UPDATE: The more I think about this, the more sinister it seems. Gillard won’t put the policy on the table for all of us to debate, but she’ll get a quasi-mandate for an ETS by proxy. She’s playing both sides of the field. The Greens will assume the “citizens committee” will be convinced, they’ll be angry at the delay, but vote for the ALP anyway, the mainstream voter thinks they can relax and worry about it later. The skeptics know that any committee can be whitewashed or biased, and Gillard has pretty much said an ETS is inevitable. Michael Cejnar in #7 is exactly right (read his comment).
What’s a politician to do to convince the masses? They’ve tried the panel of 2,500 so-called experts at the UN who spend five years writing 3,000 page reports. They’ve tried spending millions on advertising campaigns, prize winning documentaries, coloring in competitions in schools, and they’ve tried bullying, name-calling and endless rounds of repetition.
Now instead of convincing the masses, they’ll just “convince” 0.01%. Democracy be done with it.
By “moving forward” to the Rudd summit of 2008 (or as Bolt points out, the Republican deliberative-poll farce of 1999) Gillard thinks if we pin down 150 people and subject them to more PR, more staged events, and what… are we giving them a job for a year? She thinks this will do the trick?
On the Republican committee of 1999, Bolt shows how bad it was at being a guide to the public consensus:
After two days of solid nagging, these (350) “ordinary Australians” backed the republic by an overwhelming 73 per cent. Just one month later the rest of the nation voted on the same proposal at the referendum—and rejected it in every state.
This is not how democracy works. We elected representatives to consider issues, we don’t draw names out of hats. If our elected reps won’t read both sides of the story and make up their minds, let’s have a referendum.
The only good news is this “plan” will cost the country a million times less than the ETS.
POST NOTE: The bad news is that it will cheat the country out of a proper debate.
Gillards new Climate Change Plan
ABOUT 150 ordinary Australians would be randomly chosen to develop the nation’s response to climate change under a re-elected Gillard Government.
Julia Gillard will today pledge to set up a Citizens’ Assembly to spend 12 months examining the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the consequences of putting a price on emissions. About 150 community representatives from a range of ages and backgrounds would be randomly chosen to take part in the 2020 Summit-style panel.
“They would be voluntary participants, but selected through the census/electoral roll by an independent authority,” Ms Gillard says.
This looks like a sincere do-nothing response that will make the greens angry about the delay, but conveniently keep the issue out of the election debate.
“If I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change, then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change.” (my emphasis)
Not persuaded? Persuaded by whom? Who gets to speak?
Then is this the slip-of-the-tongue that shows it’s all a sham or the token platitude for the Green-preferences:
But she says she will not allow the nation “to be held to ransom by a few people with extreme views that will never be changed”. (my emphasis)
Extreme views? You mean like the paid up gravy train participants who think we need to redevelop our energy sources from scratch even though there’s no empirical evidence that a catastrophe is on the way; the models they’re based on are known to be wrong; and the benefits are uncertain and in most cases unmeasureable? They’re the ones trying to hold the nation to ransom.
The Age has a poll that shows 89% are unconvinced that another committee will achieve anything.
Gillard has already made up her mind.
From Sky news:
Ms Gillard recommitted to the need for a market mechanism to meet emissions reduction targets.
Tougher emissions standards will be implemented to ensure energy generation is ‘cleaner and greener’.
Labor also will spend $1 billion over 10 years to make it easier to connect renewable energy projects to the electricity grid.
Another $100 million will be provided to work with financial institutions to develop new renewable energy projects.
Wait a minute, I didn’t realize the experts on renewables were bankers: Goldman-Sachs-Geothermal, Westpac-Wind and Suncorp-Solar? Silly me.
But the committee are not the ones who decide anything anyway. After all that work and money they are merely an expensive polling device. (The riggable substitute referendum).
‘The roll of the citizens assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus but to provide and indicate back to the nation the progress of community consensus,’ Ms Gillard said.
There’s also a Climate Change Commission with “Experts”
The prime minister also committed to the creation of a climate change commission to explain the science of climate change.
The commission would report on international progress on climate change.
Deputy Opposition Leader, Julie Bishop, says there is a fundamental dishonesty about Labor’s Climate Change Policy.
“She’s putting off any decision, any policy on climate change,” she said.
“She says she believes in a carbon price, she’s done a preference deal with the Greens, who believe in a carbon tax, I think this distraction of a committee of 150 people is designed as a smoke screen.”
The Age: A preposterous PR machine
The Age of course doesn’t welcome another “expert” panel, because alarmists already have a 100% grip on all the so-called expert-panels around, so they can only lose:
The new Climate Change Commission could be seen as part of the spin, especially given that the existing CSIRO is already a well-respected and established authority on climate science. If climate sceptics are included in the new body purely for the sake of “balance”, it would be a backward step and a politicisation of the science. But a new body that is seen as neutral and authoritative would be a force for good.
