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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



“Climate change” is still tearing Australian politics apart

Don’t think the carbon dioxide wars are over in Australia.

What turmoil lies ahead. The Coalition looks like easily winning the election on Saturday (though Jeff Kennett points out he lost an election people thought he would win). If they win, they’ve promised to wipe out the Labor Party’s carbon tax. (Not a moment too soon.) Abbott was made leader on this issue in December 2009, and has vowed “in blood” to remove it.

But after this election the Senate will still be in the grip of a Labor Green majority until July next year, when the new senators (whoever they may be) take over half the Senate. Yesterday Tony Abbott renewed his pledge that this election is about “the carbon tax”. If he wins, and the Senate won’t pass his climate change legislation, he says he’s determined to pull the ultimate political trigger and call a double dissolution election.

The stakes are high. For the sake of foreign readers, the double dissolution is a rare event that, unlike a normal election, means every senator is suddenly out of a job and up for reelection (not just the usual half a Senate at a time). We could, in theory, have another bigger election in early 2014 and if we did, it might wipe out the Labor Green majority in the Senate– but it is a risky move for both sides.

Andrew Bolt points out that the Labor Party under Rudd-Renewed have promised to “terminate the carbon tax” themselves, so they look like hypocrites extraordinare if they did not pass an Abbott government plan. But of course, they were not terminating it at all, just changing a direct tax to an indirect one through a trading scheme.  It’s just tricky wordsmithing; they are wedded to a “carbon price”.

Paul Kelly (Editor-at-large for The Australian) claims Labor is trapped, can’t give it up, and won’t pass Abbott’s repeal of the Carbon Tax. Does a double dissolution beckon?

“Labor has expended buckets of political blood on carbon pricing. It will not betray its slain warriors. Labor’s commitment to carbon pricing has become an issue of identity. Support for an ETS is entrenched, a policy Labor has held under the leadership of Kim Beazley, Rudd, Julia Gillard, Rudd again and, almost certainly, under any future leader.”

The consequences of Abbott’s legislation being defeated in the new parliament, via the Senate vote, will be immense, wild and bitter. Anybody who thinks this election will resolve the great climate change conflict is dreaming.”

“Not only is Labor psychologically incapable of giving Abbott his victory, it thinks its intellectual position on carbon is correct. This leads directly to an epic post-election battlefield.”

“Abbott, as PM, would use the authority of office and Labor’s dogmatic support for the carbon tax to steal even more of its voting base. How much will be left? At what point does Labor dogmatism on carbon become a fatal blunder?”

I can’t see how it’s possible Kevin Rudd will stay leader of Labor if the current polls are accurate and a Rudd-bath is coming. The speculation may be moot if Labor picks a new leader. But Paul Kelly can’t see the likely contenders being able to give up either:

Who will lead such a retreat? Not Rudd. The Left’s Anthony Albanese? Sure, you can just imagine Albanese, who thinks Abbott is mired in the past, giving Abbott this victory and admitting that, “oh terribly sorry, we got it wrong” as he votes with Abbott to sweep Gillard’s laws from the statute books. Hell will freeze over first. Could the Right’s Bill Shorten lead this abject retreat? Only if Shorten, already under suspicion for changing his mind too much, decides he will begin his leadership by repudiating a policy that is both an article of faith and widely recognised as the best market-based response.

I’m hoping that the Labor Party get the crushing wipe-out they deserve for their disconnection to reality and disrespect for the people — and are reborn. They could offer us a sensible centre-left option — instead of being the  self-serving vainglorious fools who voted “Yes” for a policy they absolutely promised they wouldn’t bring in.

They could serve the people before The Party.

Here’s what a proper Labor Party  transformation looks like

We can dream. Imagine the ALP chooses a sensible leader (not a spin-cycle specialist) who immediately announces that the Labor Party lost its way on the issue of climate change: “we were captured by well-intentioned Green enthusiasm”;  “we stopped listening to the wisdom of the people”; “we forgot that we need to convince the Australian public first, not force laws on them that they don’t want”.

Voting for the Gillard lie requires a complete and unconditional apology. Only then could a new leader wipe the slate clear. (I can’t believe I even need to say this).

The ALP can prove they are listening to the people by declaring that the correct thing to do is to remove the Carbon Tax until such time as the Australian people vote for it. They could prove their “environmental credentials”  by immediately supporting an independent inquiry into the science of climate change, professional auditing of the IPCC findings (from people outside the climate industry), and supporting an ongoing public debate. The ALP must be seen to search for the truth — instead of suppressing debate, calling unbelievers stupid or worse, and hurling insults and professional sanctions at blasphemers.

If Labor is half-crushed at the election it will only prolong the pain.

What if temperatures don’t rise for another ten years, or worse, what if it cools? The Labor Party would be exposed for gullible fools (as predicted, second last paragraph), who played Kingmaker and forced their own delusional world view from ivory towers over a public that saw through the scam years ahead of them. The Labor Party’s worst enemy may be the ABC, which shields Labor from serious questions and refuses to inform its members and fans of any data and studies that don’t fit the elitist religion.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (58 votes cast)
"Climate change" is still tearing Australian politics apart, 9.1 out of 10 based on 58 ratings

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

133 comments to “Climate change” is still tearing Australian politics apart

  • #
    Mattb

    Look what happened to the last PM who tried to manouver to a double dissolution election… on this exact same issue.

    ——
    I missed you Matt. Cheers – Jo


    Report this

    134

  • #
    Mattb

    “Labor Party lost its way on the issue of climate change: “we were captured by well-intentioned Green enthusiasm”; “we stopped listening to the wisdom of the people”; “we forgot that we need to convince the Australian public first, not force laws on them that they don’t want”.”

