JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Lies are OK if you believe says Richardson

Graham Richardson in The Australian

Graham Richardson says that a lie is not a lie if you believe what you say:

After the 2010 election, Julia Gillard had broken her core election promise that “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. Her credibility has never recovered from that moment. But I have never regarded this breach as a lie because I have never believed that she didn’t believe every word she solemnly uttered at the time.

So if I promise to split the pizza with you, but later change my mind, because the pineapple was tinned (how could I have foreseen that?) that’s alright then? You get the bill. I get free pizza.

Can I use this excuse for my tax return? Officer,  I really did believe it was true…

Gillard was hit by unforeseen circumstances:

The PM had no doubt never really contemplated the prospect of a hung parliament in which she lacked the numbers to dictate policy.

How could she possibly have known?

Gerard Henderson, Sydney Morning Herald August 17, 2010

“On Sunday, the Gary Morgan poll predicted the election would end in a hung parliament.”

“Sunday, Mark Latham commented that “in all likelihood Senator Bob Brown and his Green Party will control the next Parliament”

It would have been so different if she had a law degree, experience in Parliament and unlimited advisors right?  Oh wait… (Graham, do you think people will fall for this?)

She was only applying for the job to run the country.

This mess must be someone’s fault:

She never envisaged that in the new world of dependence on Greens and independents she would have to deal to get the job and then to keep it. Perhaps if she had acknowledged that reality, she would have not sunk so low in the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians.

Oh No. Graham. She doesn’t need to tell them. Ordinary Australians know she did a deal to get “the job”. They just hoped she might do a deal to make Australia a better place instead.

But blame the Greens, Oakshott and Windsor. They held all the cards. After all, everyone knew how keen they were to go with the Coalition.

Richardson laments the lack of voices speaking out for climate change in Australia:

“The leader of the free world, the most powerful man in the world, is proud to proclaim his belief in climate change.”

He wonders why…

“Why is it that Barack Obama is able to declare in his State of the Union address that he will, if necessary, act on climate change in defiance of his congress?”

Why? Because his election is over. Graham. Gone.


 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (90 votes cast)
Lies are OK if you believe says Richardson, 9.2 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/au6g7ac

208 comments to Lies are OK if you believe says Richardson

  • #
    Tristan

    She would have got away with it were that the only thing she did that got under people’s noses.


    Report this

    46

    • #
      Quack

      ha ha!!! I dont know who to believe anymore. all politicians are evil as a goldfish is wet


      Report this

      171

    • #
      Vlad the Impala

      You whippersnappers might be too young to recall that President George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) gave a solemn promise, “Read My Lips: No new taxes!”

      When the frenemy Demon-rats (Democrats) counseled him that he really needed to raise government receipts years later, then Bush eventually caved and raised taxes.

      Ohh, the caterwauling was intense by the main-stream media. The rending of garments, the gnashing of teeth they exhibited as they proclaimed through faux tears how SHOCKED they were that Bush raised taxes!

      Of course, they were intensely delighted that they had talked Bush into raising them, not least because it increased revenue (that they wanted) abut also because it probably cost Bush-the-First his re-election bid, giving us Bill Clinton (a gift that keeps on giving).

      But Gillard’s exact-same promise and immediate unforced reversal? Oh, that’s just what people sometimes MUST do for the greater good of her Government — err, people. Can’t judge her by THAT standard. Nooooo.
      /sarc


      Report this

      220

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Mr. Richardson’s apologia shouldn’t test the logical ability of an 11-year-old. It’ll probably satisfy the hard-core Labor vote though.


    Report this

    280

    • #
      Dennis

      Richardson has claimed previously that lies are acceptable, he also said “whatever it takes” to win. He also has an interesting history of personal wealth creation.


      Report this

      160

      • #
        larry oldmate

        Agree with your message. There’s a lot of semantics on here about the definition of a “lie” and that has it’s place. However IMO he might as well have said “repeat a lie often enough…..” Besides if she was telling the truth it would have been ever so more noble to use her resilient stubborness to prove that she was telling the truth rather than to wantonly, almost recklessly go out of her way to prove otherwise.


        Report this

        81

    • #
      Bulldust

      I call it the Costanza defence … as with most things in life, Seinfeld (the show) has dealt with this issue:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

      Perverted as it is, there is some truth to it, as there is with all good humour. At the risk of raising ire here, the onus is on sceptics to prove Julia Gillard knew she was going to implement a “carbon tax” when she said she wouldn’t. If she truly believed she wouldn’t at the time, it can hardly be called a lie afterwards. A broken promise? Hell yes. A lie … not so much, without evidence as mentioned above.

      Having said all that, I firmly believe she would have lost enough votes to end up in opposition had she not said what she did, and that, to me, was her greatest ‘crime’ and worthy of contempt. Simply having a hung Paliament does not dissolve one of all one’s pre-election promises and platforms, as she implied to voters immediately after the election.


      Report this

      91

  • #
    Pathway

    “It all depends on what the meaning of is,is.”


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I will stay out of this except to point out that to make it a lie (noun) requires intent to deceive.

    Absent intent it is not a lie.

    Those of us who insist that science be conducted according to rigorous standards using precise well defined terms should remember this point.


    Report this

    72

    • #
      gary turner

      Sorry, Roy. Intent has nothing to do with it. A lie is simply a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Sorry Gary,

        Oxford Shorter Dictionary: lie n.. An act or instance of lying; an intentional false statement; an untruth. [my emphasis]


        Report this

        91

        • #

          A false statement deviates from the truth, an intentionally false statement is lie. There does have to be intent.

          We can argue about whether or not there was intent–that’s fair game. Can this be used to get off the hook for lying and not wanting to take responsibility? Sure.


          Report this

          30

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Gary,

        Sorry – you are mistaken.

        A lie has “intent to decieve”.

        For example, the following statements.

        [1] “There is an Elephant in my backyard” is true and I believe it is true – it’s a fact.

        [2] “There is an Elephant in my backyard” is false and I believe it is true – it’s a mistake.

        [3] “There is an Elephant in my backyard” is false and I believe it is false – it’s a lie.

        [4] “There is an Elephant in my backyard” is true, and I believe it is false – it’s a lie when I say it, however when we checked – I would be both surprised & mistaken with discovering that it is a fact.

        Think about the distinction between “Telling the Truth & Telling a Lie”, and “What is Fact, and what is Fiction”.

        The problem is that people confuse telling the truth with describing what the facts are, as they forget that humans are not omniscient.

        I personally only use the word Truth in the limited context of “Truth & Lies” – and never as part of a description of the facts, or in regards to a functional description of “Truth” as a blocker to testing assumptions (i.e. we don’t test the “truth” – because we already know it is true…). By restricting the concept of truth down to a more limited context – it is made useful.

        You say…

        A lie is simply a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.

        I say…

        A lie is any statement made with the intent to deceive the listener with regards to what the speaker believes the facts are.

        If JG truly believed, that “there will be no carbon tax…”, then she has no integrity – which is a different problem. I.e. she can’t keep her commitments, – i.e. she is unreliable.

        I happen to think that she is both a liar (AWU scandal) and unreliable. WRT the carbon tax – we can’t know that she is a liar (unless she confesses, or documented evidence comes to light of her plans for a carbon tax prior to her statement about it) – however we can know with certainty that she is utterly unreliable and that she breaks firm, decisive public commitments.

        There is more than one path to being unworthy of trust.

        Cheers ExWarmist


        Report this

        350

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Exwarmist, you say …

          “[2] There is an Elephant in my backyard” is false and I believe it is true – it’s a mistake.

          I disagree with this. It is easy for me to check if there is an elephant in my backyard and I should do so before making such a statement. This is especially true for a public figure. It is too easy for people to abrogate their responsibility by not doing such simple checks before speaking and calling it “a mistake” or “I believed it at the time I said it” when they are called out on it.

