If the Nat's don't join Rupert’s crusade, he…

Watching Barnaby Joyce being interviewed by Lee Sales on 7.30 last Tuesday…

Why is our government holding us back?

So far as I can see, most of those who claim to…

Funeral Rites for COVID Zero

It was such a noble public health dream, even if rather hazy…

Net Zero Contribution From The Usual Gross Quarters!

"Great news... The Coalition are about to announce a commitment to net…

So what's this "Cashless Debit Card" thing all…

By Amanda Smith The Cashless Debit Card is the latest iteration of…

Waking up to Climate Change Dinosaurs

Morning listening on October 13. Australia’s Radio National. Members of the Morrison…

So Let's Hear It For The Echo Chamber…

Definition of echo chamber : a room with sound-reflecting walls used for producing…

COVIDSafe: The Failure of an App

The returns have not been impressive. For an app essentially anointed as…


A Climate Created by The Abbott of Clive

Al Gore and Clive Palmer (image from theguardian.com)

When Clive Palmer stood beside Al Gore (God only knows why Gore did it) in the Great Hall at Parliament House to announce his party’s voting intentions regarding the Carbon Tax, I like many others watched with daunting anticipation. After all he had, in his own typically flamboyant way, created an event (or an illusion) of world importance worthy of a major speech at the UN.

The former Vice President gave the occasion celebrity value. For me it was not just an announcement. It was about a decision vital to my country’s future. What might this man of singular self-importance do?

Then Palmer announced the terms and conditions for his party’s support for dropping the tax, one of which was that it be linked to the implementation of an ETS, albeit without a price. Well that’s what I thought I heard and I said to my wife:

“I think Clive has Tony by his Crown Jewels”.

What I thought I heard was not what I had heard at all after Palmer later clarified his remarks. It was not linked at all. I was somewhat devastated when, after doing some quick intellectual gymnastics, I concluded that Clive had pulled a swifty. Then I angered to write but prudence got the better of me and I decided to canvas some thoughts from those like me who are concerned and opine on serious matters such as this. It was as well I waited because the subject has taken more twists and turns on a daily basis than the Albert Park Grand Prix circuit.

I can guarantee that a read of these articles might tip your sanity over the edge, confuse you, make you more aware, disappoint you, or even infuriate you. But hopefully they might convince you that we are being led by a moron of unbelievable stupidity and myopia. Closely followed by a businessman who only wants two things. Anything that will advance his business interests and revenge against those who wouldn’t give him what he wanted.

But hopefully the last article by the ever astute Peter Martin will put things in perspective for you.

First off the grid was former Gillard Minister, Craig Emerson.

”Lots of carbon-emitting smoke and sideshow alley mirrors were on display yesterday when Clive Palmer and Al Gore announced a major environmental breakthrough. Now that the smoke is cleared and a light is shone on the mirrors, here’s what was actually announced. It confirms what I wrote last night.”

PUP Senators will vote with the Government to repeal the existing Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) law, including the present fixed price and the future floating price. PUP will seek to introduce its own ETS with a zero price. However, it will not insist on the Government voting for its bill. Even if the new ETS bill were to make it through the Senate, it must then go to the House of Representatives where the Government has a majority (that’s how it became the Government). Unless PM Abbott has a massive change of heart, the Government will defeat PUP’s ETS Bill in the House. The bill therefore will not become law.

Palmer is insisting on the Government retaining the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority. He has also announced PUP will vote against the Government’s Direct Action legislation.

As announced, the net result is that Australia’s existing ETS will be scrapped and not replaced with any ETS. Direct Action will be defeated. The Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority will be retained.

While this is better than nothing, it is hardly cause for celebration for anyone who believes an ETS is vital to reducing carbon emissions. Unless Clive Palmer or Tony Abbott change their minds, there will be no ETS and therefore no effective action on climate change.

Mark Kenny in what I think is one of the best pieces on the subject said this:

The understanding here is that Abbott’s real priority is – and only ever has been – the destruction of the carbon ‘‘tax’’. Everything else, including the $2.5 billion direct action plan to pay large polluters to cut emissions, was merely put forward because the Coalition feared that offering nothing was electoral suicide.

Barry Tucker. Blogger for THE AIMN had this to say:

By voting for abolition of the carbon price (“tax”), Palmer saves millions in future payments for pollution from his mines. He still has to pay for overdue carbon price bills, plus fines and penalties of about $63 million and growing almost exponentially.
He may do another deal to get some relief for that liability. Ultimately, he’s just in politics for his own benefit.