    This of course would be a complete revision of history, whereby what actually happened is that Rudd won an overwhelming popular manadate in a general election to introduce a price on carbon, a policy that the LNP also took to the election.


    Report this

    246

    • #
      ExWarmist

      But after Gillard knifed Kevin Rudd in the back in a palace coup and then went to the polls – the politics of “Carbon” had changed completely.

      The peak of belief in CAGW was during the end of the Howard Era, it’s been downhill since then (Thanks to Climategates 1 & 2, Copenhagen, “the pause”, etc), and by the time Gillard was trying to get Elected she was promising not to bring in a carbon Tax because it had become so politically toxic, and even with that promise the best that she could do was a hung parliament only solved with a deal with the Greens and independents that saw the ALP publically sell it’s soul for power.

      WRT History (and it’s revision) – I don’t think the word means what you think it means.


      Report this

      330

    • #
      Dave

      MattyB

      You said,
      “that Rudd won an overwhelming popular manadate in a general election to introduce a price on carbon”

      When did Rudd introduce this into parliament?


      Report this

      210

      • #
        Mattb

        exactly, Abbott opposed it and it was blocked. Which is quite contradictory to Abbott’s current insistence that his mandate be respected.


        Report this

        326

        • #
          Ian

          Why didn’t Rudd call a double dissolution then as the triggers for it existed and according to Rudd global warming was “the greatest moral challenge of our time”? Do you think it might be his commitment was less than his desire to retain power? And why did the Greens join with the Opposition to block Rudd’s carbon pricing scheme? You indicate blocking it was entirely due to Abbott but you don’t seem to be too aware of the circumstances that existed when Rudd walked away from our great moral challenge


          Report this

          200

          • #
            Mattb

            Yes absolutely. The ALP decided it wanted to destroy the LNP and force it to pass the legislation not only on its terms, but way beyond that simply because it thought it could get away with it. It was a high stakes political game and the ALP lost, badly, and suddenly was facing an Abbott led LNP with no inclination to support a price on carbon.

            But that’s the point, ALP used the issue to try and force a DD election, rather than focus on pragmatic and vaguely collaborative governance. Abbott should be at least weary of going down the same path.

            For sure the Greens blocked it too, but at least the Greens have pretty much been the only party to hold an unwavering line on climate change policy for the past 10-15 years or so. Some voters appreciate that at least you know exactly where they stand, rather than know where they stand for the next news cycle.


            Report this

            06

        • #
          Angry

          Time for your basket weaving class “Mattb”.

          Australians are a wake up to the global warming FRAUD and its role in the New World Order that you and your communist ilk want to impose on us all.


          Report this

          120

    • #
      Andrew

      Did he? I don’t recall any talk of a price on CO2 in the 2007 policies. He promised 3 things:
      1) Ratify Kyoto,
      2) Direct Action
      3) Aggressive reduction targets (all domestic, not from purchasing fraudulent foreign carbon credits) and a bigger RET.

      I can’t find any mention of an ETS. In fact, I recall the AUS people being horrified at hearing the words “carbon price” after the election.


      Report this

      340

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Let’s nip this in the bud right now. There’s no point in arguing over past politics when the choice we face is about a public budget of the present day and a physical climate reality of the near future.
      Even if you convinced me that Howard hugged trees, lived in a mud hut, banned petrol, and wrote love letters to James Hansen, it still would not change the merits of any choices we actually face today. That train of thought is a diversion.

      We are better informed on the climate issue today than we were in 2007 or even 2010. It doesn’t matter what you claim Rudd had “a mandate” to do, the carbon pricing has been implemented, the theory and measurements point towards there being no CO2 problem on the horizon, no urgent need for emissions mitigation.
      The Greens solution is to ignore the evidence, put their head in the sand, and continue confiscating wealth.
      Labor’s solution is to move control of the carbon impost on electricity bills out of the hands of elected officials and government appendages and hand it over to unelected bureaucrats and carbon trading brokers in the European Union, a market proudly dominated by such caring selfless champions as Goldman Sachs.
      Given what we know now, the rational step is to now dismantle the ill-founded carbon pricing boondoggle and costly premature RET disaster.


      Report this

      520

      • #
        Mattb

        That’s exactly correct Andrew. I agree that one does not need to revise history in order to make a decision today. Election winners are grinners and can do what they please. But I note that pusing for a double dissolution WAS the main factor in Rudd’s initial downfall. Just sayin’ it can be dangerous politics.


        Report this

        023

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Nice try, but No, election winners cannot do what they please.
          As for a DD, it is certainly dangerous as I cannot begin to imagine how many ways we’ll be shafted if Mr Goldman Sachs takes the reins after the tussle.


          Report this

          241

          • #
            Mattb

            “No, election winners cannot do what they please.”

            Why not? Any government can pass whatever it wants in a parliament provided it has the numbers. And if it does not have the numbers it can seek a DD election.


            Report this

            15

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Sorry if my phrasing was ambiguous. A government can pass whatever it wants when it has a sufficiently shepherded team to do so. A government should not legislate in contravention to its election promises or else it (and the laws it makes) risk illegitimacy.


              Report this

              60

      • #
        Angry

        “Never wrestle with pig trolls because you’ll only get muddy and the pig enjoys it.”


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          It’s a sound maxim and if PiggyB and I were the only minds affected it would apply here.
          I didn’t want to see anyone spend much effort on that dead-end argument.
          In general it’s difficult to strike a perfect balance between ignoring trolls versus leaving their lies and misdirection uncorrected. Not that PiggyB does that, I’m sure he actually believes the things he says.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Mattb

            Listen here Mr Pigrew McPig, I responded accurately to a claim on the post. Squeal about it all you like Piggy.