          To the question “Is there an elephant in your back yard?” the only correct way to answer the question is to refer to what you observed the last time you looked at you back yard as in “The was/wasn’t an elephant in my back yard when I last looked.” Anything else is being reckless with the truth. Not lying takes that sort of discipline.


          Report this

          110

          • #
          • #
            Graeme No.3

            [1] “My computer model says there is an Elephant in my backyard” and I believe it is true – so it’s a fact.

            [2] “Your computer model says there is an Elephant in my backyard” and I believe it is false – it’s a mistake.

            [3] “Your computer model says there is no Elephant in my backyard” and I believe there is – you’re a denier.

            [4] “Your computer model says there is no Elephant in my backyard” – it’s a lie when I say it is, however when we checked – I would be both surprised & mistaken with discovering that it is a fact.


            Report this

            90

        • #
          Tristan

          I agree that the carbon tax statement was not necessarily an instance of a lie.

          The cynical view is that it was a lie to help ALP’s election chances.

          The generous view is that the comment represented one of many lapses of judgement.

          The fact that Gillard brags about the carbon tax as an achievment is pretty irksome. I agree that it was an achievement, but it flew in the face of her pre-election commitment – she could do with a little more humility on the issue.


          Report this

          34

          • #
            Leo G

            Julia Gillard’s carbon tax statement may be a pledge made in bad faith rather than a lie, but what of her subsequent assertions that she had not made such a pledge?


            Report this

            60

      • #
        Ace

        However, if the truth is that she did not believe in a thing at the time when she said she did not, then changing her mind later does not make it a lie.

        Im afraid I am totally with Roy on this one. Moreover, if you can persuade me to change my mind, that does not mean I am lying in what I have just said.

        That really should make this obvious.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Ace

          Actually what I just wrote is interesting…at least to me, I know, I know a comedian shouldn’t laugh at his own jokes so maybe if I take interest in what I myself write I cannot be a philosopher (thats a topic for another time).

          If I say that I agree with Roy, but that any among three or four others here might be able to change my mind, then it is not simply true that I am not lying when I say I agree with Roy, even IF I can be persuaded to change my mind, BUT it is actually impossible for me to be lying about any of the other options I may change my mind to, given that there are several possible changes.

          The only exception would be if I secretly agreed with someone other than Roy and was lying by saying I agreed with him. But then it makes no difference what I believe later, even if I change my mind to agree with him!

          Whether a person is lying at the time they said they believed something cannot be determined by what they believe or do later. Only a mind-reader or other data (such as private exchanges with a tittle-tattle) can reveal whether any previous statement of belief was true or not.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Ace

            …but with a politician its safer to assume they always lie.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Ace, see if you can sort this out …

            This statement is a lie.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Ace

            Truthseeker, thats easy, you are a Corsican (or a Tuscan, or a Tunisian, depending on where It Is Written).


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Ace

            …or frome Crete.
            But to address it seriously, whether the statement is a lie depends entirely upon whether you believe it or not yourself. No challenge to logic but impossible to resolve without having (as in the other example) some means of accessing what you actually believe as opposed to what you say.

            So the conundrum only exists in the confusion between the phrasing of a statement and what it represents. There is no underlying paradox.

            An analogy is the old chestnut, why do mirrors only “reverse” images laterally and not vertically? Ive seen people in knots trying to “explain” that “phenomenon” but actually there is nothing there to explain, just a glitch in communication around the choice of words, specifically “reverse images”which is not something mirrors do anyway. Your image in a mirror is exactly what others see, its not reversed.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Ace … none of the above.

            Seriously though I think you have it a little wrong …

            Belief is not truth. Verification is truth. A statement is not a lie because you believe it, a statement is not a lie only if you can verify it.

            You are correct about the statement itself and that it has no underlying paradox. Good point about mirrors.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ace

            Truthseeker: “Belief is not truth. Verification is truth. A statement is not a lie because you believe it, a statement is not a lie only if you can verify it. ”

            That doesnt make sense, because if you say you believe you are a genius you are lying because you cannot prove either that you are or that you believe it.

            It would also mean that if I said I had fixed the washing machine because I believed I had then whilst the family thought it was true I was not lying but when the repair falls out I retrospectively turn into a liar! That doesnt makesense either.

            You are making this into a version of Schrodingers cat.

            Incidentally, a very kinky animal…in fact it was a purr-vert.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Ace, if you said you had fixed the washing machine without actually running it though at least a short cycle, then you are lying. You are lying to yourself and passing that lie onto others. Your belief means nothing to the truth. It may only run once or twice before failing again because your fixes were not very good, but at least you would not be a liar.

            You have an obligation to verify before you verbalise. You could say “In my opinion the washing machine is fixed” and that would not be a lie regardless of the state of the washing machine. Saying “The washing machine is fixed” is different. You may not think so, but words matter because that is how we communicate ideas. The first statement is saying something about your opinion, which is unverifiable and therefore never a lie. The second statement is a statement of fact about the washing machine which may be true or false. If it is false, then you have lied.

            Using the preface “In my opinion …” is a good way to avoid lying. It is up to the listener to decide whether or not your opinion is worth anything.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            You have an obligation to verify before you verbalise.

            Under what law, or even ethical standard?

            It is impossible to “lie” if you do not know you are lying. You can’t know you are lying if you are ignorant FOR ANY REASON!


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Ace

            Truthseeker:
            “You have an obligation to verify before you verbalise. You could say “In my opinion the washing machine is fixed” and that would not be a lie regardless of the state of the washing machine. Saying “The washing machine is fixed” is different.”

            For that to be valid we would also have to be infallible and only infallible people couldsay anythingwithout being a liar. Because no matter whether you test it or verify it, your totally honest opinion that it is fixed might simply be wrong. An error. As noone is in fact infallible, noone can EVER know for certain that they have actually fixed the washing machine, as they may find they are wrong about it later. In error, not a liar.

            If what you wrote were the case, then everyone would be lying every time they said anything and nobody could ever say anytning that isnt a lie:
            eg:
            “Im going to the shops…” if he gets knocked down by a bus thn he never gets to the shops and according to you that means his statement “Im going to the shops” was a lie. But if he does get to the shops it wasnt?

            That really IS like Schrodingers cat. Except that the cat serves a conceptual purpose whereas what you are insisting on simply doesnt make sense.

            I think you know this but are just hanging onto a position for the sake of it.

            Patently, the defining characteristic of a lie is intentional.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          ExWarmist

          LOL…

          Very Good Ace.


          Report this

          20

      • #

        Gee Gary, really? So we are all liers?


        Report this

        05

    • #
      AndyG55

      I have no doubt that Gillard’s whole intent, about everything, is to deceive.


      Report this

      210

      • #
        ExWarmist

        It seems to be her first strategy of choice.

        She is also seemingly “indifferent to what is real” about all things that are not directly connected to her personal agenda. Which is a different problem from her use of deception as an active tactic to acquire, maintain, and execute coercive legal power over the rest of us.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Streetcred

        This is clearly demonstrated by Garret’s statement that the government once installed will change its agenda … a manifesto for the voting public and a hidden agenda to be implemented upon upon achieving power.

        Let’s not beat about the bush here, the Liebor apparatchiks, including ju-LIAR, have in their DNA, a propensity to deceive and lie to the citizens.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        Harry

        Thats giving her too much credit for intelligence.

        Gillards first priority is to stay in power.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Ted O'Brien

          Gillard’s first priority is to use whatever power she can leverage to destroy the capitalist system.

          The carbon tax is her ultimate tool for doing this.

          She didn’t have to blink first to give in to the Greens. This was what she always wanted.


          Report this

          120

      • #
        Jon

        Globaly it’s the leftist that seam to want carbon tax implemented national and global. So it’s probably less about money and more about ideology?