James Clancy a Facebook friend commented on the guaranteed reduction on his power bills:

Well today I received a letter from Energy Australia that Electricity prices will increase from 1st July 2014. The weighted average price increase to Qld customers will be $4.58 per week. So it looks like they are going to charge first and give a little off if the carbon tax is repealed. I seem to recall that Electrical suppliers had written to the Federal Government saying that they will give consumers the savings they make. So we Pay $294.00 extra a year, how much will we get back when the carbon tax is repealed I bet it is not around $550 as Tony Abbott has claimed.

Ross Garnaut

Economist and carbon pricing expert Professor Ross Garnaut says the Palmer United Party’s position to vote to retain the RET and other key climate change bodies will have “important” and positive effects.

Doug Evans another writer for this blog said.

Abbott and his band of hateful sidekicks are a disgrace. Even if they become a one term blot on our political landscape we still have three years of their carnage to endure. On the bright side they are not getting it all their own way. Their first budget is in tatters raising the question of whether or not there will be a second ‘horror’ budget next year, further cementing their unpopularity. The really important elements of the Clean Energy legislation (CEFC, ARENA) look as though they will endure as does the RET. No-one in government or the MSM seems to be able to fully evaluate the meaning of the loss if the price on carbon. Thanks to Labor’s insistence carbon price was always set too low to drive meaningful change and when linked to the global carbon market was going to come much lower (hence the Greens’ insistence on the fixed price period). The carbon price hasn’t been and was never going to be the major element of this legislation driving the clean energy transformation. Axing the tax will have very little effect on the rate of growth of our carbon emissions.

The media with their unshakeable fixation on THE CARBON TAX have taken to repeating that without the (very small) stick of our ETS we are without any mechanism for driving down emissions. Not sure why they ignore the (somewhat larger) carrot that is the combination of RET and CEFC.

For those of you who (like me) love to hate Greg Hunt, Mark Kenny ( a journalist for whom I normally have no respect at all) has written a very interesting speculative piece for Fairfax on who wins and who loses from Palmer’s carbon tax machinations The article bears strongly on assessment of what matters and what doesn’t in the wash up of Abbott’s shock and awe onslaught on our climate policy. It is worth reading and reflecting on, not least because it reveals tensions within the government around this issue.

Similarly I found Lenore Taylor’s piece on the background leading to Palmer’s stunning appearance beside Al Gore pretty interesting also. It also explains why Gore having agreed to appear with Palmer still looked so very uncomfortable about being there.

Lenore Taylor in an interview with Palmer last weekend.

“Our amendment makes it a requirement that people will have to pass on the power cost savings … not a voluntary situation, it doesn’t leave it up to the ACCC to decide at its discretion whether or not it wants to enforce this”.
“But I’m not in business, I’m serving the Australian people, so knowing that I am going to make sure this legislation goes through to protect to protect our pensioners and everyone like that”. “Palmer has given up several directorships but remains the owner of a number of companies, including a nickel refinery, coal leases and an iron ore holding”.

Annabel Crabb in her usual stoic style.

“Direct Action is about as popular within the Coalition as a peanut at a preschool, and not having to make sense of it in practice is something of a lucky break for the government”.

“Anyone building hypothetical future scenarios based on Clive Palmer continuing serenely as the new face of emissions trading might want to exercise caution”.

Michael Pascoe in The Age.

“Clive Palmer is being hailed in several quarters as a jolly green giant saving Australia’s carbon emissions trading scheme, not to mention lauded as a master political strategist. Hold the phone at least on the first part of that”.

“One of the problems with Clive is working out what he’s saying, what he might think he’s saying and what he actually means”.
“They can all be quite different things. For businesses having to plan and invest around carbon policy, that’s not very helpful”.

Bernie Fraser former Governor of the Reserve Bank.

“Policymakers need to look beyond short-term economic considerations in the interests of some of the big companies to longer-term community interests. That’s what governments are supposed to do, but unfortunately it’s not happening at the present time”.

Laurie Oakes in Melbourne’s Herald Sun.

“Palmer himself? It’s only a couple of months since he was proclaiming disbelief in the whole idea that human activity contributes to global warming. Scientists, he claimed, could be paid to say anything.

Now he adopts the stance of an environmental warrior, committed to retention of the Climate Change Authority and opposed to any change in the Renewable Energy Target designed to ensure 20 per cent of Australia’s energy comes from sources such as wind and solar by 2020”.

“The Prime Minister has held every position there is on climate change, from branding the science “absolute crap” to claiming before his recent Washington visit he accepts it, and from supporting an ETS when John Howard embraced it to asserting a price on carbon would destroy the economy”.