            Report this

            24

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Oh great, now I can’t even say anything nice without Mr Bunker Mentality thinking I’m being sarcastic. Maybe he missed the part where ‘Angry’ was the one who first referred to him as a pig whereas I said that pig-in-mud analogy didn’t apply.
              Yes, bunker boy, your point was correct and I’ve never implied otherwise. It was just irrelevant to any decision faced by the proles at the polls this week.


              Report this

              50

    • #
      Mark D.

      won an overwhelming popular manadate

      A mandate provided by ill informed (or deceived) voters should make anyone with a fondness for democracy proud.

      (is a sarc tag necessary)


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Somewhere I have a political cartoon that shows a person in a voting booth asking herself, Should I vote for her, because she has the best policies, or should I vote for him because he is so self assured, or should I vote for this other one because he is the President’s brother?

        I will leave you to guess which election it referred to.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Leigh

      “whereby what actually happened is that Rudd won an overwhelming popular manadate in a general election to introduce a price on carbon, a policy that the LNP also took to the election.”

      I think what you’ll find is that Rudd won an overwhelming popular manadate in a general election to defeat Workchoices.

      To you your logic is to say that Rudd also won an overwhelming popular manadate in a general election to introduce an Internet Filer.. and look how ‘popular’ that turned out to be.


      Report this

      160

      • #
        Mattb

        Governments win elections based upon their broad policy positions. You can’t say they only won a mandate on workchoices and nothing else. Climate was clearly a key policy issue on ’07.

        The internet filter is an example of a government doing (or trying to do) random stuff because it has the numbers. That is also their right and it is the public’s right to judge them accordingly.

        WAtch this space oif a whole raft of crap that abbott will invent on the fly and then claim he has a mandate for.


        Report this

        38

      • #
        Mattb

        Leigh – topically enough the Coalition have just said they’ll force ISPs to filter content!

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/coalition-announces-internet-filter-for-adult-content/4939156

        the mind really does boggle that Abbott is 95% certain to be PM come Sunday.


        Report this

        24

        • #
          Dave

          MattyB,

          You said: “the mind really does boggle that Abbott is 95% certain to be PM come Sunday.”

          I say: “the mind really does boggle that Flannery is 95% certainy not to be Climate Commissioner come Sunday.”

          Might have a Bar-B-Que if it doesn’t rain & it’s not too cold.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Upvote for you MattB, well spotted.

          The “liberal in name only” party demonstrates their deception and near equivalence to Labor yet again.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Mattb

            they’ve back tracked already I see… must be learning from Barnett in WA.

            Step 1) release random policy thought bubbe
            Step 2) get backlash from everywhere
            Step 3) Backflip within 48-72 hours
            Step 4) see step 1.


            Report this

            02

  • #

    I’ll settle for total destruction of the party, salt the earth etc. No prisoners!


    Report this

    311

    • #
      Truthseeker

      The good part of a double-dissolution election is that we get to put the Greens last … again!


      Report this

      290

    • #
      Richard the Great

      Man alive was I hacked off when Gillard was ousted as she was taking the whole ALP/ Green statist mob for a mach 2 impact with the jagged rocks of political oblivion. I used to up vote her on all polls and encourage all friends and family to do the same. Damn, now they get to lick their wounds and prepare for the next round of lefty lies, fraud, waste and embezzlement while the blame the coalition for the catastrophe they wrought themselves.


      Report this

      211

  • #

    At least Hyphen in South Australia will be gone.

    Two full quota’s for the Coalition plus most of a third.

    Two full quotas for Labor plus perhaps a little.

    One full quota for Xenophon, and last time round he got 22% of the vote, so there’s an extra 6% above a quota.

    Hyphen will get half way towards a quota, and hopefully less if polling is (reasonably) accurate.

    So, here we have five Senators, and Labor, Coalition and Hyphen fighting for the last slot, so Xenophon’s extra is now quite important.

    Whoever has the lowest amount after all the rest of the prefs are distributed gets eliminated first, and that actually may be Labor, and all their prefs go to Hyphen, but because Labor is so low, that still won’t be enough to give her a full quota, but now she will be higher than Xenophon who gets his extras distributed next, and that flow should be enough to give that final slot to the Coalition, who will now have 3, Labor 2 and Xenophon the sixth.

    Similar in Tasmania and in the West as well.

    Now, why do I even postulate on this?

    Hyphen and the other 2 still get to stay there until mid next year, huffing and puffing the party line even though no one wants them there any more.

    I seriously think Labor will rethink because they won’t want another election so close to this one if the result is bad for them, because it could actually get worse, and tactically, Labor will then note that The Greens, instead of needing a 16% Quota will only need an 8% quota, so that means Labor will lose Senators to The Greens.

    I think it’s huff and puff at the moment, and cooler (Labor) heads after this result will not want a DD.

    Tony.


    Report this

    301

    • #
      Bryn

      A useful analysis. But does anyone think Rudd will survive the lynching he will receive from his fellow party members? His replacement hopefully has that ‘cool head’. Otherwise all is lost (for them).


      Report this

      170

      • #
        Lawrie

        I have been trying to put a face to “cooler head” in the ALP, so far a complete blank. Shorten has been named but he’s the fellow who agreed with the PM although he hadn’t heard what she said and he also changed his support for the same PM; loyalty anyone? Albanese who called yours truly and hundreds of others “members of the convoy of no consequence” or ” members of the convoy of incontinence”. Yeah we would really respect him, not. I don’t think there is one member who is qualified let alone respected enough to be leader of anything.


        Report this

        180

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The possibilities are
        1. Rudd wins the election (stop laughing).

        Within 6 months his colleagues will dump him (reasons as before).

        2. Rudd loses his seat.

        Remaining Labor members breathe sigh of relief. None are available to vacate their seat so he can get back in.