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree with you Roy.

      For it to have been a lie, there must have been an intent to deceive.

      But it was a serious commitment made to the Australian people, and one that should have been non-negotiable on that basis.

      But having some form of sanction on CO2 emissions was also a non-negotiable point for the Greens.

      Julia Gillard, faced with a desire to get her hands on the levers of power, as opposed to her prior commitment to the Australian people, got into power because ‘she blinked first’.

      Of course, it may simply have been due to her being young and naive at the time, but the end result is that, she either did not have the honesty to stand by her commitment, or she deliberately sad something with an intent to deceive.

      She is a politician, and an Australian politician to boot. So the truth may well be both alternatives, in equal measure.

      I am comfortable with the use of the word, “lie”, as an abbreviation in this circumstance, because of the break in commitment.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        AndyG55

        “For it to have been a lie, there must have been an intent to deceive. ”

        Yes.. Therefore it was a LIE !!!


        Report this

        120

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I am comfortable with the use of the word, “lie”, as an abbreviation in this circumstance, because of the break in commitment.

        Then I hope you will be comfortable with my breaking my original intent to say I don’t think you should be comfortable with it if something else may really be the case. She lied, she didn’t lie or the case is ambiguous. If it’s ambiguous then call it that.

        The term liar is a rather extreme pejorative — no one likes being lied to. And if you wrongly accuse someone of lying it’s character assassination; which is why it’s such a sore subject with me. It was used against George Bush when clearly it did not apply. And just as clearly those who cried liar didn’t care because they intended political harm to a president who would not kiss their asses (and was under no obligation to do so).

        I can call Obama a liar without my conscience hurting because he’s been caught lying red-handed many times. But it isn’t right to throw “liar” around carelessly.

        As for Gillard, I have no right to make sweeping comments but it appears that there’s plenty of justification for dumping her, lie or not.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I don’t think you should be comfortable with it if something else may really be the case.

          I take your point, Roy. In this case, the question of whether she lied or not is actually ambiguous, because it is a matter of timing; the cause and the effect become muddled in the subsequent analysis.

          Of course, some people may have voted differently, had she not given her “reassurance” that a tax would not be introduced. It is those people who will be most aggrieved by the thought that she went back on her word, and it is those people who will perpetually believe that she lied to them (irrespective of the cause and effect), and are therefore now a lost vote for her, and possibly the ALP going forward.

          Julia committed the crime of making an unequivocal statement. You should never say “never” in politics.


          Report this

          41

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Julia committed the crime of making an unequivocal statement. You should never say “never” in politics.

            Rereke,

            There are quite a few things you should never do in politics. Being careful who you get in bed with is one big one. The wrong alliance can submarine you very fast.

            You can read that two ways and both are dangerous.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            You can read that two ways and both are dangerous.

            She can probably confirm that. I understand she has tried both. ;-)


            Report this

            20

        • #

          I would disagree about Obama. He says whatever is expedient at the moment. Much of the time it is impossible to tell if he believes anything other than whatever is happening in the moment. He does not seem to necessarily be deceiving people. Rather, he has learned to say whatever is necessary to achieve the goal of the moment. I know most people consider him a liar. I’m not just sure anyone who lives in such a fantasy world knows the truth. That’s what makes him the perfect cheerleader and in perpetual campaign mode. He looks sincere, sounds sincere and may be sincere. He’s just completely out of touch with reality. I don’t know if that’s better then lying…..


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Sheri,

            You’re right about his saying whatever he needs to say to anyone or any group so he can get his way. Fantasy world? Yes, that too. But I wonder if his fantasy isn’t more coherent than his actions indicate. I think he has a genuine, very malicious intent to tear down his own country for his own satisfaction. After all, he wrote two books, one of which is pretty specific as to where he stands about the western world (of which he is now putative leader). It’s not pretty!

            Judicial Watch is a good source of information and being a member, I get to see what they’re doing and more importantly, what they discover. Space doesn’t permit a long treatise so suffice to say I’m confident about the lying.

            I really do wish this whole thing would turn out to be a bad dream so I could wake up and find things back on solid ground again. But it’s as real as it gets. Thrill rides used to be found only in the local amusement park. I could go ride the roller coasters and then come home again. But this roller coaster goes right through my living room.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Hasbeen

        Can’t agree with you there Rereke Whakaaro.

        If anything Gillard had the Greens over a barrel. Where the hell else were they to go, the coalition? There was no where else for them to go but Labor, & as a first class conniving bitch, Gillard knew this very well, right from the start.

        It was the independents she had to buy to get back into the lodge. Some of them are stupid enough to actually believe in AGW, but no policy was going to prevent them being bought.

        Gillard had a free hand to do as she wished, & did so.

        I’m quite sure she did exactly as she would have, if she had won a clear majority


        Report this

        61

        • #
          Crakar24

          I dont understand the confusion, Gillard made that statement in response to a journalist questioning her intention to bring in a policy to legislate against CO2 if elected. This was her confirming that the ALP policy on AGW was that there would be no carbon tax (if elected) shortly after she introduced one. Some may call this a broken promise but call it what you will she lied. As RW has stated it is a well recognised fact that she garnered votes from this lie why is this still being debated?


          Report this

          90

          • #
            larry oldmate

            The general populous belives it to be a lie, hence the birth of the term Juliar. Even those that support the tax deep down know it was a lie. They continue to choose to ignore the lie and set it aside as an inconvenient truth (pun intended), justifying it with the old adage “it was for the greater good”.

            Not one to usually put words into people’s mouths but there is no other logical explanation for anybody supporting the dictatorial manner in which this tax has been impelmented, unless you do actually support Australia becoming a dictatorship. To assert that this was not a lie is to claim that it was some sort of innocent mistake. To which I make the assertion that this was far from innocent, and to garner votes from this, crosses the line into dispicable.


            Report this

            60

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        FWIW, I am relieved to see the Oxford’s definition of “lie” is in accordance with what I believed the word meant.
        Thus I am in approximately the same camp as Rereke and Roy on this issue, though I summarise it this way:

        People who hate Gillard and know the word “liar” is an insult and a political poison would like to call Gillard a “liar” by any means necessary, even if that means ignoring the conventional definition of “lie” in the case of the carbon tax promise. If there was intent to deceive then such intent has not been proven, therefore not a lie.

        But since she intended to deceive in previous statements about the AWU slush fund, we can still call her “JuLiar” for a host of other reasons. :-)

        See, everyone got what they wanted out of this argument. :-)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Dave N

      “I will stay out of this except to point out that to make it a lie (noun) requires intent to deceive.”

      There may not be intent when the statement is made, however later when there is an intent to controvert it, it becomes a lie.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Roy, if you lie to yourself and pass that lie on, regardless if you believe it or not, it is still a lie coming out of your mouth.

      You do have an obligation not to propogate falsehoods. You should always try to verify before you verbalise. For those with a public forum, the responsibility is greater.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      My God how we humans weasel and waffle! It doesn’t even matter if she lied or not. She’s hurting you so dump her at the first opportunity.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Not true, Roy.

      A lie is a lie, and continues to be a lie, even when it is passed on by someone who does not know it is a iie.

      Also, a pathological liar does not know truth from lies. Just ask Graham Richardson.

      I have always wondered, though, why they selected this as the primary lie when there were so many other, more readily definable lies.

      The lies are so thick that it doesn’t really matter. This party has degenerated so far that lies have become its primary modus operandi.


      Report this

      100

    • #

      Roy, That’s true. A lie requires intent.

      Are we to believe that Gillard didn’t entertain the possibility of a Hung Parliament? That she wasn’t fully aware that if she had said she was going to bring in a carbon tax she might have lost, say, the 400 voters in Corangamite which barely won her that marginal seat and gave her a chance to get in power?

