between climate change and all these issues.

  109. Jimmy Nightingale

    @ Pete50 at 1:03pm

    For starters, you are talking about Myers paper which was published in 1995, not 2000. It stated that there were 25 million environmental refugees (not climate refugees).

    The factors underpinning this number included food shortages and agricultural failures, water shortages, deforestation, desertification, population pressures, urbanisation and mega-cities, unemployment, extreme poverty and extreme weather events. The paper mentioned global warming as an amplifier, that will make the issue worse. It was never noted as ‘climate refugees’.

    Going back to Myers original research, he was estimating, not forecasting. He estimated that this 25 million figure (from 1995), could rise to around 50 million by 2010, with a whole lot of caveats around this. The caveats are important, but then again taking those into consideration wouldn’t make much of a story.

    As far as I am aware, there has been no similar attempt to quantify the issue of environmental refugees since. So, it would be impossible to prove or disprove that estimate without undertaking the work.

    As Myers himself said: “These estimates constitute no more and no less than a first cut assessment. They are advanced with the sole purpose of enabling those to ‘get a handle’, however preliminary and exploratory, on an emergent problem of exceptional significance.”

    In short, it wasn’t a prediction by the IPCC, it was an estimate based on UNEP reports of environmental refugees, as opposed to climate (there is a huge difference), and the only work of its kind.

  110. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    BTW, why don’t take a look at a proper dictionary and see if you can find the word ‘pollutant’?

    Found it.

    If you can, perhaps you could tell us what the dictionary says it means.

    Okay:

    pol·lu·tant
       [puh-loot-nt] Show IPA
    –noun
    1.
    something that pollutes.
    2.
    any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

    Is this the new denial tactic? Denying that words you don’t like even exist? Weird.

    From that definition, and noting that a doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere will cause between 2-4 degrees warming in the next century (even Monckton admits it’s 1.6), then Co2 is a pollutant.

    Thanks for playing.

    Did you know that there is carbon in some of the items that Coles and Woolies sell. They must be selling pollution.

    Did you know that “carbon” in “carbon tax” is just shorthand for Co2 and the range of other greenhouse gases that are being priced? Yes, I believe you do. So why lie?

    That would be the same organisation that predicted 2000 50 to 200 million climate refugees by 2010, due to rising sea levels

    Why are you lying? The IPCC said no such thing.

    Pete50, if you are right about global warming, why do you lie?

  111. pete50

    Oops! The prediction in the last paragraph should read: “That would be the same organisation that predicted, in 2000, 50 to 200 million climate refugees by 2010, due to rising sea levels.

  112. pete50

    Dear o dear FLOWER, you have got yourself in a knot. What’s all this about polluters? I haven’t said anything about pollution – certainly not anything in favour of it.

    BTW, why don’t take a look at a proper dictionary and see if you can find the word ‘pollutant’? That’s what our Government keeps telling us that CO2 is. If you can, perhaps you could tell us what the dictionary says it means. I’ll give you a clue – it’s not there, because there is no such word. It is one of the Newwords that is now part of the language of Warmistan.

    Did you know that there is carbon in some of the items that Coles and Woolies sell. They must be selling pollution. But it will all be okay when the carbon tax comes in – then we’ll be able to pay for their pollution and we can all have a nice warm feeling as global temperature begin to fall, as we eat the pollution.

    I don’t know nothing about non-existant mines in Whoop Whoop, USA, or anywhere else; I’ve never claimed to. My point is simply that: “How do you tell a conspiracy from a consensus, when all the opinion-holders claim to believe the same story?” SANCHO tried but failed.

    Ah HEAVYLAMBS. The IPCC is your source of authority, I see. That would be the same organisation that predicted 2000 50 to 200 million climate refugees by 2010, due to rising sea levels. And when there were no such refugees, they simply changed the date to 2020. I think we know far too much about that tin-pot outfit.

  113. Boo

    One thing that strikes me about this ‘debate’ is its narrowness. We are all talking about climate change as though it’s the only issue. There are a raft of issues that point to an urgent need to develop alternate energy technologies.

    Take petrol. Eventually the price will become crippling, and the decline in our mobility similarly crippling. New energy sources take a long time to develop. Why are people not screaming about this? There are no if – buts and maybes about this.

    Current electricity from coal fired power stations – the infrastructure is expensive, its not all that efficient and it costs. Surely in the 21st century we should be at least on track to do better. Something cheaper, more efficient and less prone to failure. And all we get are advertisements.

    My cynical side has me suspecting that the objective of some here is to constrict the debate to the narrowest issue possible, use the well worn tricks of delay, doubt etc, in order to cruel the outcome in ‘their’ favour. Meanwhile, its going to get too expensive to use the car. Prices will rise with as transport gets more expensive. The oil shocks should have been the first wake up call to get working on a ‘plan b’. We – as a society – should be hanging out heads in shame at our total lack of foresight. And leadership – thats just sad!

  114. Flower

    @Pete50: “ My question is simple: How do you tell a conspiracy from a consensus, when all the opinion-holders claim to believe the same story? How can one tell the difference?”

    I’ve had forty years experience making confidence men, charlatans, whore boys and other assorted swindlers of the general public look bad in public but surely the ill-read Pete50 would be the most naïve, spruiking for a one party state – a rogue state of transnational environmental bludgers?

    Now listen up Pete50. Your infatuation with polluters puts you in the dunces’ corner. Obviously you are too dim to understand that pollution in this nation is regulated by the EPAs and departments of environment. WA’s EPA was legislated in 1971, Victoria in 1970 etc etc:

    “An Act to provide for an Environmental Protection Authority for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment and for matters incidental to or connected.”

    The Environmental Protection Acts have been abused, corrupted and manipulated for forty years. The mining industry makes a mockery of the Acts, puts the finger up to society and commits crimes against humanity.

    CEO’s of regulatory agencies and Ministers of the Crown have the legal capacity to refuse a licence to a rogue company. Get it Pete50? There’s more than one way to lawfully skin a rat and reduce CO2 and the accompanying lethal pollutants.

    In fact word is out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has vetoed the Spruce Mine, the largest single coal removal permit in West Virginia’s history.

    The move is aimed at reducing the effects of coal-mining on the environment and on coalfield communities in Appalachian — impacts that are pervasive and irreversible and that’s scientific.

    Joe Lovett, director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, said:

    “It is a relief after all of these years that at least one agency has shown the will to follow the law and the science by stopping the destruction of Pigeonroost Hollow and Oldhouse Branch.

    “ Although we are grateful for the EPA’s action today, EPA must follow through by vetoing the scores of other permits that violate the Clean Water Act and that would allow mountaintop mines to lay waste to our mountains and streams.”

    Stay tuned Pete50. You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet in the lands down under. Go educate yourself and take your fake democracy with you.

  115. jeebus

    @Pete50, that’s the thing about science. It can adapt and evolve based upon new evidence and new data. Over the last few decades the evidence supporting AGW has gradually piled up to the point where every national scientific organisation around the world is on board with the findings.

    So if the facts are so stacked to one side, why is it that whenever they discuss it on TV both sides are given equal time?

    It’s political correctness on behalf of the media. As the science has been turned into a political football in Australia, conservatives cry unfair they don’t see a denialist on every panel discussing AGW.

    And since the media cannot find any denialists representing mainstream scientific organisations, they have to scrape the bottom of the affirmative action barrel to dig out celebrity nutters like Monckton, or hardcore ideologues like Andrew Bolt. Men who have done no research, have no credentials, and only want to win a political game.

    If the media wanted to accurately represent the issue to the public, their panels regarding the story should have somewhere in the vicinity of 9 pro AGW speakers for every 1 denialist. And that’s being fair to the denialists.

  116. Venise Alstergren

    PETE50: The mark of the true pedant. Quibbling about the name of the disease when all around you the world is dying from what ails it.

  117. heavylambs

    Pete50,It is really disturbing the number of times over the years I have had to remind deluded people that the Intergovernmental Panel on “Climate Change” was formed in 1988. The expression “Climate change” or “changes of climate” has been around since the early 1960s.

  118. Sancho

    Very selective in your replies, Pete50.

    You’re partially correct, of course. In the 80s the data indicated that the planet was warming, so that’s what the phenomenon was called. In the 90s it became apparent that the temperature fluctuations weren’t uniform despite a net increase in global temperatures, so the name was changed to acknowledge that and prevent the scientifically illiterate from complaining that climate change must be fake because it still gets cold in winter. As we’ve seen, that didn’t overcome the determination of the ignorant.

    The climate hasn’t begun to change back and I’ve never encountered the term “climate disruption”. A Google search only lists it on denialist blogs, which picked it up from a speech made in 2007 by a guy who would go on to be a science adviser to the Obama administration. The term has never caught on, so I suspect both of those ideas exist only in the denial-o-sphere of the internet, just as “microevolution” was invented by creationists to justify the weakness of their arguments.

    So, having completely ignored the ignominious retreat of the denialist argument from day one, you’ve triumphantly declared that after rigorously investigating conflicting data, the climate scientists were right all along. Killer argument against climate change, that.

    I’ll explain how broken your comparison is in a moment, but first I’m very interested in the idea of “climate theology”, because if you’ve ever taken an interest in the creationist movement via ‘Intelligent Design’, you’ll realise that the central denialist arguments and strategies have simply been recycled from the creationists. Check it out:

    * “[Evolution][climate change] is a hoax being perpetrated by communists who want to enslave us!” – Check.

    * [Biologists][climatologists] are driven by greed and have no regard for scientific evidence! We know this because representatives of an enormously wealthy lobby group said so” – Check.

    * “Any uncertainties in the data of [evolution][climate change] undermine the entire field and negate any amount of confirmed evidence in their favour!” – Check.

    * “Teach the controversy!”, as though the opinions of a handful of ideologue opposed to a scientific theory deserve respect equal to the findings of thousands of scientists. – Check.

    * The opinion of any denialist/creationist with a PhD is equal to the opinion of an actual climatologist/biologist (see The Oregon Petition). – Check.

    * Generously citing relevant scientists as being opposed to the theory when they actually believe the opposite, and hoping they won’t notice (see The Oregon Petition again). – Check.

    * Rampant quote-mining (exhibit A: has Khan returned with a link to the full text of Flannery’s statements about sea level increases? Of course not). – Check

    The entire climate change “skeptic” movement is simply rebranded creationism, and we’re expected to take it seriously? Some realism, please.

    Now, back to your comparison of “climate change”/”global warming” and the farcical, constant retreat of denialism.

    The entire basis of science is testable data, and science changes in response to the data. As John Maynard Keanes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

    As you explained in your previous post, the planet continues to warm. Not consistently, as first thought, but steadily and predictably. This is what climatologists were saying in the 80s, even though the finer details have changed.

    The denialist argument, meanwhile, has lurched between precarious positions, holding fast until the evidence forced them back a step, then trying again. That was the process right up until about 2008 when, almost overnight, the entire “skeptic” movement accepted that CO2 was driving climate change.

    Remember when News Ltd used to publish articles arguing against the science? Not any more. Now it’s all economists predicting the implosion of the economy as mining corporations take all the ore and go overseas.