        3. Rudd loses election but holds seat.

        Colleagues dump him the next week. Whether he quits parliament (most likely) or tries to make a comeback doesn’t matter because he will have no appeal at all to the surviving members. (His only attraction, that he can win elections will be disproved).


        Report this

        120

    • #
      pattoh

      You never know Tony. Perhaps 2014 will be the first summer of rolling “brown outs” in SA which will really put the Greens & their wind generators on the nose.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Kytin

      Acually, With the way preference flows are set up in South Australia, there is a good chance that the Climate Skeptics party will get a member elected. If you fool around with one of those vote calculators for the SA senate (e.g. here) you will find that they can get in even with a low primary vote (I have heard that was even one scenario where they got in with 0.04% of the vote).


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    If the Milky bar kid hangs around for round 2 you can bet he won’t budge on the ALP’s current ideals purely out of spite.
    This is a man who probably lost the ALP more seats by feeding his ego and power needs by stalling to call the election, and had to be pushed by his party out of frustration.
    I voted early today and when the Green’s person tried to hand me a how to vote card all I could do was laugh and walk off laughing, a bit insensitive but justified considering the damage they’ve done to the environment. :)


    Report this

    270

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      You realise that all you did was to heighten that person’s sense of heroic endeavour in the teeth of despite from the DARK Side, don’t you? :)


      Report this

      130

      • #
        MemoryVault

        You realise that all you did was to heighten that person’s sense of heroic endeavour in the teeth of despite from the DARK Side

        You DO realise Yonniestone would have accomplished the same outcome, regardless of whether he had offered the Greenie a $1,000.00 donation, or punched him in the face, don’t you?

        .
        There’s no accounting for fervent stupid.


        Report this

        230

    • #
      Manfred

      No insensitivity there Yonniestone. Arguably perhaps, if you instead suggested that they sequester themselves in a hole in the ground and immediately remove their carbon footprint from your face. Nevertheless, all credit to you. Your patience is grace personified!


      Report this

      110

      • #

        Well said, Manfred! :)

        While I’m here, everyone, if you’re doing the full 1-110 vote, be sure to check out all the parties – some are more green than the Greens! Some are hidden greens (meaning, some I didn’t expect to be). I went through it all last weekend, having a look at the policies of each party one by one. It took half a day, but is worth it to stack all the greens at the bottom.

        I’m a postal voter and my vote is in. :D

        Good on Abbott for calling a DD if he needs to. I’d happily vote the greens right down the bottom again if I’m called to do so. It would be a pleasure!


        Report this

        100

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    In the UK, Neil Kinnock was a shoe-in as the next Prime Minister right up to the day before the election. In the end, John Major won a small majority. I wouldn’t go counting my chickens just yet.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Good Luck Australia. I hope everyone save Mr. Brooks and his cronies get what they want and Australia needs.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Dave

    This was really good advert today by the WWF.

    “WWF rates main parties’ environmental policies”

    All you have to do is add up the reds and oranges, who ever has the most you vote for. :)

    That dumb GANG GREEN GROUP didn’t get any.

    GREEN is no longer COOL. Gotta ZIP.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Turtle of Western Australia.

    Talking about the ABC, there seems to have been a backdown on global temps:
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/profile/andrew-bolt/


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.

    As far as I can tell, it’s not “simply a matter of repealing legislation” as the legislation already has traction in society and the economy. The ALP knew what they were doing when they entangled aspects of the legislaton within other acts.

    Unless the Lib/Nat have been beavering away in secret for a year, drafting legislation to “undo” the many aspects of the “Clean Energy” legislation package, it is going to take some time before it even hits the floor of the Reps. The Senate may not see the legislation until August next year if the Reps pass it after the May budget.

    Until the legislation can be “repealed”, there are Ministerial decisions that can be made in several areas that require no parliamentary session or Senate approval. The carbon tax could perhaps even be made effectively non-operational, a short time after government changes.


    Report this

    200

  • #
    John M

    Labor desperately need the carbon tax to remain in some small form for political reasons to prevent it from becoming a bigger equivalent of ‘work choices’.

    Reason being, is that if Abbott manages to ditch the tax, then every 3 years it would be the ultimate political scare campagne. If Labor try and deny claims it would re-introduce the tax then the Libs would simply remind us of the famous ‘No Carbon Tax under the govt I lead’ lie by Gillard. The threat of the tax returning and lack of voter trust on the issue would haunt Labor for years !

    On the other hand, if the tax is watered down but remains in a smaller form, then the scare campagne of making it bigger would be far less effective. This is why Abbott is desperate to kill the tax, and this is why Labor cannot allow this to happen !!!

    Fun politics ahead :-)


    Report this

    210

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The Galileo Movement’s new video on 2013 election http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJyHFdQ_vs Just thought I’d post this again if anyone missed it on the end of last thread.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Redress

    Christine Milne was guest at the press club lunch today…….from her answers, a double dissolution is definitely on the cards….Greens intend to oppose any legislation which will “undo” the current legislation, and any legislation brought on that is contrary to the climate change mantra.

    She flatly refused to concede that if the coalition win, they will have a mandate to do a they have promised.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    Very important facts for all intending (responsible) voters!!! …

    As many of us know, the Australian Greens campaign strategies since their absolute beginnings broadly covers these four main “pressure points”. These are …

    1. Caring for the country’s/planet’s flora and fauna;

    2. Ensuring the two major parties have an ‘un-biased’ aka. ‘honest’ broker in the Senate;

    3. Being a ‘warm and fuzzy’ alternative to the two major parties, eg. Boat People policy; &

    4. Caring for those less fortunate than us – esp. people in developing countries. There are many eg’s. of this, but the best ones are …
    •I. Immediately increasing our foreign aid budget to .7% of GDP. (approx. double current level);
    •II. Fully supporting the UN’s. $100 bil./yr. “Green Fund” for developing countries (starts in six years & next IPCC. meet in Poland/Nov.);
    •III. Immediately increasing Australia’s annual refugee intake from 23 000 to 30 000.