Here’s Ben Cubby of the free press shamelessly arguing for no-free-speech for people who hold different scientific opinions to him. But then wait for it, having said “no dissent” he then says it would be good if it was … seen as neutral. In his twisted world of cult like belief in a scientific hypothesis, sceptical scientists who ask for no legislation, “politicize” things and scientists who demand you to pour your money into their pronouncements are not?
Addendum in political machinations
Rudd has confirmed he is talking to the UN about a part time job as a climate representative. That step ladder to the Secretary Generals position beckons.
h/t Peter D.
Bolts summary is a corker.
The Rowling Labour government in NZ used the ‘citizen jury’ approach to vexed (difficult for politicians to tell the truth about) questions some decades ago; didn’t work then, won’t work now. The NewLabour term for them in the UK was ‘focus group’ which nobody even whispers now.
I suspect various Labour and labour-style political parties around the world have strategy manuals filled with handy hints for fooling the voters. Time they biffed this one!
10
Well this seems to be the UK govts. plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10725394
Odd for a government promising to be the greenest evaah!
10
The only good I can see in this tangled morass is that Julia wants to postpone the ETS indefinitely and time is what the sceptics need.
However, to appease the Greens and similar warmers billions will be sacrificed on non-performing renewable energy window dressing.
10
I sent this off to my Labor MP today to get him in the right frame of mind:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40109.html
10
And if that wasn’t enough…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10676997
Sometimes I think that Gillard “gets it”. What else might explain the procrastination? I realise Abbott has to deal with a couple of contentious senators but I don’t believe that doing a “green lite” thing will work.
10
Fine. Julie Gillard is a collectivist waffler – she doesn’t want to do a carbon tax without putting on a show trial. The delay is reviled by everyone, but especially the Greens who have a vested interest in limiting public exposure to a rational analysis of the facts.
Ironically, even the people who know a carbon tax is nonsense are incensed by her citizen assembly plan, even though it guarantees nothing will happen for at least two years while opens up the possibility of a national debate…
Gillard announced this plan while being physically attacked by green protesters for not acting immediately. Unless the whole thing was staged, it’s evidence that Gillard wants to buy time on the carbon tax. Buying time in the climate debate makes you a de facto enemy of those who want to move now before the public can learn anything more about the real facts in the debate.
Time to rationally analyse the evidence overwhelmingly favours the sceptical argument against the AGW hypothesis and trashing our economy “to save the planet.”
Instead of dissing Gillard, the opposition should be working to position itself so as to influence how the “citizens assembly” is convened and ensure the science received is both pro and con. The opposition should call Gillard’s bluff, if that’s what it is. Does she want an open debate on the science before the nation or an exercise in Orwellian indoctrination?
The opposition and the sceptical science position have nothing to lose. They’re already locked out of the mainstream media and perhaps control of the parliament after the election. This is an opportunity to demand a rational national climate debate. Seize the moment!
10
This is Gillard side stepping democracy in a Machiavellian stroke of genius.
Most parties take big policies to the election for people to decide, remember Howard and the GST.
This non-policy makes everybody happy – warmists assume greens will force an ETS, sceptics see this as a welcome stalling tactic and the disinterested majority won’t be stirred out of slumber on ETS. After the election Gillard can sway the 150 people either way and claim to have had an electorate mandate. Just brilliant!
Howard could have promised to get 150 people to decide on the need for a GST after the election and got the GST legislation without asking the voters.
Australians are having their democracy stolen right under their nose by Gillard – but apparently can’t see it or don’t give a stuff.
Ha, ha … Clive Hamilton just wanted to suspend democracy – Gillard has found a way to bypass it altogether.
Ha ha, someone call me the men in white coats, I am obviously hallucinating.
10
Mark @2. Strange the new UK govt saves $3 million by cutting this agency when it is investing 50 billion pounds into wind and new transmission lines. Dr. John Etherington has a great expose out; “The Wind Farm Scam”. Nuclear is by far the cheapest option. France has nuclear (nearly 80% of it’s power) at 30 UK pounds per MWh. UK wind by comparison is 72 pounds/MWh for onshore turbines and 92 pounds/MWh for offshore turbines. Without the obscene subsidies, largely indirect, the wind power industry would be defunct. The Australian group, Zero Emissions?, wants us to be totally renewable by 2020. They should read the book. Any government who pushes wind power after the European experience of failure should be thrown out for incompetence. If it failed everywhere else what on earth makes them think it will work any better here? Even the great example, Spain, is installing 13 plus GW of gas turbines to cover the inefficiencies of wind.