And this from Australianpolitics.com

Palmer has demonstrated today that he has a deft and populist political touch, even though his political positions don’t withstand close scrutiny. He has positioned himself to be seen to be sympathetic to climate change policies, although nothing he has proposed will ever come to pass. The carbon tax will be abolished, with a direct financial benefit to Palmer’s companies.

Mark Kenny again.

“Just before the House adjourned on Thursday, there were jubilant scenes on the floor of the House of Representatives as the Coalition passed the carbon tax repeal bills for the second time”.

“Mr Abbott met Mr Palmer on Thursday morning and emerged happy that the minor party’s four upper house votes would support the abolition of the fixed price, subject to just one condition – a guarantee that the package would contain legislated assurances of cheaper electricity for households”.

Mike Carlton in his usual full on journalistic style got right to the point.

“His idiocy would not matter a toss but for the fact that Newman is chairman of the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council and, therefore, presumably in Tony Abbott’s shell-like ear. Publicly, Abbott has held more positions on climate change than there are sexual acrobatics in the Kama Sutra but you know that, deep down, he believes it’s “crap”. His word.

Abbott is appalling and will no doubt do plenty of damage but he is not getting all his own way. With any luck this will be the dominant theme of his one term government.

Richard Dennis on the cost of power.

‘The main reason that electricity has been getting dearer is the over investment in poles and wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national electricity market’s working,’ says Richard Denniss, executive director of the Australia Institute”.

Peter Martin

“For six glorious wild and wet days last week, South Australia sourced 67 per cent of its electricity from wind. Needless to say, it’s an Australian record. So fast were the turbines turning from early Monday to early Sunday that the entire national grid sourced an extraordinary 14.5 per cent of its electricity from wind”.

But the last word goes to the Prime Minister in this article from Philip Correy:

“Tony Abbott has sparked a war with the renewable energy sector by claiming their product was driving up power prices “very significantly” and fostering Australia’s reputation as “the unaffordable energy capital of the world”.


Login here Register here
  1. Mike Stasse

    I really really do wish SOMEONE, anyone, would proof read John’s otherwise well written articles…… “Ross Garnut”? REALLY? and that’s just one error from dozens………

  2. patsy

    wonderful article….you said exactly what I felt……..power

  3. Kaye Lee


    I hope you don’t mind…I fixed a couple of typos.

  4. Vicki

    Would the typo police please give it a rest. That’s all the majority of spelling errors are. It would be far more constructive to critque or comment on the content of John’s writings.
    I, too, thought that Palmer’s grandiose announcement included the promise that the repeal of the carbon price was to be linked with the retainment of the ETS only to find the following day that he did not ‘mean’ that at all and that he had attached no conditions to the repeal of the ct.
    I read most of the above articles as they appeared and the only sense I could ultimately make was that we are left with precisely nothing to rein in carbon emission. How the rest of the world must be either laughing at us for being played for fools by Palmer and this government or shaking their heads in disgust at our ignorance and our self interest.
    Anyone who believes their cost of everday expenses (including power bills) is going to go down are seriously deluding themselves.

  5. Kaye Lee

    “While Prime Minister Tony Abbott says renewable energy significantly increase electricity bills, a new study finds wind energy actually forced down wholesale power prices by more than $3.2 billion over six years – but that little of the savings flowed through to consumers.

    Mr Abbott on Tuesday said the renewable energy target, which has largely driven investment in wind farms, was ”very significantly driving up power prices”.

    ”It’s precisely the opposite,” John Foster, one of the authors of the study that has been submitted to a review of the target, said. “The [target] – and the stimulation of wind – has increased supply and flattened out the expensive peaks”.

    Once other costs including the purchase of renewable energy certificates were taken out, the target delivered a net benefit of $870 million from 2007 to 2012, the study found.”


  6. John Armour

    Most authors appreciate a discreet email pointing out the odd typo.

    Proper nouns are the worst.

    Voice recognition software has real trouble with homophones.

    As does Tony Abbott apparently.

  7. Lee

    So I did interpret the reports correctly – we’re doing nothing about carbon emission and Clive is only looking after himself. Surprise, surprise! I won’t hold my breath waiting for my electricity bill to go down either.