    On the surface, of course they are all ever-so-laudable sentiments!! … However !! …

    Clearly once you have a quick look at the below seven tenets of Greens behaviour in the last 12 months or so (in reverse-chronological order) … you may wish to seriously re-consider voting for the Greens ever again!!! …

    1. German Green politician, Hans-Christian Strobele, wants to legalize incest: “Sex between siblings and other close relatives” (and implies incest is no worse than adultery). By Pierre Gosselin, http://www.notrickszone.com, 3/9/13;

    2. New Europol report detailing multi-billion links between mafia & EU’s. renewables industry. By Peter Glover, trendingcentral.com, 5/8/13;

    3. Indoctrination of teenagers at German Schools: All men are bad & “cause climate change”!! Ines Weller, a Bremen professor, claims “men produce more CO2 as they eat more meat, have bigger cars, and are less receptive to major life-style change in the interests of public good!” Claims backed up by physicist Gotelind Alber. (I am a Jew & think its safe to say that Joseph Goebbels would be very proud of his latest impersonaters.) By Pierre Gosselin, notrickszone.com, 23/7/13;

    4. “Academic and journalistic research over the past five years shows the key role of Nazi figures in the (German Green’s) founding and development.” By Benjamin Weinthal, Jerusalem Post, 7/7/13;

    5. The World Bank decrees that no longer will it loan money to developing countries for coal power stations (exc. in “rare circumstances”). Some people less charitable than myself may refer to this as a ‘darned good impersonation of the often mis-quoted Marie Antoinette’! … (“Let them eat cake!”) By Valerie Volcovici,reuters.com, 26/6/13;

    6. MARK THIS DAY IN YOUR DIARY !! … “THE DAY THE GREENS SAY THEY WANT ALL YOUR SUPER. !!”Prof. Hans Schelln-huber, Dir. of Potsdam Instit. for Climate Impact Research & Chair. of anti-democratic WBGU. (German Advisory Council on Global Change) says in report to Germany’s Environ. Minister, Peter Altmaier, “(Green) energy only becomes viable (& only over mid-term) if there’s a state-ordered mass-scale plunder of the world’s private retirement accounts.” By Pierre Gosselin, notrickszone.com, 6/9/12; &

    7. Victorian (Royal Commission in 2009) & Canberra (McLeod Inquiry in 2003) bushfire inquiries clearly state “property and life losses would not have been so great if more emphasis had been given controlled burning as a fuel-reduction strategy”. This is of course totally contrary to Green’s long-stated views against these kinds of policies and practices.

    Now, more than anytime in a generation, is a time to … VOTE WITH THE HEAD (& NOT THE HEART)!!

    Please ensure when you cast your vote, that you ensure the ‘non-conservation’ of the Australian Greens!!

    It is extremely important that this “black-listing” of voting Greens inc. those that are going to preference Greens … i.e. esp. Labor, Palmer United and Julian Assange!!

    This will most likely be the most important thing you’ll do for the whole of 2013!!

    In the interests of your and my future, please pass this on to as many as possible (& asap.)

    Most sincerely yours,

    Lindsay Phillips

    (ex Wilderness Society member, fund-raiser & publicist – early 1990′s)


    Report this

    310

    • #
      Peter Miller

      I think it is fair to say, most of us are green are in the original sense of the world, in that we wish to protect the environment, but not if this causes economic Armageddon.

      The term green, as practiced by its acolytes today, should be redefined as green-goofy. Just so there is no doubt, green-goofy means those who support activist groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Why?

      Because the green-goofies of today are as ignorant of real science, as they are of economics. Plus, in nearly all their causes, no thought is ever given to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Their beliefs are always based on the concept of: If we do A, then that will cause B to happen and that is good. Sometimes B can be a good idea, but B in turn inevitably causes C, D and E to happen, which are not good.

      Wind farms to produce unreliable, inefficient, expensive, ugly, noisy, view destroying, subsidy requiring, bird/bat killing, electricity generation are a classic case in point. “But wind power is ‘green’ and ‘clean’ so it’s good” – that is the argument for the green-goofies.

      Greens – as defined by the money grabbing activist groups of today – are some of the greatest threats to the environment the world has ever seen.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Dave

        Peter

        Gang Green is the worst form.

        There are different types of gang Green with different symptoms, such as DRY Gang Green, WET Gang Green, GAS Gang Green, INTERNAL Gang Green and necrotizing fasciitis (2001 cases plus eg Bob Brown and Hyphens).

        All must be treated by either:

        Debridement (removal or in severe cases, amputation) of the affected parts especially neural sections, vascular surgery, maggot therapy, wallet removal, gravy train siphoning or hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

        This must be part of The Direct Action Plan.


        Report this

        151

        • #

          I agree. We all know what the best thing to do with a bad case of Gang Green is.

          All Gang Green must be lopped off at once if the planet is to survive at all. It is also for the sake of our children and our children’s children!


          Report this

          100

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        Apart from the dangerous Deep Greens who are really Red and tend towards the positions of power, many Greenie supporters are just incredibly naive, green in the truly novice sense and easily led, not realising what the Green political agenda is all about.
        Many conservationists just drift into the Greens, untill situations like this highlight the ridiculousness of their position.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Being “green” is the biggest oxymoron of them all, since the one thing that will green the Earth is if there is more carbon dioxide (or as plants call it, “vitamin CO2″), but the one thing “greens” want to do is starve plant life of this life-giving nutrient by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

          “Stupid is as stupid does.”