My question however is this. I am confused as usual by the conflicting data coming to a screen near me. We have been told June 2010 is the hottest on record (globally) and that 2010 will be the hottest year ever (measured). The Pacific and Indian Oceans around Oz are both very warm. At the same time David Archerbald says we are headed for a potential solar minimum. The PDO has moved to cool and La Nina has replaced El Nino. When will we see a downward trend in the global temps? I need the info for letters to the Editor etc.
10
Here is my tip, anyone who is a skeptic and commented on this blog, WUWT, or CA, will never be included in the 150.
10
@Wes George
I fear you are wrong – do you want to place future of ETS and our industry in the hands of 150 people handpicked by Labor (random my ar*se).
She WILL introduce an ETS – its the deal with the Greens.
Abbott should be screaming that Gillard will bring in a huge new tax with the Greens. If people scare easy enough to believe Abbot is stupid enough to lose a second election by bringing Work Choices back, they will have to be worried that Gillard / Greens will tax them big.
Labor / Greens will bring in the Great Big New ETS Tax by subterfuge without asking the voters.
10
Chris in OZ: #9
Hmmm, perhaps that is why some people use a nom-de-plume when posting here?
10
Mark @5. If she was serious about saving money they would stop the foolishness of wind farms and let the consumers keep some more money in their pockets. The assessment of how much CO2 is “saved” by wind energy is rather embarrassing for the proponents. Since turbines rarely produce more than 30% of installed capacity and since they require continuous backup from coal or gas they don’t save much CO2 at all. Their only real benefit is to make their owners very rich and consumers very poor. Sounds like another green dream. The vet gave my dog a green dream once. The dog died peacefully. Maybe wind turbines will meet the same fate.
10
Michael, it is very likely Gillard will be elected and the Greens will hold the balance of power. The future of ETS is in their hands already. Julia is simply stalling for time with the citizen assembly. I wonder why? Is it a dog whistle for help from the opposition? The key point is that the citizen assembly will have to be presented with the AGW evidence. The opposition might want to work for equity in the presentation, as well as transparency and perhaps even to elevate this whole exercise into a real national debate live on TV. Gillard is suggesting a kind of limited national referendum. This is a game changer. No one has wanted an open climate exposition ever, no one but the skeptics. We should well remember the situation we are in today – locked out of the debate. Could this be any worse?
10
Michael Cejnar: #10
I agree.
As I have said before, Rudd was a street fighter. Gillard is far more dangerous than that!
She knows that taking the ETS to the electorate – taking it to a poll – would be a loosing strategy. That is what the Labour Party strategy unit is telling her, and that is what her polling agency (or agencies) are telling her.
But to (mis)quote Smegol, “We wants it, my Precious, we wants an ETS, don’t we my Precious”.
So, she does the disappearing policy trick (making the policy vanish, as if by magic), only to reappear from stage left after the applause of the election has died down.
Where her advisors are letting her down, is in thinking that the electorate are dumb enough not see the sleight of hand.
And if Abbot has got two brain cells to bang together, he will make mincemeat out of this, whether he cares about an ETS or not.
10
Lawrie:
I can see the contradictions, believe me. While socialists can’t be seen to openly contradict the dogma, they are not blind to what happened to Sarkozy’s party in the French regional elections. He proposed a carbon tax and got done like a first class french dinner. Italy and Spain have slashed subsidies to these parasite industries. They are a financial black hole.
Here in Oz, Turnbull was rolled in possibly the greatest grass-roots revolt in Liberal history. By some estimates MPs and Senators wilted under an avalanche of 400,000 faxes and emails. For the moment though, they are still too scared to call the emperor naked. The reason for that is the big end of town.
10
What worries me is that the word “citizen” is usually used by ratbags. Think “Citizens Electoral Council”. Is Julia a ratbag?
You guys should all smile, as it is clear Julia is delaying action for fear of a backlash.
There will be no action in Australia unless the US actually does something.
10
Citizen John Brookes,
An American ETS or carbon tax is dead and buried. Julia, the ratbag, is way ahead of you. I’m not exactly smiling. It’s more of a sardonic smirk.;-)
10
John:
The day we smile will be the day that “AGW/CC” is dead, cremated and buried.
Oh, we would like to think that some of the main protagonists would finish up in the “big house” for fraud as well. If it was good enough to lock up Mr. Madoff it’s good enough to lock up Phil Jones and Michael Mann. They’ve been responsible for the profligate use of untold billions of dollars which could have been put to much better use for ALL of mankind, not just them and their cohorts.
I note that Douglas Keenan has publicly accused Phil Jones of fraud. Wonder why Jonesy doesn’t sue. Afraid of what might be revealed in a real court perhaps?
10
Funny how the USA has postponed their “Carbon Tax” bill and how this government is looking for time to do the same.