      “There will be no carbon tax” was deceptive. She could have told Australia the full story: that if they voted Labor in with a majority she would not bring in a carbon tax, but if they voted for a hung parliament she would do anything, include breaking her word, for the chance to be PM.

      I don’t think voters would have been impressed with that somehow.

      A lie by omission is still a lie.

      What is the alternative? That her judgement and foresight is so bad she should not be in charge of national security and the budget?

      This was not a statement where she had nothing to do with the outcome. She could have chosen to honor her commitment. No one held a gun to her head saying she had to do that legislation. She could have said No to the Greens.

      We can’t trust any commitment she makes. Nothing she says to us can be believed.


      Report this

      280

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        Yes Jo. Lies by omission!
        examples –
        Didn’t I mention the final solution?
        Did I forget to tell you that income tax was not a temporary measure?
        No, I did not tell people it was a slush fund.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Crakar24

        My God this is like a scene out of Sienfeld, remember the one where Jerry is about to be subjected to a lie detector test by his girlfriend, he sort advice from George on how to pass. George responded by saying “It is not a lie if you believe it to be true”.

        Gillard is a liar, she made a clear statement that there would be no carbon tax under a government i lead. What could possibly change as justification for her to change her mind? Did the temp ramp up by a few degrees? Did the sky begin to fall? Did sea levels rise by 22 feet as Al Gore predicted? No none of this happened what did happen was she almost lost the election and to cling to power she needed to do a deal with the devil.

        This is not a justification to introduce a carbon tax so in short she lied pure and simple she lied she said one thing and did the opposite without justification she lied let me repeat SHE LIED.


        Report this

        121

      • #
        Dennis

        Jo of course Gillard was aware that the 2010 election could result in a very close win or loss for Labor and even a hung parliament. The 2007 election result gave Labor many seats but too many on a very narrow margin, Rudd was well aware of the 2010 dangers for Labor and he recruited Oakshott to be a sleeper supporter when he entered federal parliament at a by election in 2008.

        Oakshott had been a state parliament MP in NSW and it has been reported that he once offered to join Labor in return for a cabinet position. Premier Iemma declined his offer knowing that if Oakshott joined Labor he would lose his seat at the next state election because Green and Labor do not attract nearly enough votes in the Port Macquarie region to hold the state or federal seat. Oakshott has campaigned as a trustworthy former National and a conservative independent. He will discover the mood of the voters he betrayed, if he decides to stand again. He has indicated that he will make that decision by March.

        Windsor is another independent who has pretended to be a safe former National conservative, he has not told his New England electorate constituents that his cousin is the Labor spin doctor Hawker and that he was another Rudd sleeper supporter recruited well before 2010.

        Of course Oakshott and Windsor have been well rewarded from chairing committees and receiving other compensation from the gravy train.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        SimonV

        So…let’s consider Tony Abbott and his statement that if the Carbon Tax went ahead, Whyalla would become a ghost town.

        – Did the Carbon Tax go ahead?

        – Did Whyalla become a ghost town?

        – Did Tony Abbott lie?


        Report this

        09

        • #
          AndyG55

          Mr Abbott’s comment probably saved Whyalla.

          It forced the Gilard/Swan clowns to give OneSteel compensation that was way more than they would ever have to pay for the CO2 tax.

          Plus it gave us that totally moronic little dance.

          So no, he didn’t lie.
          Circumstances were change after his comment, because of his comment.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Andrew

          Liebor can keep verballing Abbott on Whyalla. But it was the AWU who said Whyalla would be wiped out; Abbott drew attention to THEIR prediction. And he did not place a timeframe on it – he did not say “on the first day of the WBCT” (especially since there’s enough compensation to OST to go till after the election). But the AWU was unquestionably right – the WBCT is designed to eliminate emittive industries in Kyoto countries, and move the activity to non-signatory countries.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        AndyG55

        JO, I am absolutely certain that is was always Gillard’s intent to bring in some sort of carbon pricing. She even said as mauch, as an excuse, afterwards.

        I am also absolutely certain that her and the goose both responded with their infamous denials of the carbon tax because they knew that they would lose vote if they said they would introduce a carbon price.

        The deceit of this person and sidekicks is beyond belief.

        And EVERY speak she or any of her ministers gives is still riddled with deceit and lies.

        Combet, Emerson, Swan… its their stock in trade, bought to you by union inbreeding.


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Backslider

      If Gillard did not lie, then why did she have anything at all to say about a carbon tax?

      Read Pickering’s take on the woman: http://pickeringpost.com/article/our-prime-minister-is-a-crook-part-x/924


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Three short lines…I’m stunned…the pen is indeed mighty.

      I’m not going to complain because a lot was inferred from what I said. It’s legitimate to do that. But I named no names. It was a completely general statement about nailing down what is or is not a lie. I don’t make comments about Australian politics because, as I said above, I don’t know enough to be credible on the subject.

      Jo,

      I understand all those things. Do I not live through the same situation from one day to the next right here at home? :-)

      I don’t know how it is in Australia but we have no shortage of people willing to distort the truth or outright lie for political or monetary gain. I get a ton of it in my inbox nearly every day.

      Now, liar is like racist; and I can also mention denier — these words really mean something and really do have consequences. We who stand up for the truth need to be circumspect in what we say and do when we speak out. That was my only point. It was prompted by the lead in line to this thread and had nothing to do with any individual. It comes out of my own daily experience. I’m not pointing a finger at anyone.

      I really didn’t expect it to go to this extent. But the subsequent debate and the different positions about it tell me that maybe this was a good exercise to go through. You all will have to be the judge.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    There might be some circumstances when it is valid to lie. There are other circumstances when it is valid to break election pledges due to changing priorities. But you need to be extremely careful when doing either. The problem is that the people most willing to lie or break pledges are the very ones who have the weakest resolve / greatest reliance on political “spin”, especially when the promises were made to curry favor and the breach was to revert to their underlying beliefs.
    Take for example the British Labour Party. In 1997 they came back to power after spending years suppressing their collective dislike of the rich and successful. When the credit crunch came they were quick to blame every ill on the bankers and the tax-avoiding rich, when the depth of the recession.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Trekka

    Lie or not, she demonstrated that she cannot be trusted, ie, she proved that you cannot have confidence that she will do what she says she will do, period. Vote for her at your own risk.

    Truth, or whatever it takes.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Andrew

    The “she meant it at the time she said it” crowd ignore the rest of what she said:

    “I do not rule out a CPRS but I RULE OUT A CARBON TAX” – when you rule something out, that covers all possible scenarios incl a hung parliament.

    She also said she would only introduce a carbon price after community consensus.

    Then when the opposition foresaw a carbon tax (why were THEY so prescient?) Gillard and Swan both called that a hysterical lie.

    Finally, can the apologists explain why Milne’s $23 carbon tax moving to ETS came a year before the election? Gillard would certainly need Green support in the Senate. What evidence is there she would backflip on her solemn promise only for a hung lower house?

    There had better not be any Labor allegations that any Lib govt has lied, because they set that bar impossibly high on their bizarre interpretation.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    llew Jones

    Why should we be surprised that Richardson doesn’t know what lying is? He was an ALP power broker.

    “In 1992, Richardson was forced to resign his commission as Minister following revelations that he had used his position and influence to help his cousin, Gregory Symons, who was subsequently jailed for forging government documents relating to a migration scam. A judicial inquiry was necessary to resolve allegations of ministerial impropriety where it was alleged that Richardson attempt to help Symons avoid penalty.[39] Richardson sat out the remainder of this term of parliament on the backbench.”

    wiki.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      And that is only one small part of his history, others include the infamous “Love Boat” affair and his involvement in a certain printing business insurance scam with Rene Rivkin and maates. And more.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    johninoxley

    Richo, this is the George Costanza excuse, NOT YOURS.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    If Gillard had stared down the Greens, what were they going to do? Form a government with Abbott? Under some pressure, she drifted in the direction of invasive, burdensome, collectivist policy, because that is her bent. That does not mean her political survival really did depend on a carbon tax.

