tip off

Why sacking the Climate Commission might help it

The born-again Climate Council seems to be a goer financially. And being axed by the Abbott government could help it do its job.

Getting the sack could prove a blessing in disguise for the Climate Commission, which might operate more effectively now it is out of the government’s tent.

One of the Abbott government’s first actions was to axe the commission, set up by Labor to educate the public on climate change. The commission has been reborn as the Climate Council and is now funded by public donations. It had raised $420,000 from 8500 donors as of 9am today (the website only opened to donations 33 hours previously). This should fund the Climate Council for at least six months, probably longer.

So it’s a goer financially. And here’s why going it alone from government might help the former commission.

The Climate Commission, led by Tim Flannery with help from climate science heavy-hitters Will Steffen, David Karoly and Andy Pitman, had a hybrid role. It was set up “to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information” on climate change. Here are two snippets from its terms of reference:

The Commission will not comment on policy matters nor provide policy advice or recommendations.

The Commission will provide information and expert advice to … explain the purpose and operation of a carbon price and how it may interact with the Australian economy and communities.”

So it was explicitly not supposed to comment on policy, while focusing on the carbon price. This created a grey area, where some commissioners (see them here), and some sections of the commission’s reports, did veer into policy.

Had the Abbott government maintained the Climate Commission and provided all its funding, the commission might have struggled to know what to say. Much of the commission’s work focused on the need for significant cuts to emissions (Flannery says the science shows Australia should cut emissions by more than 5% by 2020, which is the bipartisan target), plus the global extent and domestic ramifications of carbon pricing. The commission might have been hampered in articulating that message while Prime Minister Tony Abbott was paying its bills. It might have ended up either muzzled or clashing with the government in a way that frustrated its core task of knowledge broker to the public.

Now the Climate Council is free of government shackles. It can say what it likes, although its website insists it is ”fiercely independent and apolitical” and “our mission is to provide authoritative, expert advice …”.

Environmental NGO veteran Alec Marr says the ex-commission might now be better off. “Any body that’s set up separate to government funding, so there is no government influence on the advice given, is a good thing,” Marr, who headed up The Wilderness Society for 15 years, told Crikey.

I think it would be a mistake … if it merged into the NGO activist sector.”

Peter Christoff, associate professor of climate policy at Melbourne University, says there are positives. “It has the benefit of being freer to speak on critical issues,” he told Crikey. But there are downsides: “It will be more insecure financially … and it loses the authority of being directly associated with government. It’s more easily marginalised as a partisan voice.”

Christoff has a point; the council will likely have less access to, and sway over, government. Meetings with ministers will be harder to arrange, and messages more easily dismissed. But would Tony Abbott have paid much heed to the Climate Commission’s advice if he had kept it on?

The council is an experiment in environmental NGOs: a crowdfunded body that sees itself as a science clearing house, rather than an advocate for action. Will this experiment work in practice?

The money’s there, at least for now. The commission’s budget was about $1.35 million a year, which included salaries paid to some commissioners. They have all pledged to work with the council for free (initially, at least), so the council’s budget should be under $1 million a year. A spokeswoman says the council has no budget and no funding target yet. Money will be needed to hire a “small team of staff”, print reports and cover overheads — not hugely expensive. A key question is whether universities will make significant in-kind donations to the council by giving scientists time to do the council’s work. Unis are considering this now. Melbourne University has been considering picking up the Climate Commission / Council and running it out of the uni (the fact it was to be abolished has been known for some time).

Other environmental NGOs are raising much more than the council’s budget, largely through crowdsourcing and membership fees. The Australian Conservation Foundation’s income for 2011-12 was $12.7 million. The Wilderness Society earned $13.8 million that year. The Climate Institute earned $3.4 million. But while there are significant funds for environmental NGOs available in Australia, the council is competing with long-established organisations with distinctive, tried-and-true marketing strategies (photos of furry animals, etc).

And how the new council funds itself past the honeymoon could be tricky. It has not yet accepted any donations from companies and corporates, although it appears to be leaving the door open (Flannery stresses all donations are “no strings attached”. Most environmental NGOs allow donations from some corporates). “There is a problem as to what the source of the funding will be,” Christoff said of the council, adding that any source of funding brought obligations and could devalue the council’s authority.