Ironic isn’t it?
10
So if the Joolya gets elected, who will be our prime minister at the next election?
Does anyone want to bet on how many Prime ministers we might have between now and then?
10
I think this is just spin to con voters into believing that an ETS is not on Labor’s agenda should they win, as is likely, the forthcoming election. I expect that a following a Labor win and with the Greens having balance of power in the Senate we can expect an ETS sooner rather than later.
Gillard’s comments are at odds with her stated position and Labor policy. The propaganda campaign has already started. On a daily basis we have a variety of pundits claiming that the majority of Australian’s want immediate action on climate change and a carbon price is the best solution.
It would be foolish to take Gillard at her word, ask Rudd, the opportunities in terms of control and revenue will I think prove irresistible and Gillard knows that on the whole we are an apathetic bunch and let’s face it if you have to change the timing of a political debate because it clashes with a reality television program its a fair call.
10
Hey,
Didn’t the RED QUEEN – or was it deposed KING HOT? – say a while back that OZ would wait to see what US of A did before we’d do anything – or something?
US of A has delayed CAP’N’TRADE “indefinitely” this week, but RED QUEEN neglected to mention it today.
Curiouser and curiouser….!
ALICE (in WARMERLAND)
10
My immediate sense of the Gillard sweet talk is that she is behaving in a moderate fashion to clinch the election so that afterwards, having already done a deal with the greens, Labour can attempt to yet again push the ETS through (as Michael @ 10 commented). I think we have established here, that the ETS is not related to Earth’s climate but is some form of global taxation which the power-that-be have already discussed behind closed doors at G20 meetings etc.
10
‘..Another $100 million will be provided to work with financial institutions to develop new renewable energy projects…’
Why was Malcolm so keen on ETS?
10
UPDATE: The more I think about this, the more sinister it seems. Gillard won’t put the policy on the table for all of us to debate, but she’ll get a quasi-mandate for an ETS by proxy. She’s playing both sides of the field. The Greens will assume the “citizens committee” will be convinced, they’ll be angry at the delay, but vote for the ALP anyway, the mainstream voter thinks they can relax and worry about it later. The skeptics know that any committee can be whitewashed or biased, and Gillard has pretty much said an ETS is inevitable. Michael Cejnar in #7 is exactly right.
Now instead of convincing the masses, they’ll just pretend to “convince” 0.01%. Democracy be done with it.
Allan @ #21! Yes. Yes. Yes.
POST NOTE: The bad news is that it will cheat the country out of a proper debate.
10
Pat Michaels (click) followed Kevin Rudd into a toilet. (click)
US Senate kills green energy legislation.
Funny.
10
Jo
The comments at Andrew Bolt are revealing.
Lachlan’s tip may have catalysed things and Keith has a very good point but I’m with Dave, that Labor are actually giving up on Climate Change but need a shield to weasel out. That would explain the wails from greenshirts. They know a welshing woman when they see one!
10
I wish that Gillard would ask 150 people, randoml chosen to see if we should remove taxes or not, and many other laws and regulations. Thus we would be able to do away with parliaments, senates and the big salaries invloved etc.
But this is nothing but shirking of one’s reponsibilities. Gillard should continue on this streak of genious and leave the running of this country to 150 people chosen at random. That way we would aslo save the monies spent on useless elections
10
Watch out. The UK Government set up an “independent” Climate Change Committee, composed solely of fully paid up members of the warministas society.
10
Wake up guys Gillard does not need the carbon tax is already with us see this http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/carbon-trading-tax-McKibbin-Treasury-RBA-pd20100723-7LV94?OpenDocument&src=kgb
and https://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/7-8/the-great-renewable-energy-rort
we well on the way to destroying our economy already!
10
Will Gillard and her advisors ignore the online poll from yesterday that said the 90% think her idea of the citizens group is hot air ( I realise it is not a formal poll , but it is a damming result for the idea)? Alternatively is Abbott using it against Labour ?
Re wind farms — I read recently how Germany who have invested the most in this area in Europe now have to build 5 coalfired power stations to help balance the production fluctuations from the wind farms !!!
10
What proper debate? There was never any chance of a proper debate. Ever. Not until Gillard floated the “citizen assembly” thought bubble was there the remotest possibility of a any kind of national debate.
In politics, every crisis – we agree this is a crisis of leadership – is an opportunity to do things that you otherwise could not do. (h/t to Rahm) Politics isn’t about an ideal world, it’s about taking what you can get and making the best of it. The whole can be great the sum of the parts.
From the Australian:
But Jo Nova says:
Gillard already owns the field. Her election will be her mandate. In fact, she’s alienating the Greens with this, but doesn’t care, because they have no where else to go. Gillard never had to put the policy on the table for all of us to debate. Nor was any hint of debate even suggested, until she cracked the door open yesterday…Why isn’t it obvious that this is a major political concession to the skeptical position? If only the coalition is clever enough to play both sides of the field.