    She is like Juan Peron, in that she is able to believe anything she says in the moment she is saying it. Technically, she may not be a liar. She is something a lot more disturbing than that – much like Juan Peron!


    Report this

    150

  • #

    Obama boldly proclaim his belief in climate change because the US government is desperate for money and the best way to achieve that is to introduce some form of broad based consumption tax.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      handjive

      Pelosi: Obama can’t control the weather

      “There are some decisions that are made from a different place and whether it rains or not is not in the president’s control.”
      .

      “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

      “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
      .

      Scientifically, the president doesn’t have control of day-to-day weather.
      While his policies can lessen or worsen future projected global warming on a large scale, they cannot do anything about Washington’s daily temperature on Jan. 21


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Streetcred

        When Obummer can live by the rules that he mandates for US citizens then he will be considered a Leader … no heating and cooling at the Whitehouse (just make that Washington in general), no cavalcade of SUVs, no jetting about with an entourage of hundreds, no armed guards for his family, etc. He might like to get involved in the EPAs PM2.5 human experiments … let’s see whether the Courts have jurisdiction then.


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Andrew

        If Obummer’s premise is that Americans will expect to go cold, hungry and not have a choice of cars you’d think he would have mentioned that before the election? I thought he went to the election telling people that the economy was going to get much better and people would be looked after.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Rodzki

    Dead right, Jo. I read Richo’s column and was going to write a comment, but in the end didn’t bother. He really seems to be losing it recently.

    Does Richo seriously expect us to believe that if Gillard didn’t promise a carbon tax to the Greens that they would have backed Abbott? He used to cut through the crap – now he dishes it out.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Ian

      I read Graham Richardson’s column and did comment, twice. In those comments i referred to statistical significance which seems utterly beyond the understanding of the MSM and that the PM is in the habit of being economical with the truth purely to stay in power it would seem. Do posters here remember the Rudd/Gillard axing of the “Pacific solution” with all the attendant hyperbole and excoriation of John Howard. This policy is now that of the ALP. Recall the promises to Andrew Wilkie about gambling reform and the way those promises were dropped when Gillard persuaded Slipper to become Speaker and she no longer relied on Wilkie’s vote? Recall she gained that vote by promising gambling reform. Recall the change in policy on selling uranium to India. This sale was banned by the ALP in 2007 but the ban reversed by Gillard four years later. Agreed not all of these backflips are lies although Andrew Wilkie might challenge that with respect to the gambling policy change but they do show Gillard like Richardson, will do “whatever it takes” to retain power. With luck this hung parliament will be an unpleasant memory after September 14th.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Ace

    He said, she said, it said , sea shed, she saw, shiatsiu, summertime, Komatsu.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Recently there’s been alot of TV shows on Hitler & the Nazi regime (ironically on SBS & ABC) and though I studied it at school or read about it later in life it still stuns me to see the Nazi propaganda machine at work,”repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth” seems to be a core element of nationalist socialists and todays socialists alike,but the right do this too I hear lefties cry’ yes but not in the same context or for the same end and most important is the people can vote liars out in a true democracy not so in a socialist regime where lies are par for the course.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Harry

    Richo is, was, and will continue to be, a very unpleasant person.

    I’d not trust a thing he says, ever, about anything, even if he were talking in his sleep.

    He’s a pathological liar, and he was hounded when he left parliament and disclosed a number of his lies before going. Justification was something like: I do whatever it takes.

    Integrity: zero. Ignore him. He’s worse than pond scum.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Gogs

      Richo did one thing right, but.
      He resigned when he was sprung with the whores, thus avoiding a scandal in his party.
      Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper don’t even have these “standards”.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ross

    Does this constitute a lie ? or just fiddling to produce false data.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/ushcn-busted/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Since Climategate in 2009 I have gone back and examined closely historical events at the end of Second World War (1945-1946) when George Orwell was dying of tuberculosis and frantically writing “1984″ [1], while Fred Hoyle was writing two papers [2] that became the foundation of the SSM (standard solar model of H-filled stars).

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204

    Fred Hoyle himself later admitted that:

    _ a.) Fred Hoyle, Sir Arthur Eddington, and all other astronomers and astrophysicists in their circle of acquaintances at Cambridge University believed the the interior of the Sun was mostly iron (Fe) during WWII

    _ b.) Fred Hoyle’s two 1946 papers were adopted without debate or discussion and later became the foundation of the SSM (standard solar model of hydrogen-filled stars).

    Today I seek help finding a different interpretation for those historical events other than the emergence of a tyrannical world government in 1945 that purposely hid the source of energy in Atomic bombs, nuclear reactors, stars and AGN (active galactic nuclei) by promoting the SSM illusion of hydrogen-filled stars.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Request_Assistance.pdf

    I would appreciate your assistance.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    http://www.omatumr.com

    [1] George Owrell (Eric Arthur Blair), “Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)” Secker and Warburg, 1949: http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four-Centennial-Edition-George/dp/0452284236

    [2] Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-259 (1946); “The synthesis of elements from hydrogen,” ibid., 343-383 (1946)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mike

    One of the strong pluses for Abbott has been his proposal to build 100 dams in Australia, most in the Northern Territory, saving lots of water for irrigation and electricity generation. He aims to double the amount of land in production over the period of the project. Also science has shown us recently that irrigation and forestry can actually draw rain in to areas that were once arid. This has to be one of the best ideas for future prosperity in Australia.


    Report this

    173

    • #
      Ace

      Israel made the desert bloom.

      InGaza they built an industry out of tomato production where for millenia hadonly been barren dirt.

      The international community of charitable donors created a fund to maintain thousands of glasshouses Israeli settlers were forced to abandon when their government tried to appease the jihad by forcing their withdrawal.

      Withina months after the Israelis had departed, every last one of these facilities had been smashed to pieces by “Palestinian” thugs of Hamas and the rabble it rouses.


      Report this

      133

    • #
      Dennis

      As I understand the proposal that has been developed over many months by a committee the northern Australia food bowl will be irrigated from barrages and not dams. A series of barrages along various rivers would capture part of the wet season rainfall and the remainder would flow out to sea.

      I hope that hydro electricity capture is part of the scheme. Barrages also have fish ladders to allow movement up and down stream.

      The CSIRO has identified an area roughly the size of Europe that could be farmed, just add water. Food production would of course support many other business ventures needed to service the farms and farm workers living in new towns surrounding, a new path to future economic prosperity in Australia.

      The plan is visionary and nation building.


      Report this

      81

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        One of the amusing (if that’s the right adjective) things about the Greens is there TOTAL inability to understand where electricity comes from. I am sure they have a vague idea of a large pond of electricity which you can add to or withdraw from at any time, hence wind turbines just increase the amount of electricity available.

        “renewable” energy scheme all deliver variable supplies of electricity. To maintain a steady supply it is necessary to have some means of storing the surplus. The only large scale method feasible is pumped storage (reverse hydroelectricity). So to make “renewable” energy viable you have to have enough pumped storage available, as in Europe. The norwegian hydro scheme is what makes Danish and German wind power possible. So for the large scale use of wind or solar in Australia we must have more hydroelectric power i.e. more dams.

        Try telling the Greens that. They just parade around bleating “wind turbines good, hydro bad”. They will fight this scheme to the end, fortunately their end.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          AndyG55

          In NA, huge water storage providing hydro from irrigation releases is a very sensible way to do things.. No need to save water since they is so darn much of it and is very reliable every summer.
          Would be silly to cart coal all the way up there, but if good coal was found up there, why not use it.. that’s what its there for :-)

          Solar and wind would also be totally unnecessary, and a waste of time and money. (aren’t they always !)