  8. Brendan Kelly

    Al Gore must be short of a buck. It seemed obvious at the time that the”announcement” was nothing more than a Punch and Judy show, mainly because I can’t credit anything Clive Palmer says. Populist? Yes. Interested in looking after the people of Australia? No. Interested in looking after Clive? Abso-bloody-lutely.
    It has been pointed out so many times and from so many credible sources that the cause of our high cost of power is largely due to the overservicing of “poles and wires”. Maybe this is a point of difference those in Opposition or athwart cross benches could use to force a wedge into the public consciousness, a point that would go to looking after all Australians.
    I am hopeful that the RET and CEFC will survive but I’m not betting my (meagre) life savings on it.

  9. Roswell

    Speaking of fixing typos, I like the new edit function in the comments section. The auto-correct on my iPhone is a curse at times.

  10. Diannaart

    Excellent collage of work here John.

    I used to be a spelling and grammar nazi, then I got old and learned how to prioritise.

  11. Vicki

    Exactly, Diannaart. Almost got the spelling of your name all wrong. Never mind somebody would have corrected me.

  12. Diannaart

    Thanks, Vicki

    I like to think the spelling of my name sorts the sincere from the devious.

    The result John has achieved from a variety of sources far outweighs a typo – besides in these days of auto-correct what is the point in focussing on the petty?

    Thanks to John I have a handy reference for future correspondence on the WWW.

  13. david Linehan

    Thanks John, have posted a link to your article on Twitter

  14. david Linehan

    Bloody hell Mike StasseJuly 3, 2014 at 8:57 am…

    Give it a rest, you sound like a patsy for the typo police…if it bothers you that much, solution is in your hands, immature as it would be.

  15. John Lord

    Mike Stasse. Thank you for the complement. I only wrote the first couple of hundred words. If as you say there are dozens of errors they must be in the articles from reputable sources I have quoted.

    Anyhow the constant criticism leads me to think that I am bringing the integrity of this fine blog into disrepute so I will think twice before posting again.

  16. david Linehan

    John you just stay put. There is one whinger only and time he zipped it or took the high jump. As in my earlier comment.

  17. Bacchus

    Anyhow the constant criticism leads me to think that I am bringing the integrity of this fine blog into disrepute so I will think twice before posting again.

    No John – the criticism is only coming from the anally retentive who have not yet progressed beyond primary school level reading to reading for meaning. I’m guessing that for every grammar nazi who is criticizing your pieces, there are 1000s more who know how to read properly 😉

  18. Roswell

    I’m with Bacchus.

  19. Mike Stasse

    No John…….. don’t “think twice before posting again”, get someone to proof read your exellent work.

    I blog too, and I too make errors. And I fix them. Typos are like a car with defects. They take all the pleasure out of reading, and it’s particularly annoying when what you’re reading is WORTH reading.

    This site is one of my favourite lurking spots…… I like its quality writing. I just hate to see it spoilt by sloppy grammar/spelling. Thank you Kaye Lee for the repair job…

  20. Dan Rowden

    “Let’s eat, Grandma. Let’s eat Grandma. Punctuation saves lives!”

  21. John921Fraser


    Today in, 1922, Queensland became the first State to abolish hanging.

    To date no one has agitated for it to be bought back …. for keyboard/grammar/punctuation mistakes.


    Spot the punctuation error ?

  22. Kaye Lee

    Proof reading your own work is hard because your mind reads what it meant to say. Informing people and opening up discussion is the important thing. Words are used for communication and no-one is better at using them than John who is a true wordsmith able to paint pictures and appeal to emotions just by typing a few words. He is both a collator of information and a creator of works of literary art. I can also say that when I finish writing an article it’s a bit like doing tapestry – by the time I am finished I am sick of it and don’t want to look at it again.

  23. Michael Taylor

    The editor is away on family business. Some things are just more important than editing.

  24. Jonathan Maddox

    Gore did it because he was asked nicely. He (though Senator Jacquie Lambie also claims some of the credit) shifted Palmer’s position on three important, if secondary, points of climate change policy. Palmer would lose all credibility and an awful lot of money if he shifted his stance on the carbon price itself, so that fourth and primary point was never going to be negotiable.


  25. Don Winther

    @Mike Stasse Frustrated ex school teacher may-be?

    Great article Jonh ….Keep on writing I always enjoy your spelling…… I mean your views.

  26. Anomander

    Re-think that re-think please John. We need you and your superb posts.

  27. corvus boreus

    I type errors for a number of reasons.
    *Copyright, just as street directories have phantom roads, deliberate errors expose subsequent plagiarism.
    *Dodgy keyboard with fading batteries.
    *Flailing eyesight.
    *My typing skills are substandard.
    *Self-proofing, as mentioned, is nigh impossible, and I don’t have a personal secretary.
    *Spill chuck dozen git context.
    *My brain has holes.
    John Lord, thank you for all you compile and compose.