Of course they’ll try to stage manage the process. When has the skeptical position ever got a fair hearing publicly in the media? Should we just give up trying?
Abbott should counter-intuitively embrace Gillard’s plan with bi-partisan support then suggest labor and the coalition work towards a national climate consensus together.
This would lock in Gillard’s promise for a citizen assembly – before she realizes what bad politics for her side it really is – and give the coalition a place at the table to push for an equitable debate. That would be a game changer. Call Julia’s bluff. Give it high exposure. Make her live up to her plan. Make the plan unfold before a national audience and make it fairly allot equal time to both sides of the argument.
What? Julia doesn’t want an open, transparent and fair public debate? She doesn’t really want a bi-partisan consensus? Fine. Abbott could call her bluff. Expose this for what Jo Nova suspects it is, “a sinister plot.” It’s a win/win/win situation for the coalition…Abbott shows the coalition is not just the party of no and Julia’s plan is either exposed as a fraud or used to have a bloody real nation climate debate for the first time in history!
Politics is about consensus. The greens pretend every right minded Aussie wants to pay a carbon tax “to save the planet” This is our best chance to show that’s not true. But we can’t if we don’t engage, if we don’t play the game. If we just spit the dummy and say the rules aren’t fair and we’re going home with the ball…. What? Oh, yeah, we don’t even own the ball, do we? So they’ll be happy to play on without us.
10
Barbie Joyce summed it up perfectly last night. Australia already has 150 citizens selected to represent the nation as a whole;it’s called Parliament. It already exists, and is backed up by billions of dollars worth of infrastructure.It’s for reasons like this, that the institution was created in the first place. What we are seeing here is nothing less than attempt to bypass Parliament.
10
Binny,
Joyce is taking the easy sledge that feels good, but it is pretty useless a political strategy, which might be one of the reason the coalition needs a few more years in the wilderness. They’re not hungry enough to play the ball like it matters.
Why would Joyce take up a position that backs up the Greens? wouldn’t it be cleverer to embraces Gillard’s position on developing a consensus through a close national examination of the facts and condemn the Greens as extreme minority who want to impose a carbon tax on Australia without first having a debate?
10
Wes @ 32. I tend to agree with you , because I’ve always said this issue will ultimately come down to a political “solution”. But if one is to take your approach make sure you have some very, very,intelligent, street smart people on your side of the table.
10
Guys
Has anybody considered just what damage a bit of thinly disguised revenge by “ he with the wounded ego” could wreak from a position on an international body in the name of “the Global Good”?
I doubt if the owners of the Chicago Carbon Exchange could hope for a more committed lobbyist (or the UN for its pursuit of global government).
10
The biggest problem with all the stalling is the uncertainty. Billions of dollars to be invested into power generators hangs in limbo when it is unclear what policies the future government is likely to implement:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/investors-call-for-clear-policy-on-carbon-20100723-10ors.html
Therein lies the problem… all this back and forth waffling and groping in the dark for a policy causes major political risks for industry.
10
Quoting yesterday’s press quoting Gillard:”If I am wrong,and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the need for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change”
Clearly the chosen few are being used as as some sort of focus group to gauge the effectiveness of the government’s AGW sales campaign.
It is not about science.It is not about democracy. They are being used to help the government develop more effective propaganda…or whatever is the politically correct term for false advertising.
10
IMHO Abbott need only bang on about the recent spate of electricity price rises across the country. We just had another one a month ago and probably a few of the newer bigger bills will have come in by the time of the election.
It’s been a cold winter here down South and both households and business have been under a bunch of other financial pressures, so there will be some outrage as the mail gets opened. When families can no longer afford to head their living rooms, they will be thinking about alternative government.
Cold winter, high electricity prices… that’s a campaign in itself.
10
Tel,
The media narrative is that higher electric rates are the results of uncertainty in the electric supply market over the carbon tax. If only labor/green coalition would simply commit to a carbon tax now then the electric suppliers could begin implementing the long term upgrades that are just waiting in the wings until the uncertainty passes. Don’t bother parsing the logic of that narrative. It is what it is. Banging on about electric rises won’t add much to Abbott’s support. It’s preaching to the converted.
What we need is a game changer. Gillard has handed the coalition a crisis on a silver plater. Will they let it go to waste?
10
From The Australian
Where has this girl been? The latest Kogan Creek Coal power station in Queensland features supercritical boiler technology, which means that steam is produced at a higher pressure and temperature compared to a conventional subcritical boiler design used in many power
stations in Australia. The air-cooling technology used at the power station
results in 90 per cent less water use than a conventional
wet-cooled power station. The air-cooled condenser
operates like a giant car radiator, forcing air over finned
tubes containing exhaust steam from the turbine. Hence no cooling towers.