          Report this

          50

          • #
            AndyG55

            There are of coarse some really good uranium mines up there as well.. and the landscape is exceptionally stable, so nuclear power could also be used.

            Pity the distances are so big back to the main capital cities.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Andrew

            The McTernanite grubs are now telling us that dams don’t work in North AUS – because apparently (being about 2C hotter than SYD) there’s evaporation. And the dam would be a dry dustbowl in the dry season and would never store enough summer rain to be useful.

            Strangely enough, the Aswan Dam works perfectly well in Egypt. (Possibly because they don’t have McTernan or the Labor Party in Egypt…)


            Report this

            10

        • #
          AndyG55

          Pumped refill in NA would be a waste money, and totally unnecessary. See comment above.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Ace

          Fundamentally: “renewable energy” = “perpetual motion”.

          We could generate all the electricity we need from a turbine made out of Isaac Newtons remains spinning furiously every time some idiot extolls thje virtue of that impossibility.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    amcoz

    These days, GR is nothing more than a lickspittler.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    The Black Adder

    PM Juliar has no credibility…
    Graham “Whatever it takes” Richardson has no credibility…
    The whole bloody lot of them corrupt ALP Politicians have NO credibility…

    Jo Nova and all her loyal followers know this to be true… even John Brookes must know this!!


    Report this

    110

  • #
    MudCrab

    Straw Dog.

    It doesn’t matter if we can go and prove or disprove that Gillard told a lie at the time based on what she did or didn’t think was the current truth, the matter is that Australia now has a Carbon Tax after Gillard said we wouldn’t have one.

    It doesn’t matter if she under the full legal difinition of the word ‘lied’, the fact is she (and the rest of her Government for that matter) told Australia one thing, then casually gave us another.

    Gillard may not (on that occasion) formally ‘lied’ but she did make a huge effort to prove to Australia that she cannot be trusted to keep her word.

    Face it Graham, you are part of the problem and if you continue to nail your colours to Gillard’s trendy new glasses then you are going to go down in the same screaming heap.

    (not that I personally regard that as a bad thing… :P )


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      John Howard once said there would never be a GST but he changed his mind and campaigned for an election promising major tax reform that would include a GST, and his government was returned to office.

      Julia Gillard in 2010 said there would be no “carbon tax” in a government that she led. He colleagues backed her and the no carbon tax mantra was often repeated. When back in power Gillard implamented a carbon tax.

      The difference between Howard and Gillard are clear, one did what he promised he would do and the other broke her promise.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Dave

    Is this Stupidity, Lying or Dishonest?

    Have only done ALP NSW, ACT and National.
    ALP Donation requests on their websites:

    Emails
    ALPNSW $5.00 per 2,500
    ALPNAT $25.00 per 5,500
    ALPACT $2.50 per 1,250

    Pamphlets (ALPNSW have pamplets??)
    ALPNSW $25.00 per 100
    ALPNAT $10.00 per 1,000
    ALPACT $25.00 per 100

    Phone Calls
    ALPNSW $100.00 per 400 calls
    ALPNAT $100.00 per 90 calls
    ALPACT Not listed

    Letters
    ALPNSW $1000.00 per 1,000
    ALPNAT Not Listed
    ALPACT $1,000 per 2,000

    How can they run a country – when they can’t even consolidate their donation campaign?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ms2et

    Sorry to be OT, but it would be great if fellow readers wandered over to The Conversation to address the arguments appearing in the comments on this article: http://theconversation.edu.au/state-of-the-union-climate-change-action-is-a-domestic-concern-12194

    I’d love to do it and have done in the past but regret to say that my blood pressure isn’t up to it.
    When you see “for the sake of our grandchildren”, “the Chinese are taking AGW seriously” and “the overwhelming consensus of science” you know that you’re dealing with people who’s arguments are no better than those of a child in the playground professing that Santa Claus is real because “my daddy said so”.

    There are a couple of defenders of logic and reason batting nicely over there but more would be great.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      cohenite

      The Conversation is a disgrace; funded by the abc it is a rest home for arrogant alarmists and has a censorious attitude towards anyone who reveals the stupidity of the alarmist position.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Andrew

      Best one I ever heard was “so that my grandchildren can breathe clear air”! Ignore the fact that at 400ppm CO2 it would need to rise 30000% before breathing became impaired! And don’t worry that your grandchildren will curse you every day that AUS is spending $57bn pa on fraudulent carbon credits from Nigeria while the 100yo Wayne Swan applauds.

      Why do people who purport to care about their grandkids want to condemn them to a permanent 1930′s Depression, and then smear me because I’m “only smug about AGW because I’m childless and it won’t hit in my lifetime”?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    pattoh

    I guess you could say the whole of Australia can say they have “been on a promise” with Julia & yet somehow most of the people I know feel a bit used (ill used in the 19th century sense).


    Report this

    50

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Think of the thing that you have done in your past that you find most regrettable.

    OK. I know what it is and I can refrain from publicizing it.
    IF you continue to publicly support me.

    Do have an understanding?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Think of the thing that you have done in your past that you find most regrettable.

    OK. I know what it is and I can refrain from publicizing it.
    IF you continue to publicly support me.

    Do we have an understanding?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    Victoria Police Fraud Squad investigations into a certain AWU scandal, illegal slush fund, and more is nearing an end and they expect to charge a person or persons if not in February by the latest March. We will soon begin a journey that will reveal many lies and much corruption by a former solicitor who was forced to resign from the law firm that employed her. WA Police also have matters under investigation.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      ianl8888


      … they expect to charge a person or persons if not in February by the latest March

      Where is your source for this, please ? I do hope you’re not simply pushing wishful rumour


      Report this

      30

  • #
    janama

    Richo writing an article on climate change is as ridiculous as Clive Hamilton writing about it. Neither really know anything about it. All they have is an opinion based on a minuscule of knowledge of the science underlying the whole process.

    For Richo to state “I am still a believer in climate change. The science is robust and irrefutable.” is a stupid, blind faith assumption.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    RWTH

    A Friday meme. I ran into an acquaintance today who on parting suggested I “Have a happy election”! Nice sentiments I think I might!!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    If you know something is dodgy and tell it how you want it to be anyhow; according to Ritcho, it’s not a lie.

    How’s this : the latest media blurb from Delusion Central: Your friendly Media Outlet.

    Bursting the carbon bubble

    Date: February 15 2013

    Energy analysts and activists warn that most of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground, and that

    it can’t be business as usual for the industry. By Michael Green.

    AT 2PM last Tuesday, in San Francisco’s city hall the regular council meeting was called to order as usual.

    But councillor John Avalos proposed a decidedly irregular resolution: the city’s retirement fund should

    withdraw its money from fossil fuels. “”

    It goes on but it is totally delusional stuff and indicates that the USA is in a very bad way in terms of mental health.

    On the sidelines there are brokers rubbing their hands with glee all ready to start shorting.

    That is unless they aren’t on the sidelines but perhaps in the command bunker pulling the strings of the loopy warmers.

    Catch em coming and going.

    The never ending story of Global Warming.

    KK :)


    Report this

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Its going to be quite hilarious watching the antics over the next few years, as temperatures drift slowly downwards. POPCORN !!!!!

      Oh but, yeah but……. :-)


      Report this

      41

  • #

    To be honest the days of politicans having ‘integrity’ greater than the norm are well behind us. The whole mess with Slipper & Thomson is indicative of it – the gravy train is truely gold plated and unfortunately attracts often exactly the wrong type of career politician… Just think of the damage done by all these people in authority welding power without integrity or self reflection – all the lost opportunities for real progress and the precident it sets going forwards… The goal of parliament should be people working together for the better good to build a better future, not an exercise in ‘topping’ & ‘dissing’ the other guys at every opportunity; whilst filling your back pockets with cash at the public’s expense…

    Just please convince people to NOT vote Green in any form at the election – I do not want to go through the same mess again if it can be avoided. 4 years of possible inaction is better than 4 more years of guaranteed wanton economic destruction as everybody noses up to the Greens posterior and consumes what they produce..