    How about the blogs? You’ll know more than me about the denial-o-sphere. Is anyone still arguing against the actual science, or have Watts et al all signed up to the “sssh! No one mention the decade of total denial!” pact?

    In case you don’t yet realise what an incomprehensible wreck the denialist argument has become, and how obvious it is, try to imagine that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, AC Grayling and all of the other New Atheists, their publishers and supporters, overnight and without any sort of public debate, self-examination or explanation, began claiming that they’d never, ever denied the existence of god.

    Imagine they tried to argue that they’d only ever disputed the accuracy of the bible, while fully accepting the existence of god, and began getting quite peeved if anyone suggested they’d once been atheists.

    Would you take them seriously ever again? Because that’s exactly what the “skeptics” did between 2006 and 2008. Do you have some sort of explanation for that other than admitting that the entire “skeptical” movement is wrong and knows it?

    Now let’s have a look at the other questions you’ve avoided:
    1. I provided examples of “the usual signs” you cited as proof of corruption in geology and medical science. Why are you only upset about climate science if the entire scientific endeavour is fraudulent? Isn’t climate the least of our worries?

    2. Why is the industry lobby and its supporters the source of climate change “skepticism”? The heat-trapping qualities of CO2 have been known for nearly two centuries. Why wasn’t anyone challenging the consensus before it became a share price issue for industry?

    3. If scientists are in it for the money, why are almost all of them scraping for grants when industry will pay them far more to fight the lies of the IPCC?

    Any takers?

  119. pete50

    “The “skeptics’” argument has gone from “climate change is a hoax” to “climate change is happening but it’s natural” to “climate change is man-made but happening too slowly to matter” to “okay, it’s man-made and happening fast, but reducing our output won’t affect it”, all in just fifteen years.”

    No quite SANCHO, you have it mixed up with the Warmistani’s soft shoe shuffle. Back in the 80s it was ‘global warming’ – by 1997 the warming had stopped, so they changed to ‘climate change’, then when climate began to change back – oops! they changed to ‘climate disruption’.

    Many are now waiting for the warmists to change to ‘climate theology’. Then the question will be: how many CO2 molecules can fit on the point of a pin? The climate models and research grants required to answer that vitally important question will be nothing short of legendary.

  120. Venise Alstergren

    A random thought from my sickbed……If the denialists have to pay a rancid, aged, amateur raconteur like Christopher Monckton to argue that CC doesn’t exist, they are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel. One might have expected Gina Reinhardt’s billions be spent to import a world renown scientist to put the case against AGW.

    What was the matter Gina? Couldn’t you find someone really expert?

  121. Jimmy

    Suzanne – I am amazed you can actually operate a computer, was the GST an issue in the 2010 election or the 1998 election?

    So I’ll ask my original question a third time and see if you can answer it were the “voters” right about the GST?

  122. kd

    My oh my. 43% of first preferences to an allegedly centre right coalition . Nearly 49.75% of votes to tha ALP or the greens. One might almost think the 2010 election had a fair outcome. Roll on the exposure of the lib/Nats as shallow thinking fear mongers.

  123. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jimmy

    You have been busted not telling the truth again. Is it Jimmy Gillard?

    “Suzanne – You really do struggle don’t you…If you are talking about the popular vote it was ALP4,454,306 (40.10%) Liberals 3,758,770 (34.21 %) Nationals 588,088 ( 5.29 ) giving the ALP 107,448 more 1st preference votes or 0.6% more”

    2010 results (First Preference)

    ALP 4,711,363 37.99%
    Coalition (LP/NP) 5,370,295 43.31%
    Greens 1,458,998 11.76%

    add http in front of

    results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm

  124. Jimmy

    Suzanne – You really do struggle don’t you, the poll results aren’t which party would you vote for they are polling are you in favour of the GST in 1998 and the carbon tax now.

    If you are talking about the popular vote it was ALP4,454,306 (40.10%) Liberals 3,758,770 (34.21 %) Nationals 588,088 ( 5.29 ) giving the ALP 107,448 more 1st preference votes or 0.6% more.

    So i’ll ask again were the “voters” right then?

  125. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jimmy

    Need to look at 1st preference, not 2PP for true picture

  126. Jimmy

    Suzanne – “Who is right? Its up to the voter, and they are being heard loud and clear.”

    These are the same voters who were against the GST “Sydney Morning Herald on October 2 1998 the day before the election — showed 55% opposed to a GST, with 38% in favour. That number hadn’t moved much since the package’s launch”. This figure is interesting when compared to the latest Carbon tax survey which had 36% in favour and 53% against.

    Even if you take the actual election as a direct vote on nothing else but the GST the coaltion lost the popular vote 5,413,431 to 5,630,409 or49.02% 50.98%.

    So were they right?

  127. kd

    Aah Frank’s back with his “I’m not a denier” deniers arguments. This discussion won’t go anywhere until there is actually a price on carbon pollution. Then all the deniers, industry shills and Tony Rabbit lookalikes will all start to look even stupid than they already do as the world manifestly fails to end.

    Right, that’s my weekend’s work done. I’m off to get my pay cheque from the astro turf group who pay me for my comments. They’re part of the huge marxist left wing conspiracy that run the one world government you know.

    p.s. couldn’t agree more. Links triggering moderation is anti-user, anti-discussion and generally crap.

  128. Suzanne Blake

    @ Jeebus

    The UK has lost its manufacturing and are in a much worse situation that we are in this regard.

    He said it was a bold reform – you may care to ensure he was not being tongue in cheek and polite to a foreign head of state.

    John Della Bosca an ex Labor MP called the Carbon Tax stupid in the paper and radio today.

    Who is right? Its up to the voter, and they are being heard loud and clear.

  129. Flower

    WA’s Premier, Colin Corleone has established the Ostrich Act and voila! WA Inc resurrected! Eat ya heart out Burkie.

    1. Cheryl Edwardes who had more portfolios in the Court government than cattle had cuts in Indonesia is now Director of External Affairs at Hancock Prospecting
    2. Mister Cheryl Edwardes – now Chief of Staff to Environment Minister, Bill Marmion.

    Environmental Impact Assessments for Quarry WA? A done deal! No feckin’ vorries Frau Rhinehart.

    Cheryl Edwardes, former environment minister is proficient at getting rid of hazardous waste – dump it on the community! Her criminal neglect in failing to shut down a toxic dump in Bellevue in surburban Perth saw the dump explode into a massive fireball over the city – the worst chemical fire in Australian history.

    Stored on the premises were 500,000 litres of dangerous chemicals and solvents – two thousand two hundred rusty 205 litre drums of hazardous chemicals dating back up to ten years. This stuff even failed the waste acceptance criteria for burial at the Class IV hazardous landfill at Red Hill! Example: Class I benign. Class IV – hazardous!

    The parliamentary inquiry found the Department of Environmental Protection (aka Edwardes) and the Department of Minerals and Energy failed in its duty to protect the public and the environment and that the Bellevue hazardous waste dump’s proprietor, at no time over the past decade, complied with the licence.

    Now the massive groundwater plume has invaded the Helena River, a major tributary to the Swan. So far in excess of $20 million of public funds used to halt the carnage.

    WA is so toxic even the birds are leaving – what’s left of them.

    Thanks for nothing Cheryl Edwardes – former Minister for bugger all.

  130. Mark Duffett

    @Jeebus “industrial powerhouse Germany is reducing their C02 emissions by 40% from their 1990 levels by 2020, even while phasing out nuclear energy.”

    Believe that when you see it. bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/29/germany-gee/

    The current reality in Germany is that subsidized coal-fired electricity (with the funds generated by the trade in CO2 emissions certificates – yes, turn up the irony dial) will be ‘filling the gap‘ (interesting euphemism) left by the nuclear phaseout. We’re talking here of upwards of 20 GWe of new fossil fuel power plants to be built in Germany over the next decade…

  131. znotty Grunt

    Take the 10 billion,nationalize the industry & drown the pig in the creek.

  132. Suzanne Blake

    Another ex Labor MP is shooting down the Carbon Tax

    Carbon tax a mistake, admits Della Bosca

    THE former NSW minister John Della Bosca has called the federal government’s carbon tax a mistake and the ”craziest thing” the Prime Minister could have done.

    He is the second senior NSW Labor figure after former premier Morris Iemma to criticise his federal colleagues for introducing a carbon tax.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-a-mistake-admits-della-bosca-20110731-1i6im.html

  133. Roland Porath

    bit disappointed.
    the author does not seem to understand the word skeptic.
    i expected better from crikey.
    lift your game, Graham Readfearn.

  134. Suzanne Blake

    @ David,

    Cant speak for TTH, but maybe we are now starting to see some of Gillards 990 strong PM & Cabinet Department, on this board. They would have the logins and heaps of cash to splash at trying to change public perception.

    Please enlighten us to what the 990 people do in her department, it would be a good Organisational Development case study.

  135. Sancho

    Crikey seriously needs to update its moderation filter. Unless there’s some sort of ongoing spam assault, there’s no reason to delay posts that contain links, since the lack of moderators means posts can lie around in the ether for days. I’ll repost from 7.12 last night without the link:

    All of those things are present in the other sciences, Pete50.

    The Perth Group maintains that HIV does not cause AIDS. The doctors there have been criticised harshly and labeled “a considerable scientific embarrassment” by Gus Nossal.

    According to your requirements, that demonstrates that the HIV/AIDS link – and by extension germ theory in total – is the product of a conspiracy.

    Quite a number of religious fundamentalists maintain that the entire universe orbits the earth, and are taken seriously by no one in the scientific community. Surely this is “the usual sign” that heliocentrism is a scientific conspiracy to garner research grants and suppress the truth.

    I particularly like that you cite flat earthism and denial of the tobacco-cancer link as evidence for a conspiracy, because both of those were claims made by wealthy and powerful institutions to repress the scientific evidence against them, just as the industry lobby is doing with climate science today.

    As for not being “heeded and their advice followed and money paid accordingly the world will end as we know it”, isn’t that a perfect summary of what the mining industry has been screaming since the carbon price was announced?

    Now, back to the questions you’ve avoided answering:
    1. Why is the industry lobby and its supporters the source of climate change “skepticism”? The heat-trapping qualities of CO2 have been known for nearly two centuries. Why wasn’t anyone challenging the consensus before it became a share price issue for industry?

    2. If scientists are in it for the money, why are almost all of them scraping for grants when industry will pay them far more to fight the lies of the IPCC?

    3. The “skeptics’” argument has gone from “climate change is a hoax” to “climate change is happening but it’s natural” to “climate change is man-made but happening too slowly to matter” to “okay, it’s man-made and happening fast, but reducing our output won’t affect it”, all in just fifteen years. Would you take anyone seriously on a topic if their argument had been in constant retreat like that?

  136. Sancho

    That’s a good point, David. The right-wing posters on Crikey seem to almost always run multiple sock puppets. Pretty indicative of the faith they have in their arguments if they need to cheer themselves on by pretending to be someone else.