          Regards,

          Mark H.


          Report this

          100

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Speak for yourself, Peter, not for others.
        Never in my life have I adopted a green orthodoxy. I saw, at an early age, the dangers of zealots and was determined never to be complicit.
        It is quite possible to live a normal and productive life guided by good evidence and common sense, and particularly by not trying to impose your views (however acquired) on others. There is no need to make a boiler plate apology (“I was once green”), in the same way as it is possible to write a scientific paper without mention of global warming.
        I’m not commenting on politics, because too often I’ve seen a likely outcome go bottoms up. At our level, we seldom know who is pulling the strings that matter.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I have some experience dealing with Politicians (not in Australia, though) and I can tell you that they generally come in two types:

          - Those that are well-meaning, but ineffective, fluff; and

          - Those that just suck.

          In the great vacuum cleaner of life, guess who ends up on top.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Manfred

      This outstanding article – The Greens’ Agenda, in Their Own Words – describes the absolute hell the Greens could inflict upon Australia were they permitted ANY opportunity, whatsoever.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Yes Jo and Andrew are right a double dissolution is risky for Tony but there is a risk free way for Tony to get rid of the Carbon Tax. Any law is as only as good as its enforcement. Case in point in Amsterdam coffee shops you can get recreational Marijuana, and not get arrested. But is still against the Dutch law to have Marijuana but everyone’s got it anyway and no ones getting arrested for it. It’s just not been enforced. Tony if he gets in on Saturday could just leave the Carbon Tax on the books but make it very with known that under his government it won’t be enforced. Don’t pay it don’t charge it. Later when he has the numbers in both house of government he can quietly get rid of it. No double dissolution required and we can still rid of the Greens Labors Carbon tax.


    Report this

    90

    • #

      Better to get it off the books altogether, or else it’s still there as “law” and can be quietly slipped back into active by any party coming along in the future.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Ian

        Not too sure about your “in the future” scenario. The way the climate seems to be going and the watering down of the “anthropogenic CO2 is the only cause of global warming” mantra due to the recognition by warmists that natural events do play a role, the whole scam may be consigned to the rubbish bin of history before “the future” you comment on arrives


        Report this

        50

      • #
        MemoryVault

        . . . it’s still there as “law” and can be quietly slipped back into active by any party coming along in the future.

        I think history will show that is precisely what is planned.

        Keep in mind that, prior to Rudd’s return to power, Abbott and the Libs had only “signed in blood” to get rid of the carbon tax. All mention of the ETS was studiously avoided. At the time the easiest way for Abbott to live up to his promise was to do exactly what Rudd subsequently announced – scrap the tax simply by bringing the start date of the ETS forward.

        Of course, once Abbott and the Libs had handed Rudd a free kick by letting him announce it first, all they could then do to avoid being seen to be playing “me too”, was to lump the ETS in the the “carbon price” as just another form of a tax.

        However even now, when pollies, the MSM, and even contributors here talk of a trigger for a double dissolution, they are, of course, specifically referring to Gillard’s Carbon Tax, and not the ETS, which remains, much like Voldemort, “that which cannot be named”.

        So, after the election Abbott introduces legislation to repeal the carbon tax, and start dismantling the ETS, as two separate bills. The House of Reps pass both, on the Coalition numbers. Then, in the Senate, Labor SUPPORTS the bill to scrap the tax, but OPPOSES the bill to unwind the ETS. The Greens oppose both.

        The tax is scrapped, but the ETS remains. Labor retain their integrity having done EXACTLY what they said they would do. The Coalition retain their integrity, having done EXACTLY what they said they would do. Ditto for the Greens.

        Abbott then employs any one of a number of administrative or accounting tricks to minimise the effects of the ETS. For instance, since we are tied to the EU market he could simply do what half the EU countries have already done, and that is just create a billion or so credits out of thin air and start handing them out free to all companies that may have an obligation to obtain them.

        .
        Crisis averted, promises kept, faces saved, no need for a Double Dissolution. Meanwhile the ETS legislation quietly sits in limbo for another day.

        And people’s power bills just keep going up, since those prices are set by “independent” boards at STATE level, and have ALREADY been approved for the next twelve months.


        Report this

        110

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Could anyone explain the meaning of the following two phrases without it being a self-contradiction?

    the Right’s Bill Shorten

    a sensible centre-left option

    My understanding is that the Left/Right paradigm is simplistic nonsense. There are two main dimensions to political pigeonholing, not one.
    There is an economic dimension which can be anywhere between State Communism and neo-Liberal free markets.
    There is also a social dimension which can be anywhere between Authoritarianism and Libertarianism.

    What’s tearing Australian politics apart more than “climate change” is the fact there is no party in the purple square.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Ain’t no such thing as a left libertarian. Anyway in what sense do the greens get below the horizontal line?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Ain’t no such thing as a left libertarian.
        It’s hard to recall any old examples, sure. I guess the hippy movements of the 1960s were generally nonconformists and didn’t want people to be oppressed, but they weren’t uniformly free-market freaks and got a reputation for being communist sympathisers.
        Conceivably you may have a State where there are government controls on pricing and production, but socially a wide range of subcultures and activities are tolerated and unregulated. Pure Libertarianism already accepts there will be a Government which raises taxes though it insists this be a voluntary donation rather than the coercion we live under today. A “Communist Libertarianism” would be Libertarianism with a glaring exception made for work and government taxation. Perhaps like Lenin’s NEP without the oppression.
        The odd thing about communist dictatorships (eg Cuba, Venezuela) is that they seem to keep running (in abject poverty) for as long as money grows on trees. In Venezuela’s case it survives on oil money. Thatcher said the problem with “socialism” (her Cold War propaganda term, not mine) is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. But actually it fails when production stops, and it was her assumption that money was required for production to happen. Some (such as Gene Roddenberry, Jacque Fresco) have imagined an alternative. Here is one plan for doing this. Essentially he’s saying that energy, automation, and recycling can produce everything we want in abundance, so everyone gets nearly everything they want and so economics becomes moot. Sounds rosy but it’s a bit suspect once you get past all the glossy brochures.