    Sorry but I have a very dim view of the system of representation we have at the moment; the situation we are in should not have occurred, it has failed us.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Angry

    ALP………

    Australian LIARS PARTY !!!

    ELECTION NOW !!!!!!!


    Report this

    51

  • #
    Angry

    Some worthwhile articles relevant to all of this………..

    Buy gold, you get gold – Vote Labor, you get Fabianism

    http://www.australiamatters.com/fabian.html

    Julia Gillard Tells Fabians of Labor’s Plans

    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2007/11/julia-gillard-tells-fabians-of-labors.html

    The Fabian Socialist Contribution
    to the Communist Advance

    http://www.alor.org/Library/FabianSocialistContributiontotheCommunistAdvance.htm

    Julia Gillard – Aussie P.M.’s Red Roots (ADMITS TO BEING A FABIAN!)

    http://www.trevorloudon.com/2010/06/julia-gillard-new-aussie-p-m-s-red-roots/

    Not to forget the stained glass window of the fabians with the very telling image.

    http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/fabians/images/FabianWindow_Large.jpg

    And then there is this…..

    Fabian Society and the London School of Economics

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Pfabian.htm


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Amfortas

    Gillard is an uber-feminist. She worships at the altar of the Princess of Lies. When she goes eventually to Hell she will be frisked for knives.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Hey, I know this Thread deals with ‘lies’, but I might suggest hypocrisy is similar.

    I’m working on something right now, and this came up.

    We all know Bob Brown and how he’s hyper critical of dams, and in fact made his name getting the Franklin Dam killed off.

    Knowing that Bob (and now his replacement, Christine Milne) say dams are really really bad, you would think they would open their eyes and look around them, eh!

    So teeny weeny Tassie, small Island, a fraction the size of the Mainland.

    How many dams are there in Tasmania?

    30 of them.

    That’s just the hydro electric plants, two of which have now closed.

    The total power generated from all of those comes in a 1840MW, around 70% of what is generated at Bayswater.

    30 dams. See how important it was to get the Franklin stopped.

    Tony.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      AndyG55

      Tassie’s west coast is but a tiny area..

      Imagine the power that could be produced by hydro in the top end, if dams could be located in suitable terrain !!! rho.g.h !!


      Report this

      21

      • #
        janama

        Andy – I think fall is the problem in the top end – Tasmania is mountainous so you get a good fall to drive the turbines wheres as the top end in the gulf etc is all flat.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          AndyG55

          Lucky there is a lot more water.. the actual formula for producing hydropower is

          power = rho x g x h x Q x efficiency ..

          so if you have enough Q (flow) you can trade it off against the the fall (h)..

          But yes, flat areas are not at all good for hydropower, which is why Australia has so little of it.

          We do have plenty of coal though. :-)


          Report this

          30

    • #
      ianl8888

      Hypocrisy in action:

      “Spanish Govt Reneges on Green Energy Subsidy – Lawyers Rub Hands Together”

      http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

      Feb 15, 2013

      Having vigourously encouraged renewabubble investment with various generous subsidies, the Spaniards then turn the subsidy tap off, way too expensive, after the capital is sunk

      Akin to suddenly taxing (or attempting to tax) assets built decades ago that have essentially been written off (ie. the capital is long sunk) – aka Gillard’s mining tax

      Or suddenly taxing superannuation savings, deposited by force of law and touted as protected by law, that are almost impossible to transfer out until quite late in life – Gillard thrashing around in people’s life savings

      The common theme here is the bottomless hypocrisy of lefties


      Report this

      40

      • #
        AndyG55

        Sorry, I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone who invests in subsidised renewables, then find the subsidies turned off.

        It was alway economic and financial lunacy anyway.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Mattb

      That makes no sense tony. It’s like saying there are cars everywhere, why can’t I drive one through your kitchen?


      Report this

      01

  • #
    warcroft

    “Can I use this excuse for my tax return?”

    Speaking of tax returns. . .
    This year Im claiming everything. Eeeverythiiing!

    I dont like the way Gillard has wasted my tax dollars. I dont agree with anything she has done. Shes basically pissed it all up against the wall. So this year I want my money back!


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Another Ian

      Warcroft

      Like this , from a friend in US?

      “I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!! They are questioning how many dependents I claimed. I guess it was because of my response to the question: “List all dependents?” I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads; 42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons; Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate.” Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer. I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO THE HELL DID I MISS?


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Turtle

    Then I saw Gore’s face
    Now I’m a believer
    Not a trace, of doubt in my mind….\


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Buffalo Soldier

    I keep offering good Australian’s falling on grass to India and India keeps saying, “No, we’re good.”


    Report this

    10

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Why can we not have every single politician tested for drug taking every single time they enter the chamber?


    Report this

    20

  • #

    My take is that Gillard is proud of the carbon tax. What’s more, she locked it down so it couldn’t be undone, or at least that’s what she has tried to do. Her intention is to keep it in place forever – it’s her biggest contribution, her big achievement. If she had been “forced” to impliment this tax against her will, she would hate it, instead she is gleeful. So, did she lie? In my opinion, oh yeah, without a doubt.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    15 Feb: BBC: Italy makes ‘Mafia’ arrests over Sicily wind farms
    Police have arrested five people in eastern Sicily suspected of involvement in Mafia corruption over contracts to build wind farms, Italian media report.
    The mayor and a councillor in the small town of Fondachelli Fantina, in Messina province, were among those detained.
    The five face charges including extortion, fraud and Mafia association…
    A total of 11 people were under investigation, including two managers from a firm that won the main contract to build one of the wind farms, installing 63 turbines.
    The contract was worth some 120bn euros (£103bn)…
    The proceeds from contracts are believed to have been channelled to the fugitive head of the Sicilian Cosa Nostra, Matteo Messina Denaro…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21476916


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    different mafia?

    15 Feb: Bloomberg: Sally Bakewell: Canadian Pension-Backed Group Plans Wind Power for Prison
    Partnerships for Renewables, backed with 100 million pounds ($155 million) of Canadian pension and infrastructure-fund money, will build as much as 500 megawatts of wind power at land owned by U.K. prisons and other bodies…
    The London-based company is seeking unexploited land owned by government bodies such as the Forestry Commission and Coal Authority for renewable energy projects the U.K. is promoting to curb emissions linked to climate change…
    The company received funding from Canada’s OPSEU Pension Trust and London-based Infrared Capital Partners Ltd., which each own a third of the company, to develop wind farms, Ainger said. The Carbon Trust, a London-based adviser to government and business on reducing emissions, owns the remaining shares…
    A portion of the revenue from Standford Hill will go to the Ministry of Justice, responsible for prisons, he said. The company also plans to submit bids to supply power directly to prisons and has set up a community benefit fund, he said.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-15/canadian-pension-backed-group-plans-wind-power-for-prison.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Graham Richardson,

    I fully support your right to express your opinions and views. You should also respect other peoples rights to criticise your views that were published.

    If JuLiar Guilleard had stated something like “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead provided my party has a mandate from the australian people to lead without having to rely on minority environmental interests and a plethora of dodgy, independent MPs and a unionist who appears to have some unexplained transactions from brothels on their union credit card at this time.” then you might have a point.

    But she didn’t She stated categorically that there would be “no carbon tax under a government I lead” Full stop!

    Now either she shouldn’t be leading a government, or there should be no carbon tax. And yes, it is that simple. No amount of hyperbowl or spin can falsify this logic!