Where’s the money coming from — Rio Tinto?” Marr said when asked about this by Crikey. ”If they [the council] end up simply taking money and greenwashing what the big energy-users want to do, then it’s a big problem.” However, upon reflection he added that he thought it very unlikely the council would accept corporate donations that were ethically questionable.

Another challenge for the Climate Council will be how it creates a distinctive niche in the array of environmental bodies (government and non-government). Climate information is available from the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and universities, and there are any number of NGOs that advocate for stronger action on climate change.

Brendan Gleeson, director of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, sees a gap the council could fill. “We need an authoritative and fluent, independent source of advice on climate change,” he said. “I think it would be a mistake … if it merged into the NGO activist sector.”

46
  • 1
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    The Abbott government’s record on climate change so far. Well, they’ve taken ‘direct action’, against people who believe that climate change is a problem that we urgently need to act on.

  • 2
    Daemon
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    I don’t suppose one minute that I will be the first person to point out that an organisation, completely funded by government, it can raise 9300 new members in 33 hours and raise a war chest in excess of $430,000 is probably something that the government should be very aware of in terms of what people are actually interested in and care about.

    This may not be entirely the way it seems to the pundits, but as long as organisations like Getup can muster 250,000 signatures on a petition to change the government’s view about one of their policies, starting the day after the election, perhaps this government is going to be put the position where it actually has to listen, just broke change.

    There has been much set in the mainstream media (FWIW), about movements being pushed by the population, most of which is written off by the deeply intelligent likes of Christopher Pyne and George Pell’s protégé, the Prime Minister, which essentially was to write these things off as a passing fancy. One should perhaps also look at the electorate of Indi, and how much change was wrought in that particular space by local people fed up with the lack of attention by their local member.

    There is probably a space in Australian politics for a voice for every electorate, as set up and so well run by “avoice4indi” who with very little problem unseated a long-time Liberal member, who then of course became responsible for the George Pell protégé to only have one woman in the Cabinet.

  • 3
    Scott
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Surely the environmental thinktank/NGO sector is well populated already in Australia without this new Climate Council
    We have the Australian Institute, the Climate Institute, even the grand daddy of them all, the IPCC. And they all say the same thing…the sky is falling, reduce carbon emissions.
    I think we can do without Will Steffen and Tim Flannery saying the same thing. Just more noise..

  • 4
    Daemon
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Apologies for the errors above.

    I don’t suppose for one minute that I will be the first person to point out that an organisation, completely unfunded by government, which can raise 9300 new members in 33 hours and raise a war chest in excess of $430,000 is probably something that the government should be very aware of in terms of what people are actually interested in and care about.

    This may not be entirely the way it seems to the pundits, but as long as organisations like Getup can muster 250,000 signatures on a petition to change the government’s view about one of their policies, starting the day after the election, perhaps this government is going to be put in the position where it actually has to listen, not just talk about change.

    There has been much said in the mainstream media (FWIW), about movements being pushed by the population, most of which is written off by the deeply intelligent likes of Christopher Pyne and George Pell’s protégé, the Prime Minister, which essentially is to write these things off as a passing fancy.

    One should perhaps also look at the electorate of Indi, and how much change was wrought in that particular space by local people fed up with the lack of attention by their local member.

    There is probably a space in Australian politics for a voice for every electorate, as set up and so well run by “avoice4indi” who with very little problem unseated a long-time Liberal member, and then of course became responsible for the George Pell protégé to only have one woman in the Cabinet.

  • 5
    Jimmy
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Scott - While I agree that we alsready have enough bodies to tell us something that everyone by now should treat as fact, the position we now find ourselves in, with a govt wanting to repeal the legislation for what is widely considered the best method in tackling climate change and replacing it with one that everyone credible source states can not achieve the 5% reduction target that has been set for it and is incredibly expensive to increase that target beyond 5% indicates that we do need a body that can take all the “noise” form various sources and fashion it into a message that is easily digestible.
    Despite the change of govt and Mr blot’s prognostications cliamte change is real, we are causign and we do need to address it - whatever get’s that message through is worthwhile.

  • 6
    Jimmy
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    .

  • 7
    David Hand
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    I’ve no problem with the druids having a privately funded set up. If enough people think their view merits publicity and are willing to back that with donations then good on them.

  • 8
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    The Flannery group were a drain on taxpayers, he was on $185,000 a year for 3 days work and all his predictions were wrong, well 95% of them

  • 9
    Josi V
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    You are not alone with those thoughts Daemon. There is a lot of room in the political landscape for people-power and politicians who do not take this possibility seriously will never see beyond their own livelihood (i.e. they do not represent the electorate that voted them in).

