Oct 12, 2017

Rundle: Howard and Abbott are delusional, self-indulgent, climate-denying throwbacks

When you imagine the level of rage that Tony Abbott must be living with, the "climate change is good" speech makes perfect sense.

Guy Rundle — Correspondent-at-large

Guy Rundle


Don’t the Australian denialist right just love the Global Warming Policy Forum, the venue for Tony Abbott’s now notorious “climate change is good” speech. The private body, spun off from UK “charity” the Global Warming Policy Foundation, after the latter nearly lost its tax-deduction status, was founded by former UK Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson, whose discredited book on climate change has become a black bible for the denialists. John Howard spoke to the GWPF four years ago, and it was there that he revealed that he’d been lying about his beliefs about climate change while in politics. The Rodent had announced “significant measures” on climate change, in 2007, as the election loomed. In 2013, he “recanted”:

“Mr Howard said his government proposed a carbon emissions trading scheme in 2006 in the face of a political ‘perfect storm’ on the issue.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

72 thoughts on “Rundle: Howard and Abbott are delusional, self-indulgent, climate-denying throwbacks

  1. alan austin

    “Abbott has to wake up every morning and realise that his life is something of a cosmic joke, focused on an ambition achieved, which then revealed to him that his very essence could be summed up as being someone with no aptitude to make successful that ambition in the first place.”
    But where does culpability lie for the destruction he has wrought?
    With Mr Abbott? With the voters in his electorate? Or with the party that made him its leader?

    1. Barbara Haan

      All of the above.

  2. AR

    Grundle’s aeropagitica is, as usual, …interesting, though geography is not his forte – “200 million Bangladeshis do not march north into China, out of uninhabitable thirst-lands“.
    Would that be the Bangladesh in danger of inundation due to being the Ganges delta, barely above sea level, with the world’s largest,widest, highest, most forbidding mountain range to the north?
    We’ve oft been treated to his cogitations on the irresistible tide of his beloved policy/knowledge class, the demise of the repugs and tory parties generally and the usual bien pissant pontifications of the latte set and similar pyrotechnical polemics.
    It is said that it is nigh impossible to change the mind of someone whose very livelihood, never mind spiritual/internal justifications, depend on a falsehood. They don’t want to know else they’d have to admit that their life has been a lie and waste of time.
    It is like gamblers who continue to win back their losses rather than simply cease.
    This is almost the definition of the right – there may be leftist AGW deniers but, apart from Bonehead O’Nihil at Spiked I can’t think of one off hand.

  3. klewso

    Coal (donation) addicts – using their positions to benefit their dealer –
    justifying their addiction.

  4. kyle Hargraves

    “They know how science works, they use science every time they get a prescription filled, they know that catastrophic results are possible, and global-disastrous results probable. They just don’t care. They would rather see the planet burn than admit that the green/environmental movement was right. Call them nihilists, call them self-delusional, self-indulgent, in upmarket settings.”

    Well that remark is just a restatement of the obvious. Abbott, I suspect, is only too clear as to the effects of Climate Change. The point is that in regard to the contribution to emissions that effect an increase in temperature about a third come from the USA, Asia and Europe. The contribution from Australia is negligible and thus Abbott et al clam, with some justification, that were to Australia to do “everything” or nothing the overall result would be the same. Therefore, to protect industry etc the most economically rational course is for Australia to do nothing. I really is as simple as that.
    It is not a matter of “They just don’t care “; the point is that even if “they” did care the concern would have no effect. As an aside, as inferred by another contributor, would the reporters at Crikey desist in making exaggerated comments (or attempting to scare the chooks as one put it). The silly assessment : “Call them nihilists, call them self-delusional, self-indulgent, in upmarket setting” serves only to undermine the discussion and the article presented.

    “They” may be liars (in their desire to keep the complex argument simple) but “they” are not self-delusional or nihilist. It fact is is a near-perfect example of just how the political game is played.

    1. gerald butler

      Dress it up with whatever semantics you want but admit they are fucking liars.
      As for ‘why should little us bother’, if everyone thought like that we might as well have a nuclear war now and get it over with.

  5. Paddy Forsayeth

    I wonder if I have introduced a new slang phrase…deja poo! i e “I think I have read this shit before?” when reading the denialist stuff from Abbott and co. We have a local nutter who writes letters to our local telling scientific lies. Each time I get the feeling of deja poo!

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details