    The only other option is an acknowledgement from everyone in the country that JuLiar has no integrity whatsoever – why? – because she made a clear and completely unambiguous stance which she then backed down from specifically so that she could obtain power. She had the option of stepping down or going back to the polls. She didn’t because it appears to be all about JuLiar, doesn’t it?

    Considering that more people voted for the Coalition than the ALP in the last election, it makes JuLiars lie even more deceitful. With the way the alarmists have polarised this debate, there can be very little doubt that if she hadn’t made that statement that the coalition would invariably have been able to lead in it’s own right.

    For the ALP and their dodgy allies, they cannot claim to have a mandate from the australian people. Without JiLiars statement, the ALP would not have even made it to the table to negotiate!

    Now, because you have used the term Denier, which is a reference to holocaust denial, you have made a personal attack on me. So now I will talk to you as an individual. Don’t bother arguing otherwise, as I really don’t have the patience to argue with someone who will be prepared to twist the english language and redefine words in the english language for your ideals (like the stupid Misogynist rubbish we saw last year).

    When all is said and done Graham, you obviously feel very threatened that your irrelevant, rigged and corrupted 1950s style class war oriented bunch of loons is going to end up with the same fate your beloved ALP Tarago party did in queensland, but guess what? For you to even try to defend the indefensible as you have done, you are obviously a blinkered ALP fanatic who is prepared to spin anything for your cause regardless of the effect it has on your credibility and objectivity.

    In which case, why on earth would any media organisation ever approve the publication of anything you might write about the ALP? You obviously lack any ability to be objective on the topic.

    I am all for free speech, but I fail to see the logic as to why would a media organisation willingly damage their credibility with respect to their objectivity in such a way – it just seems nuts! Maybe the australian wants to do some stirring – if so, Graham, you have just been played like a puppet and are a fool for allowing it.

    Maybe you would be best served volunteering your time to the ALP outside of your job so you can practice your lame ideological rhetoric? In which case I would fully support you doing that – after all, I am all for even blinkered ALP fanatics having a voice – just not propaganda under the guise of journalism.

    Just make sure your propaganda in future is printed on double ply paper – extra absorbent please.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Mattb

      “Now, because you have used the term Denier, which is a reference to holocaust denial,”

      Oh not that old chestnut again. no it is not. it is a reference to climate change denial.

      [So Matt you'll give us references to statements by sceptics that they deny climate changes won't you? Failing that, you'll need to stop using that term. You should know better Matt, you've been a regular of this blog long enough. Lift your game. Mod oggi]


      Report this

      04

      • #

        I really can’t object to being called a denier. I’m always referring to CAGW believers as bedwetters.

        Their term “denier” is a lot more moralistic, authoritarian and whingy-whiney…but hey, that’s because they’re bedwetters.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        MadJak

        Mattb,

        Please define and bring to our attention the evidence of Man Made Global Warming to which we somehow deny?

        Please also refer to my comment later in the thread regarding your Pedo-logic.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        AndyG55

        I like to use the words CAGW symapthisers” for the intellectual anti-science dregs that follow the meme.

        Those that actually feed from the trough eg Romm, Cook, Lewy, Flannnery, Karoly etc are “CAGW collaborators”


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Mattb, did you mean this chestnut?

        I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate”

        Yes it is.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      No amount of hyperbowl or spin can falsify this logic!

      Okay, now this thread is REALLY testing my patience with people’s poor understanding of English.
      (Or maybe I’m using hyperbole.) ]:->


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Matty

    Richo’s bit is all the evidence you need as to just what AGW does to peoples brains, even political hardheads. Turnbull in a similar boat.

    Bolt though is kicking goals and torturing Emerson. The 16 year stasis, if it gets traction in the msm, is poison to the whole movement. When people in their loungerooms work out that each year has not been warmer than the last, as the propaganda suggests, they are going to want a refund.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The 16 year stasis, if it gets traction in the msm, is poison to the whole movement.”

      Going to be even funnier as the temp starts easing off over the next few years.

      Poor little worms will have nowhere to slime to.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    AndyG55

    oooo interesting .. Is McKibben’s 350.org/iSky funded by Big Oil/Rockafella/Fenton??

    No wonder they want to get rid of coal and stop the gas pipelines !!!!!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Mattb

    Sometimes we tell the kids they can do X at a certain time. But when that time comes it simply is not possible. THey have little tantrums and call us liars. But they ARE WRONG. Circumstances just changed.


    Report this

    05

    • #

      There wasn’t TIME for circumstances to change. Gillard jumped straight in and gave us the tax. She didn’t even pretend to try not to.


      Report this

      50

    • #

      The analogy of a huffy authoritarian talking down to naughty children is perfect!


      Report this

      50

    • #
      MadJak

      Mattb,

      “…we tell the kids they can do X at a certain time…”

      So Now you’re using Pedo logic to bolster your case now?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Ian

      Mattb Every time I read one of your posts I wonder if there’ll ever be one that makes any sort of useful contribution to the debate. I still haven’t seen one. This effort is just as banal as all the others you’ve posted previously. “You are wrong. Circumstances just changed” you write. What circumstances changed Mattb? Sudden huge increase of CO2 levels? Extreme weather events (which we all have been told are due to climate change) simultaneously happening all over the globe? Temperature rising globally by 10C? All the glaciers melted at once? Sea level rising by 43 metres? Well Mattb it was none of these. Gillard did a deal with the Greens to get power. That was the changed circumstance. The fact she needed their support to gain power.So this totally useless tax which she had specifically, repeat specifically, ruled out prior to the election was foisted on a public that believed one thing but got the exact opposite so that Gillard and her colleagues could get their grubby hands on the levers of power. It was the total change from what Gillard said would happen and what did happen thaty really pissed the voters off. Look I’m sorry Mattb, I’m sure you’re kind to animals and small children but you come across in your posts as a complete fool Certainly we were all fooled by Gillard but those of us with some intelligence have learnt a bitter lesson. Revenge is a dish best served cold Mattb and I certainly hope that occurs later this year. Of course she lied Mattb or would you like to put your case to all of us as to why she didn’t?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    observa

    a lie is not a lie if you believe what you say

    The last refuge of the pathological liar. Not recognising their pathology very early is often responsible for the theft and slaughter of millions.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    el gordo

    “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    ‘A lie is not a lie if you believe what you say’, but joolya must have known a hung parliament was possible and plotted to stay in power no matter what.

    Thomson shows all the signs of a pathological liar, but is he?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Does anyone see the similarity with the German national socialists in the 1930s and the current alp/green coalition?

    It is so, because we said so.
    The party is always right.
    Biased media support.
    Some freedoms need to be suspended for the good of the nation (e.g free speech, AGW).
    The holiness of the motherland(gaia).

    The only thing missing is an insane sociopath, delusional and charismatic leader.

    On second thoughts, we are just missing a charismatic leader.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Rob T

    This is why the ALP always try to create rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. (Thank you Douglas Adams.) That way, no matter what they say, they are always right, except when they are wrong. Possibly.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    tckev

    Of course having a paper “peer reviewed” isn’t all it’s cracked-up to be either.
    In the context of toeing the line “In this context, a bright young person needs to display cleverness in applying the prevailing orthodoxy, but it behooves him not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute the review committees for the NSF, NIH, and other funding organizations. Modern biological and physical science is, overwhelmingly, government-funded science. If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal. Recall the human frailties I mentioned previously; they apply just as much in the funding context as in the publication context. Indeed, these two contexts are themselves tightly linked: if you don’t get funding, you’ll never produce publishable work, and if you don’t land good publications, you won’t continue to receive funding.”

    From http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    If you believe what you are saying, it isn’t a lie. It can still be untrue, though.

    (Of course, politicians don’t really have “beliefs” as such.)

    If you make a promise with every intention of keeping it, but then later break the promise, it is not a lying promise. But you are still guilty of breaking a promise.


    Report this

    00

  • #