    I had great fun a couple of months ago outing one guy who posts under three different usernames: http://tinyurl.com/3v9226g

  137. jeebus

    @Stanny (whose writing style is a carbon copy of Mr Truth Hurts), when you use the term “intellectual” as an insult it shows you have a distrust of thinking.

    Every single line you wrote there is cut and paste from the American Republican or Fox News list of talking points. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

  138. rhwombat

    Sorry Sancho. It’s just that my prolixity (Help! Help! I’m being molested by an angry Thesaurus rex!) plays up when you heap such well deserved praise on Stanny. Where would we be without Mr Blot, Gloria & Viscount Monckton?

  139. Woody

    Thanks Suzanne, made my night. Reminds me of the letters that appear in The Adelaide Advertiser following just about every cold winter spell that lasts for more than a day…”So much for climate change”

    If Murdoch offloads his newspapers…….oh boy. But then again I wouldn’t be surprised if Gina grabbed one just to keep Bolt in print

  140. Boo

    Sure Suzanne, PS i live on the river and you’re still amusing! Have you actually spoken to these oyster farmers? i’m having a REALLY good laugh at you trying to have us believe that their ‘observations’ are on par with scientists. And, sure the leases have been there for a while. But the racks, etc? Sure?

    Onya Stanny! Sorry you’re feeling a bit underdone old chap. And its lonely, in the middle. So many losers to the left of you!

  141. kd

    Inconsistent, fear mongering, counter-factual bull$h1t. Good work Tiny Rabbit cheer squad. God hope us if you manage to con too many people into voting for him come the next federal election.

  142. Sancho

    That was a very scientifically literate and informative post, Stanny. Thank you.

    You’re right about the green left and its wanton destruction of CSIRO crops. The support for that act has been overwhelming. You can barely open a newspaper or webpage without some leftist shouting for joy about Greenpeace activists vandalising research crops.

    Your interpretation of these events is logical, reasonable and completely supported by the facts. Well done.

  143. heavylambs

    Khan, Flannery’s not trying to reinvent the wheel. He’s conveying the science as he is briefed by the CSIRO,BOM and others. Plimer opposes it by pushing erroneous claims. For instance his claims for the CO2 contribution from volcanoes are unsupported by evidence,or fellow geologists and bodies like the USGS. They are false claims,and until he corrects this and similar,he cannot be taken seriously.

    Flannery’s eight metres was possible over a thousand or “hundreds of years” according to the transcript of an interview with Andrew Bolt.In a more recent interview with the WWF he made it seem more pressing,but still never put a figure to it. Yes,he is trying to stimulate action. We’ve been tooling around with emission controls since Toronto in the late 1980s,since which time we’ve seen a quarter of all fossil fuel use so far. This sort of realisation informs the actions of advocates for change.

    The reason for the scary imagery is because every year of BAU with emissions makes the likelihood greater and the date move forward,Hansen and Sato at NASA GISS have been claiming that the 2C target is too high to avert Greenland’s exponential meltdown,and abundant geological evidence shows how fast this can happen. 10cm to 40cm/decade are observed for the climb out of the last glacial maximum..

    And I’ll repeat that Flannery has owned property on the tidal Berowra Creek for at least 14 years,so claims that he recently purchased there are fanciful,and simply pettily destructive.

  144. Frank Campbell

    Wombat goes: “Flannery has a PhD, a very impressive publishing record, both in the peer-reviewed literature and in the popular press and a public record of open, honest and well informed intelligence.”

    Have you actually read Flannery on climate change etc?

    For example his 2008 Quarterly Essay “Now or Never”? It’s a rambling mass of anecdotes, Gaia, and silly short-term predictions. Such as his company Geothermal’s great prospects in the Cooper Basin. And the “great city” he envisages in the desert, “Geothermia”. Then read the annual reports and announcements for Geodynamics (and all the other geothermal companies). All online. See where the billion dollars went, and what the technical problems are for geothermal.

    You might then study his other predictions and demands- vast desal plants, no more rain in SE Australia etc etc.

    Flannery really is the Lord Planckton of AGW Believers…sanity lies somewhere between them. A very long way from both. Planckton, incidentally ( no one seems to have commented on this) wore a DLP tie for his Press Club speech and called the weird new Senator Madigan (DLP) a “great man”. I’m probably the only person who has had a serious conversation with Madigan (a few months ago)- and I warned people he made Sen Fielding look like a gay rights activist.

  145. Sancho

    That was as helpful as it was brief, RHwombat.

  146. rhwombat

    In the 19C West African kingdoms (eg Dahomey) became grotesque places dominated by slave-taking warlords who rounded up the local populations and sold them to European slavers, generating and perpetuating much of the ‘dark continent’ mythos. Essential to a slaver warlord was the ‘Praise Singer’, the interface between each monstrous autocrat and the world around them, part fool, part vizier, part diplomat and wholly a willing propagandist.

    The role was not, of course limited to 19C West Africa – It has been refined and reinforced by most ruling oligarchies, to reach it’s apotheosis in the likes of Goebbels, Hurst and the Murdocrats. Now it’s called Public Relations, and generates such largesse that its practitioners are part of the plutocracy. It is only after the regimes that spawned them have safely passed that the term propagandists is applied, ’cause the practitioners of spin hate the use of the raw title. Perhaps the term Praise Singers might elide around their delicate sensibilities, at least until the provenance of the word is explained.

    These days only science, the open generation and scrutiny of data and analysis by peer reviewed publication, is mostly free from the diktat of plutocrats – at least until commercial funding or political bias gets involved (vide the cold warrior Physicists like Fred Singer, as documented by Oreskes and Conway). Law, Commerce, Economics, History, Media, Finance, Politics, Planning, Design, Marketing and most other “arts” are all ruled by opinion, and thus, ultimately, money. Opinions can be bought and sold, and are then defended fiercely by those involved in the transaction out of fear or guilt . The “technical arts” like Engineering, Medicine, Agricultural and the ‘Social Sciences’, like Education may be based on peer reviewed science, but their practitioners are also likely to have options more constrained by somebodies profit. Whether we like it or not Medical Practitioners (like me) are beholden to Big Pharma (Vioxx, anyone?), Geologists to Big Oil (even ex-academics like Plimer), and Engineers of various ilks infest most denialist blogs. Our problem is that the Praise Singers have so dominated our conversation that we are almost incapable of perceiving the partisan spin unless it is pointed out to us.

    It is entirely predictable that an article pointing out the orgiastic perversion of science practiced by bloated plutocrats like Rinehart will be defended by the usual jackal chorus of Praise Singers, like Suzanne Blake, Khan and Pete50. The fact that they are joined by the infamously rabid Rabbott-worshiper TTH should make even them blanch a little – but probably won’t. Flannery has a PhD, a very impressive publishing record, both in the peer-reviewed literature and in the popular press and a public record of open, honest and well informed intelligence. Ian Plimer had these too, until he was bought by Rinehart and her ilk. Blake, Khan and Pete50 are obvious propagandists who haven’t the wit or honesty to admit it. Truthy is a sick little bunny.

  147. Sancho

    Crikey. Put one hotlink in a post on Sunday and it gets sent to moderation purgatory.

  148. Sancho

    Tell the readers at home where Flannery said that, what the context was, and give us the paragraphs surrounding it.

  149. Khan

    Sancho, Flannerys waves lapping at an 8 storey building was pretty outrageous. Not iron sun outrageous I agree but ridiculous none the less. But you’ve captured my point perfetly. If Flannery and Plimer are commentators, not researchers, then why are the credentials of one of importance and not the other?

  150. Sancho

    All of those things are present in the other sciences, Pete50.

    The Perth Group maintains that HIV does not cause AIDS. The doctors there have been criticised harshly and labeled “a considerable scientific embarrassment” by Gus Nossal.

    According to your requirements, that demonstrates that the HIV/AIDS link – and by extension germ theory in total – is the product of a conspiracy.

    Quite a number of religious fundamentalists maintain that the entire universe orbits the earth, and are taken seriously by no one in the scientific community. Surely this is “the usual sign” that heliocentrism is a scientific conspiracy to garner research grants and suppress the truth.

    I particularly like that you cite flat earthism and denial of the tobacco-cancer link as evidence for a conspiracy, because both of those were claims made by wealthy and powerful institutions to repress the scientific evidence against them, just as the industry lobby is doing with climate science today.

    As for not being “heeded and their advice followed and money paid accordingly the world will end as we know it”, isn’t that a perfect summary of what the mining industry has been screaming since the carbon price was announced?

    Now, back to the questions you’ve avoided answering:
    1. Why is the industry lobby and its supporters the source of climate change “skepticism”? The heat-trapping qualities of CO2 have been known for nearly two centuries. Why wasn’t anyone challenging the consensus before it became a share price issue for industry?

    2. If scientists are in it for the money, why are almost all of them scraping for grants when industry will pay them far more to fight the lies of the IPCC?

    3. The “skeptics'” argument has gone from “climate change is a hoax” to “climate change is happening but it’s natural” to “climate change is man-made but happening too slowly to matter” to “okay, it’s man-made and happening fast, but reducing our output won’t affect it”, all in just fifteen years. Would you take anyone seriously on a topic if their argument had been in constant retreat like that?

  151. Lord Barry Bonkton

    Looks like they let them ALL out of the Loony Bin for the weekend . We are getting a Price on Carbon , so go back and tell your masters that you have Failed your mission . President Bob Brown will take over running Australia after they win the next election and sign up for the 1 World Order Govt. All Traitors will be Mulched and put to good use .

  152. pete50

    SANCHO, there are none of the usual signs to suggest that medical, engineering, or agricultural sciences are conspiracies.

    You’ll remember them, they include: the science is in; there is a consensus; many thousands of scientists world-wide agree and those with differing opinions are deniers (including the holocaust), should be punished and sacked and their scribblings banned from publication in respectable journals, believe the Earth is flat and tobacco is harmless and if the leaders of the discipline are not heeded and their advice followed and money paid accordingly the world will end as we know it.

    While it’s not possible to know with total certainty, by and large they seem to be honest and rational and therefore they do not belong in the same sory, corrupt class as “climate scientists”.

  153. jeebus

    @TheTruthHurts – Yes, it would be an interesting point if it were not completely false.

    Copernicus was attacked by the religious establishment that controlled the state and all of its institutions during what we now refer to as the “Dark Ages”.

    “In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending Copernicus’ De revolutionibus until it could be “corrected,” on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture.” The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.”

    And this shows an interesting point about you. You don’t question information when it’s something you want to believe. Even though the truth about Copernicus was one Google search away, it didn’t cross your mind to fact check your story first.

    And not only did you spread a false tale, you then used it to draw a false conclusion about the peer review process of modern science. As though it’s even possible to compare some medieval panel of clerics in Rome to the many varied scientific organisations around the world (including our own CSIRO) who have reviewed the evidence of AGW and support the conclusions.

    When basic facts are a few clicks away, a person can only assume that you are either wilfully ignorant or just plain lazy. I fear that the truth may hurt, mate.

  154. Sancho

    Khan, show us some references from Flannery’s books that come even close to the wild craziness of Plimer’s iron sun.