        Anyhow, the “Communist Libertarianism” quadrant exists because even if the bureaucrats of the Communist State could use their office to run Stasi-style oppression, it would be an option they don’t have choose to do. Authoritarianism is not logically or physically inevitable in the social sense, so it’s optional regardless of the economics. In Theory. :) In practice it’s perhaps human nature for the worst people to seek out powerful positions, just as Stalin did during Leninism.

        in what sense do the greens get below the horizontal line?
        I don’t know how the politicalcompass authors calculated that.
        I can recall one or two occasions in the past 2 years where the Greens made more noise in the media on civil liberties issues than the “Liberal” party. On the Internet filtering and NSA spying for example. (Where was the “liberal in name only” party on these issues? Lost at fricken sea.) Maybe events like that played into the Greens’ location on the compass.
        It’s quite a canny political move for the Greens to try to capture the libertarian vote because… they’ve realised NO OTHER PARTY is doing it. Funny that.
        What’s the poll result? “Two Party Preferred Basis”. Funny that.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The problem I have with that, is the use of the words Left and Right on the horizontal axis. How that is interpreted depends on the reader, not the person plotting the graph. Good idea – bad execution.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    I was looking for the link: “(as predicted, second last paragraph)” but it seems to be broken.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    As far as I see it or heard it… ALP..plant food tax replaced by ETS (joins madness in NZ). Coalition ….plant food tax replaced by ETS (joins madness in NZ).
    MMMM well okay……….
    So who’s side is Tony (A) on anyway?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Tim

    This is an issue that should in truth, transcend all politics. A bipartisan global issue if ever there was one.

    However, debate is irrelevant, because all parties know it’s just a political game and nothing at all to do with climate science.

    It is simply a backdoor means to install global governance and anyone who hasn’t worked that out by now should be tested for rabies. (Or something similar.)


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Good luck Australia. Here in the USA we elected and then re-elected the worst President in our history. I’m hoping Australia’s defeat of the ALP (and Greens) is so crushing that a tiny portion of the message it sends permeates into our glorious leader’s graying head. Yeah, I know that’s unlikely (the permeating part, not the defeat part), but one can hope.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I received a pre-recorded message from Tony Abbot on my wall phone earlier this afternoon.
    The “liberal in name only” party is not being complacent, they’re rattling every cage in the place to ensure they can form government unilaterally.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Apoxonbothyourhouses

    Everyone happy now? Feeling better? Good then let me begin … The problems are not just Labor and Green as supporting AGW is the Right Honourable Malcolm Turnbull and the fence sitting (strong fence) Joe Hockey.

    Has anyone heard of our Malcolm suggesting that there even MIGHT an alternative viewpoint given no rise in temperatures for ~ 17 years? You haven’t? No I didn’t think so as this crossing-the-floor-of-parliament leopard has yet to change his spots.

    Has Hockey altered his wimpish “insurance” attitude debunked so well in the Tofler video? Mmmmm I thought not.

    An elected Tony Abbott will have problems without and within the Coalition sitting right next to him on the front bench.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    One point has been missed in discussing the option of a double dissolution election.

    The legislation which triggers the DD election then can be voted on by a joint sitting of the House of Reps and the Senate. Since the Senate is more or less proportional representation this means the House of Reps majority will get the legislation up.

    My understanding is this covers all the pieces of legislation which are rejected twice. So there may be more than just the carbon tax voted on in a joint sitting.

    It is possible that the GG elects not to call the joint sitting, whereupon there would be a constitutional crisis. What fun that would be. This may depend on who is the GG at the time, since GG’s serve approximately 5 year terms and today happens to be Ms Bryce’s 5 year anniversary in the job.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      AndyG55

      John Howard as GG ;-) Watch the lefties explode !!!! :-)


      Report this

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      Bruce, do you think Jaimee has any chance in Newcastle ?

      Needs an really big swing, iirc.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Sorry Andy, I’m in the seat of Charlton, haven’t been keeping track of that seat. But it’d be a hard ask, swing has to be something near 13% each for Charlton, Newcastle and Shortland .

        Here in Charlton I now don’t have the satisfaction of voting against Greg Combet, who has done a Sir Robin. And the Lib who was preselected forgot to mention he had a racy website, so when ‘someone’ found out just after the AEC cutoff date he resigned without being replaced. So I can’t even vote for a Lib. After 3 years waiting its enough to make you throw up.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Mark

      Good (and valid) points, Bruce. However, I doubt even Bryce would be so brazenly partisan as to attempt to subvert a Joint Sitting.

      So far, no one has suggested that the ALP could salvage some of its ideological ‘purity’ simply by abstaining from voting against the repeal Bills in the House and/or Reps. That would effectively neuter the Greens.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Angry

      We need a new governor general and not that hag and pro labor slag Quentin Bryce ….