99% of the particulate output is trapped in the chimney exhaust system.
The stations output from one boiler is 750MW compared to the typical 500MW.
I wonder what she means by tough new design standards!!
10
Janama she probably means they will all need to be like Kogan Creek?
However this 150 group ends up, can’t you guys see this is the illusion of doing something, while doing nothing, and then voting on the outcome next election should climate change even still be an electionworthy issue.
10
I don’t believe for a second Gillard is keen on an ets – it’s really just a posture. Her knees are knocking as loud as Rudd’s were when he realized he had to own it to make it happen. By the time this assembly is under way sceptics will be a lot stronger and more numerous than they are now, carbon trading policies will be in a state of shambles worldwide, and temperatures will be falling again.
Only last december Julia “said that delay was denial”. This woman would say or do anything to get from A to B. Bit like Rudd. What she really feels about climate change these days is anyone’s guess – bit like Rudd.
10
Janama,
Gillard been around, that’s where. By vowing to ban dirty fire coal plants that are already something of the past, she just scored political points for claiming credit for what is already the de facto state of the technology on the ground. I suppose a few engineers will roll their eyes, but the Greenies will swoon in droves.
MattB,
Aren’t you the atheist who believes God might exist? Now you’re the unskeptical warmist who believes drastic action must to taken to save the planet… but, ho hum, then again by the next election climate change might not even be an election issue?
10
Wes – Are you never able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes without carrying your biases? who knows what will happen in three years… she is hedging her bets… you never know it could be a Turnbull led Libs and a bipartisan approach to climate change next election. Maybe after the ALP romp it in this time it could be a new Lib leader passing one this upcoming term. who knows. Maybe the scientific consensus will be that climate change was a crock! Who knows.
10
By the next post he is the warmist that said:
Maybe the scientific consensus will be that climate change was a crock!
10
Good one Lance 🙂
10
Two things one must consider when the red head primeminstress speaks, is the fact that our new crop of labour have forgone the political art of polspeak,, That requires answers, no matter how vague or convoluted. Labour has opted for taqqiya or from the communist background called newspeak.
This method obviates the need to answer questions by usuaging the fears of the peons by talking in platitudes of future outcomes of the glitteringly wonderful future to come.
The other reason is the underlaying pragmatic sensibilities of the communist thought process. This has no doubt been tickled by the recent rush of science confounding the supposed truths of AGW. We must all remember that white can be any colour you want using newspeak.
10
Does this mean there will be 150 people who will be shown clear PHYSICAL evidence that global warming is REAL, HARMFUL and MAN-MADE? Amongst all the hype and hoopla, you can bet your bottom dollar that the evidence won’t be on the agenda.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Leaders like this?
http://www.bestads.tv/view/1005/fed-ex-lemmings/
10
Well I’m surprised you’re all so worried about this. The probability of the 150 being unsure is quite high. And maybe that’s what she wants.
So Joolya can hold her head up high and say to the Greens – well I tried – but it’s all just too complicated. We don’t have a consensus. Which means nothing changes.
I wonder how many people really care about AGW one way of the other. Isn’t everyone more worried about the footie, cricket going to Harvey Norman?
So anyway let’s assume it’s a silly idea.
So we still have an Australian population divided. A very complex issue. Most lay persons and pollies couldn’t understand the issue. It’s too technical. Time frames are too long.
How would Jo and the sceptics like to proceed? Serious question? Do we have an option C being posed ?
And do we need a climate policy at all. Bob Carter reckons we do?
10
If we are going to elect Parliament who are then going to draw names out of a hat to make decisions, how about we eliminate the middleman and just draw names out of a a hat to represent us in Canberra for 3 years? No election expenses, only a small proportion of power seeking psychopaths, carpet baggers and main chancers instead of nearly all of them and the numbers will be a reasonable sample of their extent in the general population. Make it 500 representatives so the squabbling will ensure that little gets done and we get a good sample. Pay twice what you earned as reported to the tax department averaged over the last 3 years.
10
Gillard is part of the Fabian world-wide movement who are simply Communists without the AKG47’s, but having the same goal – a socialist state ruled by an intellectual elite, (them). The Fabians now control the ALP AND the Greens.
I repeat Jo’s comment “Michael Cejnar in #7 is exactly right (read his comment).”
It’s been a predictable slide into serfdom…
10
http://www.alamut.com/subj/artiface/deadMedia/agoraMuseum.html
Hard to think of an idea in politics that hasn’t been already tried by either the Greeks or the Romans (or both).
10
Politicians have bags of tricks we can never dream of by using consultants that look for loop holes in the system or watch what tricks companies perform to generate a wishy-washy response.
