Carbon tax bill:
Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Rundle: carbon tax a monument to Labor, and testimony to a burial” (yesterday, item 2). Guy Rundle still does not get it.
News Ltd and Andrew Bolt are simply channelling the aftermath what happened at the end of 2009 — Climategate and the collapse of Copenhagen.
While leading climate scientists such as Drs Hansen and Trenberth disagree about magnitude of global warming and the perplexing stasis of temperatures in the 2005-2011 period, other committed green propagandists are still chanting the doom and disaster line. Without the rest of the world following our lead — the effect on the climate of the Australian carbon tax will be negligible to infinitesimal.
Gillard does not believe the science — if she did she would not have talked Kevin Rudd out of his emissions trading scheme in 2010. Did the science change in the last year? Yes, if anything — the science is even more uncertain in the vital area of heat energy accumulation in the oceans. Gillard has seized on the carbon tax in a cynical ploy to shore up the Greens and appear to finally have a cause to champion.
The Canberra beltway is cheering the carbon tax — the masses of small businesses and individuals who will be uncompensated because they are too small, or not sufficiently trade exposed — will pay it.
Watch out, Julia — I predicted your carbon tax suicide note would finish you by Christmas — let’s make it March 2012 for the sake of settling in the puppy over the festive season.
Niall Clugston writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. Your editorial lauding the Greens over the carbon price legislation ignores the fact that the Greens voted down Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Of course, viewed through emerald-tinted glasses, the Greens were quite right to vote it down and any criticism of the Greens is a “public insult”. Some of us, however, would like the Greens to be judged like any other party.
Amy Huva writes: Re. “First Dog on the Moon” (yesterday, item 6). Bravo First Dog! Your Carbon Tax “the sky is falling in” cartoon had me in fits of laughter in the office this morning, which then required me to explain what exactly I was laughing at to my Canadian workmates. Hilarious!
Lachlan Howe writes: Re. “The quality journalism project: iconic Ita Buttrose” (yesterday, item 15). Thoroughly enjoying the insights that your “Quality Journalism Project” series has been unearthing over the past couple of months but I must admit that I am truly mystified by the answers offered by this week’s subject, Ita Buttrose.
In response to the question of what defines “quality journalism”, Buttrose states that “quality journalism is something that gives me the facts. I want the facts without prejudice.” Yet the No.1 position on her sources of quality journalism list is The Australian. The Australian? I can’t remember the last time that I read a solidly factual piece in that publication, a piece that wasn’t tinged with some kind of ideological agenda or dripping with petty prejudice.
The rest of her list is impressive enough but putting The Australian on top when you’ve established factual, non-prejudicial reporting as the hallmark of quality journalism almost completely negated the rest of her responses for me.
Better luck next time Crikey …
Justin Templer writes: Re. “Argus and Crawford rail against basic accountability” (yesterday, item 3). My sense of irony was tickled when I read Stephen Mayne’s report that Don Argus believes that “proxy advisers have too much power when institutions follow their recommendations and vote against various remuneration reports at poorly performing companies where executive pay has got out of hand”, given that just a day previous I was pontificating to colleagues that I did not understand why financial institutions just nod through remuneration reports and seem not to be interested in curbing excessive remuneration.
One of the great weaknesses of Australia’s corporate governance is the continued over-remuneration of CEO’s and directors as well as the recycling of incompetent talent within an incestuous gene pool.
An astronomer not an astronomist:
Jim Hart writes: Re. “Power Shots: does AJ have power? … urge to purge Rupert … Katter wagging parly …” (yesterday, item 13). There is convincing evidence from a range of respectable publications and lexicographical sources that our former chief scientist, Penny Sackett, was an astronomer not an astronomist as you and your scribe Matthew Knott would have it.
One could also call her a scientist and a physicist though probably not an astrologist.