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Angry I’m LMFAO over that quote, seriously not a minute before reading that someone here was saying what a nice lady the GG is, lucky I put down my coffee or the computer would have worn it, BTW I agree just didn’t quite think of that description! :)


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Redress

    Here we go…the adults are in charge

    over at Andrew Bolt
    Coalition to switch funding from warmists to people with other illnesses


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Ross

    Reading Jo’s thread article and some of the comments above it would seem to me that Topher’s 50:1 video could very useful AFTER the election. At the moment many Australians will either sick of politics / electioneeering or they will have too much on their mind as a result of the election.
    So after the Election has died down and people starting asking about getting rid of the Carbon Tax and begin to realise some of the difficulties involved will be the time to push the stupid economics involved –ie. it will become a single issue focus again.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    ianl8888

    According to Pickering today:


    Last Friday, while in caretaker mode, the Rudd Government signed a contract with a Saudi company, called Red Sea Housing Services, to build accommodation on Manus Island costing $35,000,000!

    If this comment is accurate, the Sun King has deliberately trashed the Caretaker Convention

    I have never before despised anyone in my entire life to this depth. He is utterly, irredeemably vomitous


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Labor cannot depend upon their senators. Being a senator is a cushy number; you don’t have to actually do anything, just pose and bitch.

    The Green Senators will oppose, but the Laborites will consider whether they will have a job after a double dissolution election,

    Hmmm, many creature comforts to lose. I say the Senate goes along with the Coalition’s wishes. My bigger concern is weakness in the coalition after they get power – succumbing to the bureaucracy set in place by Labor.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    the fracking frenzy continues – is this ok?

    4 Sept: Daily Mail: Rob Davies: Fracking firms could drill under homes without telling the owners: Green groups’ fury over horizontal drilling plans
    The Department for Communities and Local Government said it was ‘unreasonable and impractical’ to expect companies to warn all those whose homes might sit above one of its wells.
    The DCLG said anyone living near proposed above-ground facilities would still be notified. But it said there was no need to tell people if firms planned to drill beneath their property because gas reserves are more than 1,000 metres below ground…
    Miss Harris said the DCLG’s plans would heap more misery on locals. ‘They’ve got pound notes in their eyes and a government that used to champion the countryside is just throwing it away,’ she added…
    ‘I’m a lifelong Conservative voter, my family are, but I cannot understand what this government is doing.’…
    ***Plans to revise the oil and gas planning regime came as Cuadrilla withdrew its own planning application, admitting it had not consulted people living above areas where it wants to drill.
    A company spokesman said it was ‘coincidence’ that Cuadrilla withdrew its planning application 24 hours after it emerged that the Government might change the rules.
    It is expected to resubmit its application, potentially delaying operations in Balcombe.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2410694/Fracking-firms-drill-homes-telling-owners-Green-groups-fury-horizontal-drilling-plans.html

    8 Aug: UK Financial Times: Riverstone to float energy fund in London
    By Guy Chazan and Anousha Sakoui
    Riverstone Holdings, the energy-orientated private equity group where former BP chief executive Lord Browne is a partner, is to float a new energy vehicle in London.
    Called Riverstone Energy, the new vehicle is aiming to raise at least £500m and will invest in entities across the oil and gas and renewable energy sectors, said people familiar with the matter.
    The flotation is being prepared by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, the people said…
    Lord Browne has been a partner of Riverstone since leaving BP in 2007. In that role he co-heads the world’s largest renewable energy fund, with $3.5bn in equity. He is also chairman of Cuadrilla Resources, which is exploring for unconventional oil and gas in the UK. Riverstone owns 44 per cent of Cuadrilla, which it jointly controls with AJ Lucas, ***the Australian engineering group…
    Cuadrilla was forced to suspend its fracking operations in Lancashire in 2011 after causing two small earth tremors….
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2511d000-0046-11e3-ba6b-00144feab7de.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If it follows the standard fracking pattern, any horizontal drilling will be more than two miles below the surface. I have molten lava sitting underneath my office that is closer than that. It is just one more example of Green alarmism,


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Maverick

    In the meantime, within 30 days of the election, the skeptics should each write to every Member of the lower and upper houses with 1) there is no evidence of AGW and outline the key scientific reasons why this is so and debunk the likely rebuttal, 2) if it is real the cost is X for the world to get a 1 degree reduction in (in Topher style) and 3) The lower house majority that the coalition achieved is because the large majority of Australian’s want rid of the carbon tax so do you democratic duty.

    It would be excellent if the big brains among the followers of Jo’s blog would prepare a boiler-plate letter that we can all customise a little with our own background/geography/reasons for being a skeptic.

    If at the time the Senate sits every Senator has a thousand letters in their hands setting out 1,2 and 3 described above then the message will be fresh in their minds when they need they need to shout “Yay” or “Nay”.

    I certainly would be be very grateful for a succinct boiler-plate letter because I am definitely going to write to every Member post this election and if 1,000+ did the same it has to have some impact.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Did you know that Rudd speaks Mandarin? It is true, I heard him, and he wasn’t too bad at it.

    Anyway Rudd, like every progressive fool in the Western world, has been trying to goad the Chinese into committing mass suicide by adopting Krudd style carbon reduction schemes.

    Those darn Chinese, they just won’t make Krudd feel better and promise him to take a gun to their own heads.

    Speaking of Rudd, here is something clever


    Report this

    30

  • #
    sophocles

    A couple of months ago, I gave the arm-chair a grease and adjustment,
    the Esky has fresh ice-bergs, there’s plenty of beer in the fridge and
    I’ve lot’s of popcorn.

    I’m ready. :D


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Rob Burgess: The scene is set for Rudd 3.0

    As I stood with the gaggle of journalists surrounding Bill Shorten on the night of Rudd’s comeback, I took a call on my mobile from the source that had first explained the Shorten carbon-backflip story.
    That source had told me just days earlier that “Shorten will do whatever it takes to get Rudd to run”, because the only sure-fire way to get rid of Rudd was to have him contest the election and lose.
    As Shorten arrived to tell us he’d defected to the Rudd camp, my source just said, “See? I told you.”


    Report this

    10