    Flannery and Plimer take part in the debate as science communicators, not researchers, so the guy who’s more believable is the one that doesn’t require us to accept that a paper which is a joke in astrophysics has in fact overturned everything we know about that sun.

  155. Khan

    rhwombat My point is that when Flannery is cited on this site it’s not as “Paleontologist Professor Flannery, a shareholder in green energy companies, has not published any peer-reviewed research on contemporary climate change”. Why the double standard?

    jeebus, You don’t need a mountain of evidence to debunk a theory, you just need evidence. In an issue as important as this the burden of proof should lie on both sides equally.

  156. Sancho

    Pete50, how do you know that all the science in the medical, engineering and agriculture fields isn’t the product of a conspiracy?

  157. pete50

    SANCHO, what are you on about?

    “what you’re saying is that the entire worldwide scientific endeavour is corrupt”
    I’m not saying any such thing. My question is simple: How do you tell a conspiracy from a consensus, when all the opinion-holders claim to believe the same story? How can one tell the difference?

    I’m suggesting that you cannot tell the difference even by asking the opinion-holders. Because if they don’t want you to know, their reply won’t be the truth.

    BTW, there is not even a consensus among physicists on Einstein’s General Relarivity. But of course Warmistanis are way outside his league.

  158. Sancho

    You want to argue science qualifications? The darling of the denialist movement is Christopher Monckton.

    Again, if you knew anything about science, you’d realise that careers are made by destroying the theories of others as often as proving them. If there was really any weakness in climate science, there would be thousands of scientists poking holes in it – not a handful of ex-mining employees relying on their geology work in the 70s to give them authority in critiquing climate science in 2011.

  159. Sancho

    If you knew even the most basic things about the history of science, you’d be aware that when Copernicus was around, there was no scientific establishment – there was only the church. Copernicus’ data undermined the completely unscientific authority of the bible, which is why he copped it.

    Go ahead and prove me wrong by describing this 15th century scientific establishment.

    In the 21st century, scientists are producing accurate scientific data which undermines the authority of the industry lobby, and are being attacked for it. They are the Copernicus in this situation.

    Citing Darwin is the height of irony, since the denialist arguments are simply recycled creationist claims. The young-earth creationists were on this scientific conspiracy bandwagon before News Ltd even told you to be angry about climate change.

    Explain, TTH, how your claim that the science is incorrect squares with your argument that we action is futile because population growth is going to increase emissions.

  160. jeebus

    @Pete50 – What sort of proof would it take for you to reconsider your skepticism of AGW?

  161. TheTruthHurts

    [Oh, one more thing: if climate scientists are just in it for the money, why are so many working for paltry public research grants instead of making millions by joining up with the oil and coal industries to debunk the consensus?]

    I don’t think they are in it for the money, but there is a lot of group think going on.

    What I find disturbing the most however is that scientists aren’t being heard on how to FIX the problem. Gillard didn’t get scientific consensus on a Carbon Tax saving the environment.

    Didn’t anyone find it a bit ironic that Labors Chief Climate Change Adviser has never done a science degree in his life? He’s an economist, not a scientist. Professor Ross Garnaut is championed as being an expert on climate change, yet he has any many qualifications of the topic as Humphrey B Bear.

  162. TheTruthHurts

    [And science has nothing to do with the size of the “mountains of peer-reviewed evidence” for or against anything. Those mountains are entirely to do with research grants and their value. ]

    This is an interesting point actually.

    While Copernicus was proclaiming the Earth to revolve around the sun, he was attacked by the “scientific establishment” as a complete crack pot. Or Charles Darwin.

    What we have at the moment happening is group-think. You are told what the “truth” is and if you have any other ideas or theories you are targeted as a denier and crackpot much like Darwin and Copernicus were.

    Of course other scientists have other theories, though I’m not a scientist I have a theory that since 1960’s the population has more than doubled from 3 Billion to 6 Billion with another 3 Billion on the way to 2030 and that “carbon emissions” is a distraction to the real problem… population growth.

    My theory is that trying to cut back Carbon Emissions while tripling the population aint gonna have jack-sh!t effect. My theory is based on the evidence that carbon emissions per person is increasing in 3rd world countries, while simultaneously their population booms, meaning minute tiny cuts in places like Australia aint gonna do anything.

    Unfortunately the group think trains left the station heading for the wall and don’t want to take another path to reasoned debate.

  163. Sancho

    If you want to see who’s losing the debate – as opposed to the media war – try answering my questions above.

  164. TheTruthHurts

    [The above is truthie troll talk for, yes I am a fekin ignorant idiot… back under that bridge troll.]

    And there we have it folks…. Labors Carbon Tax Science Consensus… nothing except telling people to shut up.

    No wonder they are losing the debate and will lose the election

  165. Frank Campbell

    Listen carefully TruthHurts: you say

    “What really annoys me about the left is that they try and impose their minority ideas on people, but then expect EVERYONE else to pay for it. This Carbon Tax is no different… high income earners will be paying for it while dole bludging Greens voters get even more taxpayer money. It’s the Greenies way though… piss and moan about something but then expect someone else to pay.”

    You’re so busy playing Punch ‘n Judy with the Crikey Knitting Circle you’ve missed the point.

    Firstly I’ll remind you that I’ve been a Greens voter since they were founded in 1992. (Ok, true, no way I’ll be voting Green next time around…but you all know why- because climate extremism has distracted them from the environment).

    Forget about Green voters being dole bludgers. Your right-wing prejudice blinds you to the sociologically obvious: where do most Greens live? Yup, the most expensive inner-city suburbs. Did they get there on the dole? No. Inner city Greens belong to the professional classes. Sure, they may have fetched up in FitzGlebe in the 80s and 90s when prices were rock-bottom for these ex-slums, but this cohort (now running the party) have been the inadvertent beneficiaries of three property booms (1988, 2000 and 2009), each followed by recessions which had least effect on the inner cities. Little pain, much gain. They’re also the incidental beneficiaries of bad urban planning in Sydney, Melb and Brisbane (the others are too small or too stagnant to count). Kennett, Bracks et al spent huge sums on state infrastucture in the inner cities. Transport remains good to excellent, while the middle and outer subs have suffered grievously through neglect of transport etc. Any wonder Greens like bikes? It’s a piece of piss to ride from St Kilda to the CBD…Try Frankston…

    So property values have rocketed. This is why the current Green party has so little understanding or empathy with the lower middle class. Greens are asset-rich, disproportionately privileged by state goods, and comfortably employed. Hence we hear so much class-myopic crap from Greens about the “selfishness” of poorer people dismayed at paying “just a bit more” for electricity etc. The Greens are already milking subsidies from their solar panels (a rort which the ALP etc are belatedly trying to kill off)- the poor are paying to line Green pockets AND massage their oily carbon consciences. In fact, as Bob Brown revealingly said, “we Greens are very mobile”. He wasn’t referring to bikes. Inner suburban Greens are carbon Yetis. Planes, planes and automobiles. The bikes are in the shed- used for ostentatious Sunday Lycra outings, toddlers cutely towed along behind. A promenade of smug. A hyper bowl of hypocrisy.

    And your assertion that this mentality is a “minority” one- well, watch out Truthie. You underestimate false consciousness (look it up), the insidious ability of ideology to penetrate far beyond its origin. The Turnbull Liberals for instance. Inner city again. For them, wilderness begins at the last tram stop. Or anywhere west of Balmain if you’re condemned to live in Sydney. And you forget the entire power of the state is now employed to one end: a carbon tax. All the residual loyalty of the Labour movement will be invoked. The ALP is severely degraded, but what’s the alterative? That illiberal band of chancers, oncers and corporate whores known as the Liberal Party. Run by a hormonal failed priest and a runty lawyer enriched by the most toxic Lehmann Bros clone, Macquarie Bank…

    So you see Truthie, the truth really does hurt. Getting rid of Gillard is no lay-down misere…

  166. Sancho

    Oh, one more thing: if climate scientists are just in it for the money, why are so many working for paltry public research grants instead of making millions by joining up with the oil and coal industries to debunk the consensus?

  167. Sancho

    Firstly, what you’re saying is that the entire worldwide scientific endeavour is corrupt, yet the “skeptics” are only upset about the climate science part. If you really believe that the reliability of scientific research comes down “entirely…to research grants and their value”, tell us why you’ve never kicked up a fuss about this corruption in, for example, the medical and engineering fields, which we rely on daily.

    You can’t really expect to be taken seriously when you claim that science is completely corrupt, but that it only matters when it produces results that threaten the profits of the industry lobby.

    Secondly, the claims that the science is corrupt come overwhelmingly from people who either support or work for carbon-intensive industries. Which side is more likely to be telling porkies: the one that represents independent scientists worldwide who have come to the same results via the scientific method, or the one that is funded, sourced and driven entirely by a small number of organisations within the industry lobby, and which constantly reverses its claims? Such as…

    Thirdly, which bits of the science are correct this year? As recently as 2008, you guys were telling us that climate change is a complete hoax. Then, without any announcement or discussion, the “skeptical” argument suddenly accepted the scientific data and and began waffling about whether it actually affects climate. Now, hilariously, the “skeptics” accept that the science is real, accept that CO2 is altering the climate, but complain that nothing we do will stop it.

    How can we believe anything you say when your argument is in constant retreat?

  168. pete50

    JeeBus, there is no scientific consensus on the degree to which or the factors that cause climate change. If there were a consensus among scientists on anything, how could it be distinguished from a conspiracy? Tell us how.

    And science has nothing to do with the size of the “mountains of peer-reviewed evidence” for or against anything. Those mountains are entirely to do with research grants and their value.

    The purity of the pro-AGW mountain must be maintained, by subversion of peer review if necessary – the second law of CAGW.

  169. Sancho

    “Dole bludging Greens voters”.

    Don’t have the data to hand, but I’m pretty sure most of the Greens’ base is employed and tertiary educated. Dole bludgers tend to either vote for themselves via Labor or against something they’re frightened of, via the Liberals.

  170. the man on the clapham omnibus

    Truthy:

    Who is ‘the left’ , seems a rather absolutist term. Care to define ‘them’?

    It seems you underestimate the complexity of everyday life and discussions around issues that society cannot easily be divided into two convenient boxes, a one issue party or approach. For example it seems you disagree with the current liberal party’s direct action plan or Malcolm Turnbull but would vote for them in an election? If this is the case you should vote for the climate sceptics party, not the liberals? As you can see it’s a slippery slope with quite a bit of grey in between.

    I may vote liberal but not agree with all their policies 100%, the same for the greens or labor at a particular election.

    To try to divide society into two camps is a classic attempt to create emotion driven, wedge politics and division. There are degrees of nuance and compromise across any issue rather than black or white adherence.

  171. TheTruthHurts

    [It’s your fantasy and you’re welcome to it, just keep it off my lawn.]

    Not too sure if you are referring to me, but thats fair.

    The left should be the ones forced to pay all these feel-good taxes, after all you are the ones on the worry crusade.

    I don’t think it should be the responsibility of individuals who don’t believe the leftwing rot to have to pay for your beliefs. The left should be responsible for their beliefs both politically and economically. Want to cut Australia’s 5% of 1% of global emissions? Fine… put your money with your mouth is and pay up, don’t expect a hand out.