    Not many people stop to think just how much power we hold - preferring only to say it is all to hard and to leave it up to someone else (politicians), when in fact many politicians don’t really know what they are doing.

  • 10
    Gratton Wilson
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Australian voters elect politicians to achieve solutions to problems that are too big for them, as individuals or small groups, to solve. That is what politicians are paid to do. That is why we pay taxes. The Climate Commission was created to examine reliable information about the various aspects of climate change and to make it available in a coherent form. Why has it been axed? The only apparent reason seems to be is that the Abbott government does not want information about climate change to be available to his government nor to the public at large. This has a smell of burning libraries about it.

  • 11
    Josi V
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Or simply to raise the temperature to Fahrenheit 451.

  • 12
    Patriot
    Posted Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Well that worked a treat. Let’s try it on the ABC.

  • 13
    Malcolm Street
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    A key question is whether universities will make significant in-kind donations to the council by giving scientists time to do the council’s work. Unis are considering this now. Melbourne University has been considering picking up the Climate Commission / Council and running it out of the uni (the fact it was to be abolished has been known for some time).”

    And if any university tries to do this, watch the government come down on them like a ton of bricks. The priority given to VSU shows unis are already a prime target.

  • 14
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    SB- How much of a drain on taxpayers money is giving big polluters (who pay their CEO’s much more than $185k) billions to not achieve a 5% reduction in emmissions?

    And please provide evidence that 95% of Flannery’s predictions were wrong?

  • 15
    Daemon
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    It reminds me of the statistician who opined that 89.76% of all statistics were rubbish and the 10.24% had no basis in fact. I agree with Jimmy. Put your case Suzanne.

  • 16
    mikehilliard
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    SB - is there any reasonable issue you do support?

  • 17
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    @ daemon

    Flannery wrongs: Sydney Dam empty by 2009, similar in Brisbane. Water level rises, when in fact Sydney Fort Denision levels have dropped since ealy 1900’s. Temp rised have stalled to practically nothing in last 15 years.

    His income has been well reported. He was living on a waterfront on Hawkesbury River a Copa Point!!! do as I say not as I do

  • 18
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    @ mikehilliard

    Yes I support stopping CSG mining in rural areas r any area that impacts the water table. I support better harvesting of rain water and getting more water to areas that can boost crop and rural production.

  • 19
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    SB - Even if all those predictions were wrong are you saying he has only made 3 predictions? Did he not predict anything about ice melting or more weather events?

    And as for the accuracy of his predictions the growth in temperature rises has slowed - that doesn’t mean they aren’t rising - the last decade was the warmest on record, the decade before that was the second warmest, the one before that was the third and so on.

    And I think there is plenty of evidence of sea level rises.

  • 20
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    Look at Fort Denison from 1900 - 1910 and 2000 - 2010, its dropped. Why?

    The IPC are a bunch of sock puppets who will write to keep themselves and their mates in jobs. They want write to disband themselves!!!

  • 21
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    SB - Looking at one set of data from one point does not an argument make.

  • 22
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    SB - this is from the CSIRO

    High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century.”

  • 23
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    And this is from wikipedia
    “Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7]”

  • 24
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    And this is from wikipedia probably written by a looney Green

    Looks at Fort Denision actual data - not satellite that is inaccurate

  • 25
    Sophie Benjamin
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Sophie Benjamin here, Crikey website producer.

    There is some robust debate in this thread but can I please ask people to move the tone of the discussion to something less personal. At Crikey we endorse the technique “play the ball and not the person.” In other words, please don’t attack each other. Please keep this in mind and consult our code of conduct for more info.

  • 26
    Daemon
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Sophie,

    Perhaps folks could look at this as an example of how to relax before posting:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHdmviq1kyg

  • 27
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    What percentage of fact is personal opinion?

  • 28
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    SB - Here are the references from wikipedia -^ Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan (2007) “Section 5.5.1: Introductory Remarks” in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 Chapter 5: Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1
    4.Jump up ^ Fischlin; et al., “Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas – Impacts”, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007, Chapter 4: Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and Services, p. 234
    5.^ Jump up to: a b Church, John; White, Neil (January 6, 2006). “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise”. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L01602. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3301602C. doi:10.1029/2005GL024826. L01602. Retrieved 2010-05-17. pdf is here [1]
    6.Jump up ^ Nicholls, Robert J.; Cazenave, Anny (18 June 2010). “Sea-Level Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones”. Science Magazine 328 (5985): 1517–1520. Bibcode:2010Sci…328.1517N. doi:10.1126/science.1185782.
    7.Jump up ^ IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.