But meanwhile, after the election, the cold sword into the back.
People have a short attention span and it is used quite effectively against us.
10
A citizens referendum is the only true reflection of the will of the people. I wouldn’t be interested in appearing at the 150 show sham, but the grand trial jury later down the road.
10
#51 Do nothing. Fire the bureaucrats employed on climate change. Make it clear to business that people running carbon trading schemes will be jailed for fraud. A witch hunt and some jail terms and large fines for the likes of Phil Jones etc wouldn’t do any harm and be good fun.
10
Gillard is nothing but a COMMUNIST PUPPET!
DON’T LET JOOLYA FOOLYA IN 2010!
http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-to-hand-over-climate-policy-to-citizens-assembly/story-e6frfllr-1225895870006
Why not form a 150-strong “citizens’ assembly” to plan policy on Boat People ? or The Mining Tax ?
If 76 people support it then it becomes Law ?
There is no Science in this solution.
Why do we need Political Partys anymore when we can just round up a few believers, stack the pews and push anything on to us ?
The absurdity is staggering.
and you wonder why we think there is more to the Climate Agenda than just Science.
[‘But while the citizens’ assembly is the centrepiece of the new policy, Ms Gillard has seemed to suggest at the same time it will not have the final say.
‘]
[‘”The role of this Citizens’ Assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus, but to provide an indication to the nation of the progress of community consensus and the issues that will need to be addressed in making the transition I have described today to a successful, lower pollution economy,” she has said.
‘]
So even if the Citizens’ Assembly disagrees then the government might still act or not act ?
Labor has said to Skeptics that if enough of you dont want it we might not do it.
Labor has said to Believers that if enough of you do want it we might do it.
That’s neither Policy nor Leadership.
Its about string along both sides of the argument to get them past the election post.
10
Subject: JULIA GILLARD, THE LABOR PARTY AND THE FABIAN SOCIETY
Even more significant is her present membership in the Australian Fabian Society, which she claimed absorbed the Socialist Forum! You’ll note in that link, in the interview she gave to ABC’s Tony Jones, she describes the Socialist Forum as “a sort of debating society”! Yeah, and Karl Marx was a free market conservative!!!
And who are the Fabian Society?
This is very informative and interesting on these SUBVERSIVE FABIANS:-
http://www.australiamatters.com/fabian.html
This is a picture of their famous stained glass window:-
http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/fabians/images/FabianWindow_Large.jpg
Look closely and you will see:-
1 The wolf in sheep’s clothing
2 The hammer being used to remodel the world to their will
3 The book with the title “New World Order”
There are probably other hidden things in there also, these are just the obvious ones!
Check out their definition:-
“Though we call ourselves a think tank, the Australian Fabians are more than this. We are based on a social and intellectual movement: the UK Fabian Society has been a central part of democratic socialist, social-democratic and Labor tradition thoughout the 20th century in Britain, and the Australian Fabians in Australia since 1947. Our output is thoroughly contemporary and relevant: by dint simply of who we are, it is organically connected to the history of the left.
Our goal is not merely (as by and large it is for other think tanks) to produce interesting ideas for the elite policy community. It is the promotion of socialist and progressive thought throughout society. We aim to change the intellectual climate of the Australia (and indeed of the wider world). We want to make broadly left of centre ways of thinking commonplace.”
Some of it’s members are (from Wikipedia, yeah, I know!):
Gough Whitlam (ALP Prime Minister 1972–75)
Bob Hawke (ALP Prime Minister 1983–1991)
Paul Keating (ALP Prime Minister 1991–1996)
John Cain (ALP Premier of Victoria)
Jim Cairns (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
Don Dunstan (ALP Premier of South Australia)
Geoff Gallop (ALP Premier of Western Australia)
Neville Wran (ALP Premier of NSW 1976–86)
Frank Crean (ALP Deputy Prime Minister)
Arthur Calwell (ALP Former Leader)
Race Mathews (ALP MHR and Victorian MLA)
John Faulkner (ALP Senator and National President)
Julia Gillard (ALP Australia’s first female Prime Minister)
John Lenders (ALP Treasurer of Victoria)
Phillip Adams (Broadcaster)
Among others!
Please Jooooowya, answer that, please!!
10
To re-quote Janama @41
From Christopher Monckton:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/questions_from_select_committee.pdf
QUESTIONS FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE CONCERNING MY RECENT TESTIMONY, these two paragraphs from page 23 state plainly the folly of putting unreasonable constraints on economically sustainable power generation are worth a re-airing.
While the above quote refers to the ill-appointed powers to the US,EPA, they are just as relevant to the future of Australia.