    What really annoys me about the left is that they try and impose their minority ideas on people, but then expect EVERYONE else to pay for it. This Carbon Tax is no different… high income earners will be paying for it while dole bludging Greens voters get even more taxpayer money. It’s the Greenies way though… piss and moan about something but then expect someone else to pay.

  172. kd

    YOURLIESAREIRRELEVANT:

    I’m actually more amazed about your and your right wing delusional friends denial of the need to restructure the global economy due to small issues such as resource depletion, population growth and greenhouse pollution.

    It’s your fantasy and you’re welcome to it, just keep it off my lawn.

  173. the man on the clapham omnibus

    Would love an ’emotional’ vs ‘rational’ rating on our posts. Maybe there’s an algorithm for that?

    Interesting read if you have the time, seems there’s a way to identify when a poster is veering of into la-la land. Using ALL CAPS, !!! and absolutes like ‘Everbody knows’ , ‘[Political Party] always.. ‘ should be a red flag.

    May help us de-construct the daily sound bites and talking points we’re subjected to recognising their emotional target.

    http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/specom_04/spc4_579.pdf
    http://www.harpia.ru/d-scripts-en.html

  174. TheTruthHurts

    [There’s no point in me personally not driving home wasted tonight, as even if I do accidentally kill or maim someone, it’s not going to make hardly any difference to the road toll whatsoever. Drink, it’s nearly midday?]

    Isn’t it amazing.

    The left want to talk about “scientific consensus” on climate change.

    But then you ask them for the scientific consensus on Gillards 5% cut of our 1% emissions and how many degrees cooler this will make the earth. The left then don’t want to talk about the science, they say the science is irrelevant and to shut up.

    Why are the left so embarrassed by the science when it comes to Gillards breathing tax?

  175. kd

    THE RIGHTWING TALKING POINTS HURT:

    Paraphrasing from elsewhere:

    There’s no point in me personally not driving home wasted tonight, as even if I do accidentally kill or maim someone, it’s not going to make hardly any difference to the road toll whatsoever. Drink, it’s nearly midday?

    Suzanne Blake:

    The plural of anecdote is not data. I daresay that longitudinal, internationally collected, systematic data about oyster leases could indeed improve our understanding of how to assess long term sea level rise. Your idiotic copy book denier talking points are not part of that solution though.

  176. Suzanne Blake

    @ Boo.

    I did not mean Copacabana (Copa for short) meant Coba Point.

    The oyster leases in the Hawkesbury near the former mental hospital / road bridge and the ones at Paddy’s channel in Brisbane Water (between Woy Woy and Gosford) have bene there for longer, much longer. Also some South Coast ones as well.

  177. Frank Campbell

    Jeebus: “the burden of proof is not on the man who cites the scientific consensus. It is on the man trying to debunk the scientific consensus.”

    This strangely ideological notion of science is at the core of climate millenarianism. The burden of proof is of course on all scientists.

    The sleight of mind on which the “consensus” rests conflates basic science (CO2 is a greehouse gas, known for a century) with the hypotheses and predictions constructed on top of it. The sensitivity of climate to CO2, feedbacks, impacts etc range from the likely to the speculative to pure guesswork. In this sense, AGW is an immature hypothesis.

    This is why forward projections are so variable- from imminent catastrophe (eg Kevin Anderson, virtual extinction in a few decades time) to modest.

    If either side of the climate cult (Believers and Deniers) were sincere, they’d be debating (for instance) the current defensive hypotheses explaining the plateau in global average temps advanced by the initiators of climate extremism- Michael Mann, Trenberth et al. It was Trenberth after all who famously bemoaned the apparent lack of warming a few years ago. The hockey stick is history- so they think maybe the flat-lining is caused by (for example) Chinese sulphur emissions- or some other masking agent. They would say that, wouldn’t they? For AGW to shrink to a marginal, variable effect would result in ridicule. Their careers and reputation ride on the result.

    No one can possibly know the outcome. Empirical science, as always, trumps computer modelling.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the central fraud of “carbon policy” is not Abbott the Denier vs Gillard the Believer (neither are true believers- only Brown is) but the prurient dishonesty of all sides regarding “renewable energy”. They all subscribe to the MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target). But renewables are nowhere near ready- no baseload renewable exists. The candidates are either unproven, too expensive or by definition incapable (eg wind, solar). Geothermal in Australia has been a one billion dollar farce. (You’ll never see geothermal analysed on Crikey.)
    The Productivity Commission is scathing about renewables. And current renewables guarantee fossil fuel expansion- because back-up is essential. No wonder Gillard says “coal has a fantastic future”.

    The carbon tax is touted as driving renewables invention and scaling-up. At $23 it will have no effect at all, and it’s not likely that higher tax will do anything useful. Lomborg may be a media tart and a dubious recent convert from Denialism, but he’s finally woken up to the fact that direct state investment in renewables research is inevitable. But given the inherent difficulties and limitations of renewables, we’re certainly decades away from anything functional. Just look at the last decade of geothermal in Australia- a true Flannery Farce. A wonderfully elegant model (water down the hole, steam up, unlimited resource), but fiendishly difficult in practice. So far, abject failure.

  178. TheTruthHurts

    [The scientific consensus behind man-made global warming is based on mountains of peer-reviewed evidence. Anyone who wants to challenge it needs an equivalent mountain of evidence that points to a different conclusion.]

    Whats the scientific consensus on how many degrees cooler Dillard 5% of Australia’s 1% of global emissions will make?

  179. Sancho

    “Climate change advocate”.

    That’s like being a spherical earth advocate, or germ theory advocate.

  180. jeebus

    Khan, the burden of proof is not on the man who cites the scientific consensus. It is on the man trying to debunk the scientific consensus.

    The scientific consensus behind man-made global warming is based on mountains of peer-reviewed evidence. Anyone who wants to challenge it needs an equivalent mountain of evidence that points to a different conclusion.

    If you don’t have that evidence then all you have is belief. And then I have to ask why is your belief so strong?

  181. rhwombat

    Khan: Flannery hasn’t published publicly demolished bullshit, like Heaven + Earth. And your point is..?

  182. Khan

    The next time there is an article about Flannery I would expect to se him described as “Climate Change Advocate Tim Flannery, who has a vested interest in companies developing renewable energy” the same way as Plimer was described as “a director of several mining companies”.

    By the way, has Flannery ever published peer-reviewed research on contemporary climate change?

  183. rhwombat

    Well said Jeebus. – and Sancho.

    Gina Rinehart’s problem is that she thinks that Daddy didn’t love her enough. I suspect that’s the problem for Suzanne Blake, too. Truthy, on the other hand, is just a rabid fantasist.

  184. jeebus

    Industrial powerhouse Germany is reducing their C02 emissions by 40% from their 1990 levels by 2020, even while phasing out nuclear energy.

    Australia’s government proposes a 5% cut, provoking the mother of hysterical fear campaigns from Abbott and his merry men of corporatists.

    Germany has the kind of spirit and national ambition that drives R&D and creates new industries. Something America had when it declared it would put a man on the moon. A focus that is only possible when you have long term, coordinated thinking by both government and industry.

    Business leaders in Germany see themselves as working to create a stronger country. Last year a group of them wrote to the Prime Minister volunteering to give up 10% of their income in the form of a ‘rich tax’ for ten years to consolidate the national budget!

    Granted there are some patriots in Australia’s (and America’s) corporate landscape, but the majority of public discourse is being poisoned by the self-serving ones. The Ayn Rand devotees who view any form of government (democratic or not) as illegitimate, and any form of taxation as thieving from their wealth.

    Whether it’s Murdoch, Reinhart, Fortescue, or the Koch brothers, these corporatists are traitors to the Anglosphere. They use their influence to attack and corrupt our democratic institutions, they evade paying taxes but benefit from government subsidies and infrastructure, and their only allegiance is to the money they are trying to bleed out of Australia while giving as little as possible back.

    The carbon tax debate here, and the budget fiasco in America are but symptoms of this civil war being waged by the corporate elite on both of our countries.

    Meanwhile, China is showered by the trillions our corporate traitors have funnelled over there, and is investing it in the technology and infrastructure that it is using to conquer our economies.

  185. Bellistner

    TheTruthHurts said:

    California has direct democracy which allows punters to vote on bills, why can’t Australia?

    And hasn’t that worked well for them.

    Sancho Said:

    they’ve made some unassailable point you couldn’t deny.

    Key words. The further to the extremes you go (all points of the political compass), the less likely that your opponent will admit that there is a chance they are wrong. Thus, in some cases, you can’t deny what they’ve said, from their POV, and nothing you do say will dissuade them from that.

  186. Sancho

    I hate it that regular posters here dismiss Suzanne Blake and TTH as trolls.

    A troll is someone who doesn’t care about an issue but creates inflammatory posts in order to provoke angry responses.

    They’re not trolls: THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS RUBBISH.

    Even though it’s true that a lie can make out round the world before the truth has its socks on, if you gurn at them instead of intelligently refuting their nonsense they leave with the impression that they’ve made some unassailable point you couldn’t deny.

  187. Boo

    Suzannes a hoot. ‘Copa’ is a nickname for a beach / coastal village on the central coast. Coba Point on the other hand … is actually on Berowra Creek, near enough to the river.

    and try and find an oyster rack thats been in place for 40 years.

    Its never wise to parrot fellow travellors tittle tattle just because it suits your worldview! Anyway, thanks for the chuckle SB.

  188. Venise Alstergren

    TRUTH HURTS: “”It must be hard knowing you are the most hate, unpopular Prime Minister in the history of Australian federation.””

    Bollocks: The dancing fairy aka Wing-nut McMahon (Lib) was heartily loathed on all fronts of the political spectrum. He could have outdone Gillard in a canter. If the Morgan Poll is any guide you may be the one who is on the wrong foot.

  189. TheTruthHurts

    [Not worth wasting shoe leather in SA, TAS, NT and WA I guess.]

    Well Labors on the nose in Tas(stale state government), there are only 2 federal seats in NT, 1 of which is already Lib the second of which is probably a write-off thanks to the absolute stuff up with the live cattle ban putting thousands out of work.

    SA stale state government and boatpeople camp setup on the outskirts of Adelaide, so another wipe out there.

    WA? Stephen Smith might be seen at centrelink after the next election.

    I think you are right about her hiding though. I get this vision of Julia in her office curled up in a ball under her desk crying her eyes out. It must be hard knowing you are the most hate, unpopular Prime Minister in the history of Australian federation.

  190. Venise Alstergren

    Erratum: Line two to read. “Mono-faceted superficiality of SUZANNE BLAKE’S political thesis-albeit a thesis which is repeated again, and again, and again.”

  191. kd

    Wow, you right wing cheer leaders in your short skirts and bright unifiormsare going to be get tide up in the dunces’ corner and only hauled out for a bit of whipping up the fear or horse trading, if the coalition do form a goverment within the next five years or so.