    But I am sure you will say that they are all less reliable than the Fort Dension reading you are basing your whole argument on - by the way do you have a reference for it?

  • 29
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    And this is from the natinal geographic - “Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.”

    Are you ready to admit that even if Flannery only made the 3 predictions you referred to the sea level one was correct and given your lack of argument against ricing temperatures that it was correct as well giving him 66% accuracy as opposed to the 95% inaccuracy you asserted?

  • 30
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    SB - I got this from a report by the NSW dept of climate change in 2008 entitled - Fort Denison Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Study
    “From detailed ana l ysis of global tide gauge records, IPCC (2007) concluded that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to 20th century and that the total 20th century rise was estimated to be 17 ± 5 cm. IPCC (2007) similarl y concluded that global average eustatic sea level rise over the period from 1961 to 2003 is estimated at 1.8 ± 0.5 mm/yr.
    The most accurate measured sea level rise data from satellite altimetry dating back to late 1992, indicates sea level rising during this period at approximately 3.1mm/year.
    Although this is only a relativel y short record, these rates equate to the upper limit trajectory for modelled sea level rise over the 21st century as projected by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (2001 and 2007). At present, a synthesis of the best available scientific information suggests that sea level rise in Sydney Harbour due to climate change could range from around 4-38cm and 16-89cm by 2050 and 2100, respectively.”

    You will note that it rates satellite altimetry as the most accurate measure. - seems you are wrong again.

  • 31
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Finally SB, just so I don’t ever have to ehar you peddling that Fort Dennison rubbish again -
    ““Figure 4 shows monthly average and yearly averaged water level data from Fort
    Denison. The record has not been adjusted for anomaly drivers (such as MSLP), so
    represents the measured water level at the gauge. The long-term sea level trend of
    0.94 mm/year is clearly apparent, as are variations to the average rate of rise.
    The last 20-year period, covering the data range of the other MHL gauging sites, is
    associated with sustained El Nino conditions, generally associated with drier, less
    stormy conditions in Australia. This causes a depressing of regional sea levels and is
    seen as a slowing of sea level rise in the Fort Denison data to 0.4 mm/year for 1986-
    2007 (MHL1881). This would imply that gauges across NSW with datasets of
    approximately 20 years will underestimate sea level rise.”
    ww.coastalconference.com/2011/papers2011/Ben%20Modra%20Full%20Paper.pd

  • 32
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    On the Fort Denision, I went into the Mitchell Library next to Parliament House when I was down in Sydney a few years back, after I read about it in a free magazine AFLOAT. I was from the official records converted into metric

  • 33
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    So SB as you can see from the post above those “official records” were not “adjusted for anomaly drivers” so they are only half the story and taken alone are irrelevant.

    The fact is that sea levels are rising, they have risen faster in the last 20 years than the previous 80 and this is demonstrated through any measure you wish to use, gauge, core samples or Satellite.

    Now if you would have the good grace to admit you were wrong that would be appreciated.

  • 34
    Daemon
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    @ Klewso 18.453%

  • 35
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Suzanne famously predicted that Tone would be replaced before the election.
    How about after the election?
    The Worst Prime Minister in Australia’s history!
    Bone The Tone, anyone can see that he is not needed anymore, even the conservatives.
    He was only needed to get Murdoch on board and that “person” is not needed any more.
    Some citizens can remember how the Coalition spent its time in opposition during the Whitlam years telling anyone who would listen, and many did, that the “communists” had taken over in Australia.
    How much more credible would Labor politicians be, touring the world telling all who would listen, and many will, that Murdoch controls the Australian Government, and that they would not have won without the constant support Murdoch media monopoly.
    So how much longer, Suzanne, before his colleagues, faced with this entirely plausible description of the new Australian government, ceremoniously despatch “The Murdoch Man” and end his “illegitimate” authority?
    One can see foreign governments, of all political persuations, nodding sagely as they consider the “Murdoch Government” moniker which so closely describes the Abbott led Coalition.
    And how pleased they would be, as politicians, to see the too powerful Murdoch put in his place.
    A “Murdoch Government” led by a life long “Murdoch Man”, on the Murdoch payroll since he was a teenager.
    Unlike the “Whitlam is a Communist” ( he beat Nixon to Beijing, remember) lie peddled by the Liberals in the seventies “A Murdoch Government” is patently and obviously, true.
    Isn’t it Suzanne?