10
Now 100% renewables by 2030: from Australian Climate Madness.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/
How can people take these geese for real, if they do gain the balance of power those that put them there deserve every thing they get. Unfortunately the rest of us will be stuck with it as well.
10
Wes @32
Is the whole premise of your strategy based on Tony Abbott still being opposition leader after the next election?
Because it would be extremely dangerous for Abbott to propose this then find we have a Turnbull lead Coalition after the election which is highly likely imho. Also such a strategy kills off any chance of the Coalition comming from the clouds and winning the election with ETS scare campaign.
10
Well guys, there is another way:
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
http://landshape.org/news/
10
A Citizens Committee reminds me of the excesses of the French Revolution though I daresay the female representatives of Australia’s ‘Best and Brightest’ won’t bring their knitting along.
10
Cohers in #63. I think your climate skeptics party link is broken? It took me to a web page about a new centrist party… maybe the link is ok but it is just a typo.
10
[…] I Australien har den nytillträdda premiärminister Julia Gillard deklarerat att hon vill skjuta på beslutet om en cap-and-trade där. En ”Citizen’s Assembly” skall först (under ett år) gå igenom hela AGW-frågan. JoNova analyserar: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/gillards-non-plan-for-the-climate/ […]
10
Fittler:
Fittler #62
Turnbull’s personal poll ratings were down the dunny while he was leader, along with the party rating of the Coalition . I really don’t think he’s coming back, certainly not after the way he was deposed.
10
Mark #67
I don’t think that will matter much unfortunately as I cannot see another strong option on the right side of this issue. Unfortunately Hockey is also pro ETS most likely because his wife is the leading trader with one of the big banks in this country. Either way I will not vote for the Coalition if either of these 2 are leaders. Anyway today’s 2 polls give hope that Abbott can still pull off an election upset.
10
Fittler:
Yes, Hockey’s missus is with Deutsche Bank. You’re right also in that we have a problem in that nobody has the guts to tell the emperor that he is naked.
Libs aren’t even running in my seat. We have a choice of Labor, Greens, Socialist Alliance and a single issue Independent. Methinks the Informal candidate will do well.
10
Just to clarify Gillard’s position on the 150 group:
“If I am wrong,and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the need for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change”
Clearly the chosen few are being used as as some sort of focus group to gauge the effectiveness of the government’s AGW sales campaign.
It is not about science.It is not about democracy. The 150 are being used to help the government develop more effective propaganda.
At present Gillard with Green support is on track to impose a carbon price.
To state the obvious, anyone who can show the government is still on the wrong track has very little time to get that message into the PUBLIC arena.
10
Umm, the Skynews link is broken or they’ve taken down the article. Anyone got a mirror of it someplace?
10
MattB @ 45
Haven’t you been following along? It doesn’t matter what the scientific consensus is. No one here believes that science is decided by consensus.
10
GRANT!!! bejeebus you guys can be frustrating! This thread, ie what we are discussing, is about politics, not science.
10
So now you want to stick to the thread subject?
10
How many such facades of consultation do we have going in this country? They are a waste of time and taxpayer (or levy payer) dollars.
10
Well if 2500 scientists can’t convince the electorate maybe 150 ‘okker’ Aussies can do it.
I’m sure all 150 every day citizens are really conversant with climate science. I notice she would not consider Professor Bob Carter of the James Cook university to give her an opinion!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh no, that opinion might be the truth and that just would not do!!
The gall of this Gillard woman in trying to fool the Australian people. They’ve seen right thru the whole lie, the fraud, and still she tries to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.
I hope the electorate turn on her for insulting their intelligence.
She, as well as most others in government, know that the whole thing is a farce but cannot resist the rewards of a great big new tax on everything. As with all socialist governments they are devious & immoral to say the least.
10
Mark @ 69
Just a thought – unfortunately every vote the “informal” candidate receives is a vote that could have been used to put Labor ahead of the Greens. Using the “lesser of multiple evils” principle, a ballot paper example;
1.Labor
2.Independent
3.Socialist Alliance
4.Greens
Just sayin`…
10
The preference deal between Labor and the Greens would see the potential for the minor party to hold the balance of power in the Senate.
THIS IS A TRUELY DANGEROUS PROSPECT!
http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/bob-brown/20100720-10jan.html
REMEMBER THAT A VOTE FOR THE GREEN COMMUNISTS (The Greens) IS A VOTE FOR LABOR AND FRAUDULENT CARBON TRADING TO MAKE YOUR LIFE HELL!
10
SUBJECT:Radical roots seep through at the heart of Greens
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html
BE VERY AFRAID OF THE WATERMELON (The Greens) PARTY!!
10
Tim Blair originally who discovered and described the interesting and photogenic species ‘Ursus Bogus‘ has now found the name of the yearlong meeting of the intrepid 150 is Boganhagen .
10