  192. Venise Alstergren

    PINKLEFTY: Kindly refrain from pointing out to me the diverse usage of the English language. Thanks to the mono-faceted of SUZANNE BLAKE’S political thesis-albeit a thesis which is repeated again, and again, and again ad nauseum. Her irony, subtlety, and deathless prose are as beacons to this pedestrian observer. Beacons to be extinguished with maximum speed, and minimum observation.

  193. TheTruthHurts

    [THEDELUSIONSHURT: Yeah then it would be called an “opinion poll” not the “census” and it would get in the way of the ABS’ important work.]

    The ABS isn’t a private company, it’s a government taxpayer funded department.

    I find it a little ironic that Dillard was having a whine about Abbotts plebiscite idea wasting “hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars”(like that ever bothered the Labor/Greens socialist alliance before), well here we have an opportunity to bundle in the carbon tax question at little to no cost to the little aussie battler. Of course the reality is Dillard doesn’t want the answer to the question.

    BTW if everyone over 18 is meant to fill out the census then it should be as accurate as a plebiscite.

  194. Venise Alstergren

    Venise Alstergren
    Posted Saturday, 30 July 2011 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    TRUTH HURTS:-

    SUZANNE BLAKE:- Gee I’m sorry to interrupt the clouds of right-wing bliss which, laughingly, you refer to as thought but there is an article in yesterday’s Hun (Murdoch, News Corp-no less) written by Laurie Oakes who explains that the recent Morgan Poll reveals an electorate which is pleased with the present government on the economic front. Shock, horror, dismay! This despite your screech-voiced, failed priest and Catholic fundamentalist who is always yelling a room-full of negativity. “No, neow, never, nunca, jamais, shoot the lady-dog Rabbo††. If either of you come back with the comment that the electorate will live to regret the Labor government, you will be arguing on a false hypothesis. Your past comments are always criticisms of what the Labor government has done.

    Whilst you’re about it, and bearing in mind the pair of you are privy to a yet to be formulated Liberal Party philosophy, you may care to tell us, the humble reader,
    of the amazing incandescence of the Liberal Party’s thoughts for the future.

    IAN: I think the name is……. After 24 hours of thought I admit defeat. I am simply unable to understand why Gina Reinhardt is a loser. I would go down on my knees to be as big a loser as you make out.

  195. kd

    THEDELUSIONSHURT: Yeah then it would be called an “opinion poll” not the “census” and it would get in the way of the ABS’ important work.

  196. heavylambs

    Suzanne Blake is misinformed,and is intent on spreading her disease.

    Flannery has owned property on the Hawkesbury for maybe 14 years,since the days he was Principal Research Scientist at the Australian Museum in Sydney. I thought he lived at Bar Point,north of Coba,but I definitely know it was somewhere up on Berowra Creek.

    Some idiot neighbour of his proudly informed shock-jock Ray Hadley that Flannery’s house was 4 or 5 meters back from the water.Silly Ray didn’t think to ask how far above the water level it was vertically,which is somewhat more relevant to anticipated sea level rise over the next thirty or forty years.

  197. drmick

    A Rhetorical question?
    Have a nice time in California, and take your mates with you.

  198. Venise Alstergren

    MODERATOR: I defy you to find one single word in my comment which could be taken as offensive. ONE SINGLE WORD.

  199. TheTruthHurts

    [You do realise that the census shouldn’t ask political questions? Or is this more right wing kneejerk moron self interest stuff that we’re expected to take at “poor us, we’re just whinging aussie battlers” face value. How naive you think we must be.]

    Why not? There might be an outbreak of democracy?

    Besides a single page could be stabled outside the form with the question.

    California has direct democracy which allows punters to vote on bills, why can’t Australia?

  200. Jean

    I have a friend who is an oyster farmer who agrees that the sea levels have not risen. Every season for many years, he has carefully marked the height on the side of his boat. Never any change. So there!

  201. Suzanne Blake

    Thanks David

    I suppose the ALP Spin Control room needs to be open 7 x 24 these days, to suppress the attack on all fronts.

    You got the Saturday arvo shift.

    Dont let me delay you from your online polls and newspaper e-comments.

  202. Suzanne Blake

    @ TheTruthHurts

    Good idea on census, except well over half will be completed online and you wont have the option.

    Gillard knows she is gone, that why she was hiding for the first 4 days of the week and only coming out on Friday when the media exposed her for not wearing out her shoe leather like she promised.

    Since the tax details on July 5, she has only been to NSW, VIC, QLD and ACT.

    Not worth wasting shoe leather in SA, TAS, NT and WA I guess.

  203. kd

    You do realise that the census shouldn’t ask political questions? Or is this more right wing kneejerk moron self interest stuff that we’re expected to take at “poor us, we’re just whinging aussie battlers” face value. How naive you think we must be.

  204. TheTruthHurts

    [Hmm, did you vote for Johnny “never ever” Howard after he brought in the GST, Mr Hurts? If so you’re a bit of a hypocrite I would say.]

    He took the GST policy to an election and won.

    Gillard took a “no carbon tax under the government I lead” policy to an election and won.

    Except now she’s doing the exact opposite of what she promised.

    [It’s a variable carbon PRICE with a short term introductory period where the price is fixed with the goal of long term restructuring the economy to be less dependent on fossil fuels.]

    Call it whatever you like, why is there no question on the census form regarding this very disastrous policy?

    Dillard says a plebiscite is too expensive, well here we go… 1 extra question on the census won’t cost the government a cent.

    August 9th shall be carbon tax referendum day whether the government likes it or not. The campaign is growing to mark the census form with the extra question.

  205. jeebus

    Hmm, did you vote for Johnny “never ever” Howard after he brought in the GST, Mr Hurts? If so you’re a bit of a hypocrite I would say.

  206. Roberto Tedesco

    I support diversity in the media.
    I support taking steps to protect humanity in the future.
    I support police looking into and acting on the inflammatory statements of the thuggish opinionheads on talkback radio.

    I support a tax on pollution.

    I’m not going to be arseing around with my census form because a bunch of foamists thinks we should.

  207. kd

    rotflmao, referendum, yeah because even the most sensible uncontroversial policies get voted down in a referendum. I like the push poll question you want to ask as well. How about you remember this:

    It’s a variable carbon PRICE with a short term introductory period where the price is fixed with the goal of long term restructuring the economy to be less dependent on fossil fuels.

    Youse economic flat/scorched earthers are so blinded by short term political vested interests and other self-delusions that you can’t see beyond the end of your own eyelids, let alone your nose.

  208. TheTruthHurts

    August 9th is Carbon Tax referendum day.

    Seeing as the government can organise to send out millions of questionnaire forms asking about our personal details, they should have managed to add one additional question: Do you Support a Carbon Tax? which wouldn’t have cost them 1 cent more to do so.

    As a result of this missing question, it is important that we add our own.

    So this August 9th, when you are filling out your census form make sure you add the question: Do you support a Carbon Tax? with a Yes and No tickbox and tick the answer that you agree with.

    This August 9th shall be Carbon Tax referendum day, whether the government likes it or not.

  209. Go for it!

    “The Labor party has formed government after 10 of these elections – 9 times as a majority government, and only once (2010) as a minority government.

    The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has formed government after 16 elections since WWII – only three times as a majority government (1975, 1977 and 1996).

    The other 13 times the Liberal Party won less than 50 % of the vote, less than 50 % of the seats, and formed a minority government with the assistance of the Country Party, the National Party, the Liberal Country Party and the Liberal National Party.”

    Thanks Captain Planet.

    I bet you wont find any of thses FACTS in any of News Limited rags LOL

  210. Go for it!

    Just another fat Mining boss who is trying to justify her enormous wealth made in the main by not paying the proper and fair taxes/royalities to the Nation for decades.

    Will her lik pay back some of OUR money when the the quarries have finished production and we nothing to sell overseas countries?

  211. Frank Campbell

    It says something about the abysmal and futile “debate” on AGW that this handful or intellectual berley from Redfearn starts a feeding frenzy among the head-bangers.

    It’s hardly news, and therefore hardly journalism, that Rhino flogs her own corporate interests. Or that pigs line up at her trough.

    All too typical of Crikey. If it were serious about the climate change debate, there’d be thoughtful pieces about say, the progress of geothermal in Australia, or the economics of solar, or the class ramifications of a carbon tax, or a critique of Abbott’s “direct action”, or the latest defensive hypotheses accounting for the current plateau in global temps (Chinese sulphur emissions for eg)…

    Crikey is just an arena for ritual tribal warfare. Raucous abuse. No one gets hurt.
    A haka with masks.

  212. JamesG

    “minority federal government” – shows she has about as much understanding of the Constitution as she does about climate science. And as you say Plimer is a geologist and never published anything on climate science in a peer reviewed journals so is pretty gutless for an academic.

    Rinehart obviously thinks her $10bn mining fortune is due to her deep intellect – about as much as her looks I’d say.

  213. Aphra

    @Suzanne Blake – what’s this about Flannery’s making waves at Cottage Point? My cousins and friends who actually live there, quite near the restaurant, have heard nothing about this. And what’s your point about Copa?

  214. Bellistner

    Billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart hosted a lunch with Western Australia Premier Colin Barnett and the Chinese Ambassador Chen Yuming … Professor Ian Plimer, of the University of Adelaide, was a “reasoned source” of information on climate change.

    Does Gina think the Chinese are idiots?

  215. GocomSys

    @CML

    “Amen” to that and I am not even religious!

    Enjoyed the relevant posts and found it quite easy to ignore the usual troglodytes (Blake and others).

  216. CML

    Well I think the right-wing/denier lot are just becoming more and more shrill because, apart from threatening the PM and government, they have nowhere to go. Putting a price on carbon pollution is now a done deal – the government has the numbers in both houses of parliament – and it is going to happen.
    Even better, apparently the government legislation released this week shows that the repeal of this whole deal will be very difficult indeed. This is just about guaranteed to send the lunatics into a frenzy! Get over it, Ms. Rinehart and fellow travellers – you lost, and the planet won!
    So can we please stop talking about, writing about and watching any more nonsense about “no climate change”? It is so last year.

  217. Captain Planet

    As to the content of the article – Thank you Mr. Readfearn for a more factual and less speculative article than your recent effort contriving to establish causality between Monckton and the Norwegian Massacre.

    It is indeed extremely concerning to observe the extent to which Ms. Reinhart is willing to go in order to influence the business and political spheres to stifle action to mitigate climate change.

    I expect that international business leaders from China and Japan, taking as they are renowned for doing, the long view, will be publicly inscrutable but privately gobsmacked that such a powerful Australian business leader could be so wilfully ignorant and obtuse about such an important issue – where the vast weight of a considerable body of scientific evidence directly contradicts Ms Reinhart’s position.

    It is one thing to push the “climate change isn’t real” line on the disinterested and disengaged Australian Public, as a disingenuous propoganda exercise designed to further the interests of the rich and powerful, at the long term expense of the health and wellbeing of the bulk of the populace. The Chinese are quite adept at such dishonest message management for an ulterior agenda, and probably respect the tactic.