  • 36
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    @ Hamis Hill

    Oh Hamis, you must be beside yourself seeing the end of Gillard and Rudd and the has to happen split that Shorten - Albanese will create (when one groups votes for one and the other for the other!!!).

    I do think Abbott will be replaced before the election, and Turnbull will take over and their vote will increase.

    Already consumer sentiment has improved and they will see the economy surge and more reason why Labor has no show and the Greens will loose more votes. (gee they lost half their HoR votes, tears tears tears!!!).

    I couldnt care less about Murdoch, just the lefties are in a sweat of hims. But stand by and clap the ABC extreme lefties. Murdoch backed Rudd in 2007, but the lefties forget that quickly.

    Cheer up

  • 37
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Why Sacking The Prime Minister Might Help The Coalition?

  • 38
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    SB - There have been plenty of articles written recently discrediting your “Already consumer sentiment has improved and they will see the economy surge” theory, some even on this site.

    And I am still waiting on that admission regarding sea level rises.

  • 39
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Jimmy

    You need to look at objective sites!! Not GLEC’s

    It has improved, so too real estate.

    Fort Denision levels dropped I know that, I am sure some levels may have risen somewhere on the planet.

    The Global Warming scare did not even feature during election, as game was up. hence collapse in Green vote. Look at AEC ebsite for Green vote collapse proof. It halved!!!

  • 40
    Jimmy
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    SB - I am not arguing that “confidence” has improved, I am arguing that you are severely over estimating the effect it will have on the actual economy - to borrow from BK’s article recently “As US economist Paul Krugman said, the “fairies of confidence” and the “imps of expectations” are nothing but ephemera in the greater scheme of things, there to wave their wands when all else fails.”

    Fort Denision levels dropped I know that, I am sure some levels may have risen somewhere on the planet.” This just shows your complete lack of understanding, you have 1 piece of information but you lack the capability to understand what that information means.

    And the game is far from up - the evidence just gets stronger.

  • 41
    Malcolm Street
    Posted Thursday, 26 September 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Suzanne Blake - Fort Denison is *one* data point only in a global picture, where *average* levels have risen.

  • 42
    Dennis Bauer
    Posted Friday, 27 September 2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    I love my Planet and i love democracy, i love science,
    i love Mathematics, and if i can afford it i will keep donating at least $10 to $20 a month to Tim and his mob.
    Why does all of the above make me a communist or a lefty.
    I did once volunteer to stop the communist and the Domino effect from happing,i had no effect what so ever,in fact after the first skirmish i decided i would be better off at home.
    And now a lot of my young friends dont have a job because the pariotic western companys gave all the job’s to the communist,it worries me a little that you dont need democracy to gain vast personnel wealth. So a 17 Century bloke once came up with the science that for every action there is a opposite and equal reaction, take all the carbon out of the ground and put it in the air needs investigation by science surely.

  • 43
    Harry Rogers
    Posted Monday, 30 September 2013 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    Jimmy you demean you’re intelligence by automatically name calling our PM (Mr blot’s) .

    Don’t put yourself in the same class as the ignorant who can only name call with no legitimate argument be it in the past against our previous PM’s Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd.

    The gutlessness of commentators on these forum with abusive name calling only diminishes the value of debate.

  • 44
    Harry Rogers
    Posted Monday, 30 September 2013 at 4:03 am | Permalink

    The problem with the climate debate and many so called green policies is that the players in the debate are more important than the debate. Bob Brown eg became more important than the purpose of the debate on eco tourism in Tasmania.

    I don’t blame Brown for this because it exemplifies what the interest from the media does to somebody with a legitimate concern. They become stars and believe that they are the purpose of the discussion and wallow in the attention.

    Fortunately there are people who are in the background trying to resolve these issues less on a point scoring basis but on a real world solution.

  • 45
    Jimmy
    Posted Monday, 30 September 2013 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Harry - I wasn’t referring to the PM but to a News Ltd editorialist who’s name enacts the moderator - I merely used an anogram

  • 46
    Harry Rogers
    Posted Monday, 30 September 2013 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy,

    Fair enough, mea culpa,my misinterpretation.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...