    It is quite another thing to actually attempt to convince very well informed and educated business leaders and politicians of such a proposition. It indicates to this astute audience, that Gina Reinhart, and by implication and association, possibly a large segment of the Australian business and political world, actually believes that AGW is not really happening.

    These guys are going to take this as confirmation that we are every bit as gullible, naive and stupid as they have always thought we are, and proceed to trample all over us for the next few centuries. They will play along with the global warming scepticism line for as long as it suits their immediate business interests, all the while investing heavily in renewable energy, alternatives to oil, and climate change adaptation measures such as…. buying up and controlling for the long term future, as much of the world’s arable farmland and productive resources as they can get their hands on.

    Thanks Gina, you have made us all look like dimwitted hicks, and the rapacious asian business community will not waste the opportunity to treat us accordingly.

  218. Captain Planet

    @ Shaz Williams,

    We do have NOT have a ‘minority government’ in Canberra. We have a slim majority coalition government (who received the greatest percentage of votes) and a minority Coalition opposition.

    Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

    Personally, I am comfortable with the term “minority government”.

    As long as it is applied consistently.

    Since the second world war, there have been 26 Federal Elections.

    The Labor party has formed government after 10 of these elections – 9 times as a majority government, and only once (2010) as a minority government.

    The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has formed government after 16 elections since WWII – only three times as a majority government (1975, 1977 and 1996).

    The other 13 times the Liberal Party won less than 50 % of the vote, less than 50 % of the seats, and formed a minority government with the assistance of the Country Party, the National Party, the Liberal Country Party and the Liberal National Party.

    So it is absolutely unbelievable hypocrisy from conservative politicians and commentators to decry the first Labor minority government since WWII as being in some way “illegitimate”.

    If that logic were evenly applied, you would have to conclude that the Liberal Party were governing illegitimately as a “minority” government without a mandate from the people, for 32 years in total since the war.

  219. the man on the clapham omnibus

    Why can’t Gina Rineheart invite who she wants to for lunch? I wouldn’t normally have an issue but for the hypocirisy of our (deceased & failed) 4th estate.

    Why can’t Cate Blanchett or any other public figure make a public statement on the other side without being the front page pariah of the Murdoch papers?

  220. kd

    [ … East Anglia hockey stick (Philip Jones, Michael Mann, etc.) and other incidents that should be known to anyone who cares to look … ]

    Climate change delusional/denier beat ups are not the same thing as evidence that there is no problem with not doing anything about climate change.

  221. Pinklefty

    “Plimer … insinuates that the debate has been hijacked by ‘unquestioning mantra’, ‘political dogma’, ‘religious zeal’ from extreme environmentalists and climate scientists, with the ‘demonising of dissent’.”
    Quote from Professor Colin Goodroffe as referenced in the above article (“heavily criticised by climate scientists”)
    It is interesting to read the above article and associated comments in the light of the above quote. Professor Plimer (if accurately quoted) appears to have a point.
    Ad hominem attacks, wealth jealousy, guilt by association: all the boxes are ticked with evident relish.
    I’ll assume that this thread is not contaminated with sock puppets, but the uniformly low standard of comments has to make one wonder if science has any relevance here at all. It certainly doesn’t rate a serious mention.
    Even if Plimer is as bent as a paperclip, the “affirmers”(?) can hardly claim the mantle of spotless integrity for themselves — or do we forget about the East Anglia hockey stick (Philip Jones, Michael Mann, etc.) and other incidents that should be known to anyone who cares to look? The whole business of climate change — anthropogenic or otherwise — needs to be viewed with cautious scepticism from both sides. However, I suspect that a call for sober assessment is out of place here.
    One final note to Venise Alstergren: Suzanne Blake may have her faults but, as criticised by you, she was merely trying — evidently with too much subtlety — to point out that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Did you really fail to notice Graham Redfearn’s implied criticism of Gina Rinehart for being wealthy and of Ian Plimer for associating himself with filthy lucre?

  222. david

    VENISE,,, Jones sounds all bravado and comes across as “they can’t touch me haha”…owever knowing GetUp fairly well, their lawyers will not have made the complaint to the Feds without due consultation and consideration. Gloria Jones may have had ample influence over Howard and we know how damn weak the so called Broadcasting Watchdog is, a real toothless tiger, also probably shite scared of Jones and Singleton.
    But GetUp is a completely different animal, plus after the Norway horror…and with the continual slow but steady climb in the polls by Labor as shown in todays Morgan poll…she may not have it all her own way.
    I suspect that since that operation to its, and I use the word with some care “brain”, the mouth has become even more ferral …this will be interesting.

  223. leonard stall

    many monkeys throw pooh all over the walls

  224. leonard stall

    one monkey don’t stop the show

  225. Venise Alstergren

    DAVID: Yes, but why is he above the law. The old hag was responsible for inciting a race riot at Cronulla. Why was this acceptable behaviour? I can only imagine the Liberal Party pulled some strings, what with little Johnny Howard being the PM at the time.

  226. AR

    Jones’ exact phrase, referring first to the PM then a day or two later including Bob Brown was “they should be put in a chaff bag and dumped far out at sea”. The term “chaff bag” was meant, presumably, to emphasise his good ole boy rural origins to his Battlers on Struggle St.

  227. Microseris

    Surprised Suzanne Blake didn’t get an invite.

  228. Michael

    Crikey. Bernard is sucking life out of your relevance.
    He is just too committed to Labor/Green doctrine.
    He may enjoy being the village idiot but as a paying Crikey subscriber I now take offense not at what he says but at what he has become. A subjective Labor stooge!

  229. drmick

    Jimmy
    Yep I saw the same story.
    This coupled with Turnbull saying biased media was OK, gives Murdoch and his ilk “tea party” like free reign.
    Its only the press bitching about free speech; If that bloodnut witch in England is anything to go by, the vermin employed by king rat out here are being fed the same cheese and, potentially, have done the same or worse. They have already tried to bugger up a police raid in Melbourne that they allegedy paid a crook copper for.
    Our Prime Minister asks the obvious question about limited news Australia, and gets howled down by the very mob that we should be investigating. fair and balanced my a***

  230. Michael

    Boring, boring, boring.
    The media inquiry must be expanded to include blatant bias boring readers numb!
    A 10 year jail sentence should be mandatory.

  231. david

    [Jimmy
    Posted Friday, 29 July 2011 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Salamander – I think they said in th report last night that someone from 2GB is currently under investigation by the AFP, but I couldn’t be 100% sure as I missed the start. ]

    Jimmy you heard correctly, a complaint has been made to the AFP by the GetUp organisation against Alan Jones re his remarks to stuff Julia Gillard into a wicker basket and dump her at sea. I understand one of Jones collegues at 2GB has also been mentioned in the complaint.
    When asked for his reaction Jones said as reported by the SMH…”GetUp and go and get stuffed.”
    Jones obviously believes he is above the law.

  232. william magnusson

    just a word about the good folk farming oysters on the south coast… the narooma farmers had to stop harvesting last year because of high temperatures

  233. Spectator

    Yes Gina Reinhart can invite who she wants to lunch. But its relevant to know who sits ‘at her table’. Those that do presumably realise that there are no ‘free lunches’ anywhere. Or do they?

  234. Salamander

    Some loser. I would say more of a capitalist pig, if we’re into names.

  235. Ian

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Gina. She’s one of the worlds perpetual losers. No amount of money can change that. Remember, she spent millions, devoted 10 yrs of her life and still couldn’t beat Rose. She’s a loser. Always has been. Always will be.

  236. Stephen

    Awful woman, enemy to democracy, truly her father’s daughter. Can’t wait for WA to secede, and I was born there.

  237. Jimmy

    Salamander – I think they said in th report last night that someone from 2GB is currently under investigation by the AFP, but I couldn’t be 100% sure as I missed the start.

  238. Salamander

    How come shock jocks can get away with advocating violent overthrow of the Govt. There must be laws against that and some body to complain to. The AFP perhaps.

  239. Jimmy

    He certainly did Sancho and what he said isn’t as bad as the radio shock jocks agreeing with callers that the PM needs to be forcibly removed or worse.

    I read somewhere this week that the right here and in the US have deemed the respective govt’s illiegitimate and therefore they can use any means necessary to remove them, even if that means (in the US in particular) sacrificing the national interest.

  240. Sancho

    Bolt really said that? What message do you think a home-grown Anders Breivik would take from that?

  241. Jimmy

    Dr Mick – Speaking of Bolt did you catch him on 6.30 last night, they were doing an article on the rise of death threats to politicians and his comment was “Of course it is going to far, but when you steal an election with a lie you have to expect people will be angry”. Way to throw petorl on the fire there Andrew. Why settle for facts when you can appeal to the irrational.

  242. Son of foro

    “Why can’t Ms Rinehart invite whomever she wants to lunch?”

    Well, of course she can. Ms Rinehart is a person of great influence in this country, the conversatation then is about how she plans to use this influence. Her lunch guests are a clue as to that direction.

  243. drmick

    I think its entirely consistent that Gina has bought Channel 10 and made Bolt her spokesperson on all things Gina.

    The same maticulous care in fact distortion, scare mongering and payola and all the wonderful things that she can buy with all her hard earned money, including the WA Government, is no one elses business except hers.

    Flying poliies around the world to do her bidding and impress the natives is nothing new, but her choice of the bevely hillbillies’ cousin jethro and elly mae as her reresentatives would be considered an insult in most polite circles.

    It looks like she is trying to insult the Chinese, Japenese, intellectuals and the rest of Australia that has the half of the brain required to control smell.

    I smell deadsh**

  244. Malcolm Street

    Shaz – “Reading Gina’s speech about how her father created WA almost single-handedly and proceeded to show photographs of the glorious Australian countryside”

    Worth remembering also that far from a great Australian patriot her dad was a die-hard secessionist for many years. I distinctly remember him around the late ’60s pushing for an independent WA defended with its own force of F111s armed with nuclear weapons.

  245. Sancho

    Ah yes. Environmentalists are hypocrites unless they live in grass huts. Because if you acknowledge that the real goal is to make the world developed AND sustainable, you have to explain why that’s undesirable, instead of attacking the same old strawmen and thinking it’s an argument.

  246. Venise Alstergren

    SUZANNE BLAKE: “”I wonder if Professor Tim Flannery (Gillards ex Chief Climate Scientist) was there at Gina’s house?

    Did he leave his waterfront house he recently purchased with his wife on the Hawkesbury River at Copa Point? Did he leave his house in his speed boat, that was reported to be causing excessive wash in the No Wash Zone near his house at Cottage Point.

    Perhaps he took the sea plane or Dick Smith picked him up is his helicopter?””

    You appear to object to the wealth that Tim Flannery has earned. I thought Oz had emerged from 1950s socialism, where the only people judged to be worthy of merit joined causes and went without the necessary food and clothing available to everyone else. As for the following line: “”Did he leave his house in his speed boat, that was reported to be causing excessive wash in the No Wash Zone near his house at Cottage Point. (?) “”. To accuse Professor Flannery on someone else’s say so means you are relying on hearsay. It would require months of measuring water at different levels, recording the boat’s passage through the water, calculating differences of the seasons-and God alone knows what else.

    You come across like a very bitter old woman. Did a passing climatologist refuse to bed you or something?

  247. Jimmy

    Kristian – Look up the term “influence peddling”

  248. Kristian

    Umm, I could get shot down in flames here, but here goes…

    What’s the problem? Why can’t Ms Rinehart invite whomever she wants to lunch?

  249. Mobius Ecko

    Shaz the oyster farmers on the South Coast of NSW might want to also explain how the levels on their patch of sea are the same as the rest of the globe when sea levels are actually different around the world through a well known mechanism.

    http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/faqs/

  250. Sancho

    I think the point, Modus, is to keep up the reminders that this isn’t a neutral gathering of hard-working entrepreneurs banding together to protect the prosperity of ordinary Australians.

  251. John Ryan

    Who ran Wittenoom,maybe Gina should think about contributing to Langs ongoing legacy of death and Lung diseases instead of indulging a group of half arsed fools

  252. Spectator

    Barnaby Joyce and Julie bishop who have already accepted handouts from Gina may be sceptics but they, as well as others who were at the Reinhart table, are possibly naive as well. Surely they, or their advisers, brief them on the Hancock-Reinhart tendency to flirt with unusual people – or ‘nutters’ as some have described them. Just look back to the infamous Nicolae Ceausescu who was ultimately executed by his own people after brutalising Romania for years. Who was involved in bringing him to Perth? Lang Hancock of course assisted by then Premier Brian Burke who arranged accomodation for the esteemed visitor in Government House. Then Dr Edward Teller, one of the inventors of both A & H bombs, had meaningful discussions with Lang Hancock about using nuclear fission to blast a new deep sea port for the Pilbara. After Hancock’s death Gina invited and sponsored Teller’s visit to Australia during which he gave a Peter Sellers like performance at the Press Club. Cabaret? Perhaps- but as few could understand a word that was said – of little use to anyone. And no-one can forget the close relationship with Joe Bjelke Petersen.Then – the best choice of all: Christopher “I’m really a Lord” Monckton. A Toff in the real old fashioned style and magnificent entertainment value. Vaudeville? For sure. Gina Reinhart, as is her right,selectively supports politicians in Perth – including Federal ones. Discreet but consistent. Is Julie Bishop one of those? Who knows?

  253. Modus Ponens

    Is this news???

    Her political views which re-inforce her insatiable greed are hardly a public secret.

  254. shaz williams

    “I heard the oyster farmers who have been farming oysters for 40 or more in that area and also on the south coast of NSW, say there has not been any sea level rises and they would know. They are on the water 5 or 6 days a week. Their piles and oyster trays are in exactly the same position as they have been for decades.”

    Well there we are-positive proof that climate change is all a fraud and we should have asked the oyster farmers all along. Perhaps they can confirm that it’s a myth that tuna schools are fast vanishing as well, the Barrier Reef is disintegrating and so on.

  255. shaz williams

    Gina should also get all her facts right.

    We do have NOT have a ‘minority government’ in Canberra. We have a slim majority coalition government (who received the greatest percentage of votes) and a minority Coalition opposition.

  256. shaz williams

    Sancho : “In case anyone missed Jimmy’s reference to the iron sun, if you investigate the references in Plimer’s book “Heave + Earth” you’ll find that he bases his conclusions on a well-known and terribly mistaken theory which posits that the sun is in fact a huge ball of iron.”

    That sounds like a case for the Australian Skeptics and ummm..Prof Plimer or perhaps his esteemed associate, the magician James Randi.

  257. jeebus

    The only thing worse than an ideological fanatic is one with obscene wealth and influence.

    Remind me why the glorified dirt shovelers in the mining industry automatically get given ownership of our minerals just for digging them out of the ground? They are merely a service industry.

    The valet doesn’t get ownership of your car for getting it out of the parking lot.

    And a mining company should not get ownership of our resources for getting them out of the ground. If they want to sell our wealth to China they should have to buy them from the Australian people first at something close to the global market price (minus the cost of extraction and a 10% profit margin).

    Right now they are looting wealth they had no part in creating.

    And not only that, but they are using those ill begotten rivers of money to prance around the country throwing rallies and flooding the airwaves with propaganda to support their entitlement to our assets.

    We don’t need a mining tax. What we need is for the miners to buy our resources from us at a fair market price. Right now we’re being ripped off, and the b-st-rds ripping us off are rubbing our stolen money in our faces.

  258. shaz williams

    Gina should also get all her facts right.

    We do have a ‘minority government’ in Canberra. We have a slim majority coalition government (who received the greatest percentage of votes) and a minority Coalition opposition.

  259. Rodger

    Hey Suzanne, show me the measurements. Did they mark a spot 40 years ago?

  260. shaz williams

    Reading Gina’s speech about how her father created WA almost single-handedly and proceeded to show photographs of the glorious Australian countryside, is it any wonder that the Chinese ambassador must have thought he was in heaven as he is sure to have visited Shanghai and Beijing and almost suffocated in the dangerous pollution there caused by..errr belching industry.

    He must have also thought “thank God for these Aussie crackpots” including his hostess who is apparently under the impression that the world and his dog are battering down the doors of Chinese industry to sell them container shiploads of precious minerals that apparently the fragrant Gina thinks must be kept so cheap because there is at surfeit of them worldwide.

    As anyone who has done business in China will know-lunch is a chance to eat well at a foreigner’s expense and it takes a lot more than a few crispy pork belly rolls to convince officials a deal must be done but the occasion which will be met with polite but inscrutable smiles.

    He will no doubt have left Gina’s mansion thinking what a bunch of ill-educated peasants we can be at times.

  261. Sancho

    In case anyone missed Jimmy’s reference to the iron sun, if you investigate the references in Plimer’s book “Heave + Earth” you’ll find that he bases his conclusions on a well-known and terribly mistaken theory which posits that the sun is in fact a huge ball of iron.

    It’s the astrophysical equivalent of the Perth Group crusaders who reckon HIV is completely unconnected to AIDS.

    This is the level of scholarship Rinehart’s “reasoned source” resorted to in order to get the results the denialists demand.

  262. Observation

    It seems to me in order to be successful in business and to have personal wealth beyond the dreams of most, you need to have your strategic foundation based on shortsightedness. With our supposed business brains trust listening to kooky Lords and supporting federal opposition leaders that have their entire policy list in a pair of budgey smugglers, is it any wonder I feel as if the lunatics are trying to run the asylum!

    Is there a leader out there, anywhere in the country, political, business or otherwise that can be strong enough and inspire us to follow a smart, balanced and long term strategy! I am sick of hearing about all these self interested nutters!

  263. James Gannon

    Can we stop calling these people sceptics, they are arguing against reason and evidence.

  264. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    “I heard the oyster farmers who have been farming oysters for 40 or more in that area and also on the south coast of NSW, say there has not been any sea level rises…”

    And here we were using so-called “empirical evidence” when vague anecdotes will do.

  265. Rodger

    Is there a pattern here?
    Are the rich and powerful more dishonest than the rest of us in their pursuit of money and power?
    Perhaps it is that they are able to mislead more people because they are rich and powerful.
    Or is getting more money more important to them than anything else?
    Just asking.

  266. twobob

    “I heard the oyster farmers who have been farming oysters for 40 or more in that area and also on the south coast of NSW, say there has not been any sea level rises…”

    hhah hah hhah hah ah errrr.

    Magnificent way to discredit science there suzie, or yourself. You can rest assured though that your eloquent argument has convinced me. Thanks for the laugh

  267. Suzanne Blake

    I wonder if Professor Tim Flannery (Gillards ex Chief Climate Scientist) was there at Gina’s house?

    Did he leave his waterfront house he recently purchased with his wife on the Hawkesbury River at Copa Point? Did he leave his house in his speed boat, that was reported to be causing excessive wash in the No Wash Zone near his house at Cottage Point.

    Perhaps he took the sea plane or Dick Smith picked him up is his helicopter?

    I heard the oyster farmers who have been farming oysters for 40 or more in that area and also on the south coast of NSW, say there has not been any sea level rises and they would know. They are on the water 5 or 6 days a week. Their piles and oyster trays are in exactly the same position as they have been for decades.

  268. Jimmy

    In a time where billionaires globally are seeking to give back to the community, eg Warren Buffett, Bill Gates etc Rinehart only seeks self interest. She may be Australia’s wealthiest woman but she will leave no legacy and will be forgotten.

  269. fredex

    From the article above:
    “Cheryl Edwardes, a former WA environment minister, is Hancock Prospecting’s executive general manager responsible for external affairs, government relations and approvals.”

    From here:

    [Google the opening phrase of the quote above and you get on the front page a Yahoo article that says]

    On Sunday 17 July 2011, 13:17 EST

    “The Western Australian Opposition has expressed concern about a possible conflict of interest after the husband of a senior mining company staff member was appointed Chief of Staff to the Environment Minister, Bill Marmion.

    Colin Edwardes is the husband of the former WA attorney general Cheryl Edwardes who is now the Director of External Affairs at Hancock Prospecting.

    Labor Leader Eric Ripper said Hancock has environmental applications pending before Mr Marmion and he wants the Premier Colin Barnett to assign another Minister to deal with any approvals involving the company”

  270. Jimmy Nightingale

    Why not Lord Monckton?

    I’m guessing that it was more a horses for courses kind of event and even Ms Rinehart understood that she couldn’t expect Monckton to be taken seriously by that audience. Plimer has the veneer of respectability, yet if you scratch through the surface, as many have done after publication of his fictional tome, old ‘Iron Sun’ Plimer fails the credibility test just as abysmally. Still, a fool and his/her money are soon parted and it is easy to sell something if it reinforces one’s world view.

    I guess that is a sign of the strength of the science. That the only people the so-called sceptics can trot out to these kind of gatherings are those with no relevant expertise who need to distort and deflect from the science. Not only that, but the likes of Plimer and Monckton (and the rest of their merry band – Evans, Nova, Carter etc) often hold conflicting or contradictory positions (there is no evidence, climate change is real but it won’t be as bad as the scientists say, through to we can’t do anything about it and can only adapt) and are only united on the Abbott summation that ‘climate change is crap’.

    Meanwhile, as the cries of doom and gloom from this bunch grow ever louder, investment plans in the coal and other mineral extraction industries continue to expand. It’s about time someone, say ASIC, started holding these people to account. Surely, if this is going to be as bad as the miners are saying, we would read about these potentially material adverse events in their published Annual Reports. I am happy to be corrected, however I’m not aware of a single one mention of this.

  271. kd

    Not so much flat-earth economics, but scorched earth economics eh?

  272. LucyJr

    I trust Gina will contribute to a fund to alleviate costs to Australians from increasing extreme weather events?

  273. Margaret Kerr

    The Chinese must just rub their hands in glee at the sheer stupidity and greedy short-sightedness of Rinehart and our climate change sceptic voters, politicians and business people. Especially when we’re so obsessed with Muslims that we’re blind to the fact our farming land is being sold off to overseas interests. Once we’ve squandered any mining royalties that Gina allows us, what will be left?

Leave a comment