  28. Trevor

    Who gives a flying f**k about grammatical bullshit errors an punctuation.

    I read the articles and not the micro detail of grammer and rubbish detail which proper(sic) english tra la la’s dictate as habing meaning.

    If you find yourself stuck in meaninless detail them perhaps a psychologist may help

    Expprt Abbott not Refugees.

  29. JohnB

    When the ‘carbon tax’ repeal bill was passed in the House of Representatives, Mr Palmer abstained from voting on the basis of ‘conflict of interest’.
    From examination of HOR Hansard of 26/6/2014, Palmer abstained from voting on any of the ETS/MRRT/ ‘budget repair’ repeal bills.
    I understand Palmer quite rightly considers that voting on these bills would indeed constitute a conflict of interest.

    However, when these same bills come to the Senate there is to be no such consideration of the ‘conflict of interest’ issue.
    Why should this be so?

    The ‘Pup’ party is financed and organised by Palmer – Palmer’s vast investments in mineral resources are directly affected by many of these bills. Palmer’s Senators were elected as a result of a very effective (and well funded) campaign financed by this wealthy mining mogul.
    To my mind this is a classic example of a wealthy corporation strategically ‘buying’ electoral support to gain direct influence over democratic processes. Imagine if you can the outcry, if instead of the ‘Pup’ party this was the ‘BHP Billiton’ party (or a similar corporation) that successfully outspent all other Australian traditional political parties to ‘finance’ the election of 3 controlling senators.
    Why is ‘conflict of interest’ no longer a consideration?

  30. Kaye Lee


    Particularly since the PUP senators have shown no interest in, or understanding of, politics prior to their heavily funded (from where?) campaign, and no displayed knowledge of the issues at hand even after their election.

  31. JohnB

    Belated thanks for your article John, and your reply Kaye.
    Apologies for the length of this post but couldn’t edit it down further.

    The Broader Issue.
    I consider the loser in the stage-managed drama and machinations of the last week or so has been Australia.
    We have conferred the right to make important decisions of existential importance to recently elected ill informed Senators, generally unqualified in the field of climate science or economics -voting on the need for retention/repeal of co2 amelioration measures.
    While in no way do I wish to diminish the importance of AGW/carbon amelioration as an issue here, I think the broader issue of the electoral process which delivered this new Senate is a corruption of proper democratic process – an exploitation of a defect or imprecision in our election laws by a party with a clear vested interest.

    I would be interested in your thoughts on the following:
    Section 44/45 of the constitution addresses issues of elected officials who derive support or extract other pecuniary reward due current employment, but it fails to address the current scourge of modern democratic process; over-the-top funding/sponsorship of candidates to electoral success by wealthy corporations seeking to enhance selfish profitability. For these sponsoring corporations the election of ‘their’ sponsored legislators is surely a conscious investment in ‘indirect’ future benefit.

    I have no background in law, but I offer the following layman’s analysis.
    Section 44: Any person who-
    v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:
    shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

    My attempt to interpreted S44(v) into concise English follows,
    I think it means ‘must not be an employee of the Commonwealth or a company consisting of more than 25 employees at the time of election’ – if it does, I consider it needs to be updated to also exclude “direct or indirect sponsorship to election” as well as prior employment.

    Section 45 – Vacancy on happening of disqualification
    If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-
    (i.) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section: or
    … or
    (iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State:
    his place shall thereupon become vacant.

    Re Section 45 (iii) …”Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth” – could money and other resources supplied to ensure/enable electoral success be interpreted as directly or indirectly “rendering a service to the Commonwealth” or “ services rendered in the Parliament “?
    Is not the elected member indeed providing a ‘service’ to the functioning of the Commonwealth and to its Parliament?
    The Senate is constitutionally intended to be a State’s house of review – this is a long way from where it’s heading now – a house of review by corporate sponsored representatives.
    This is the first occasion that directly sponsored and ‘named’ corporate representative Senators have taken up positions of real legislative power in Federal Parliament. Palmer stands to gain millions of corporate dollars on the repeal of carbon amelioration legislation. Palmer achieved such influence in the Senate by outspending the established main parties at the recent Federal and WA elections.

    This is the beginning of a much worse scenario come the next election; if we are going to preserve the integrity of democratic governance, it is at this point we must challenge the process and/or the effectiveness of our ‘constitution’ to preclude wealthy corporations funding political representative into positions of legislative control.

    I expect Palmer’s success in achieving influential representation in the Senate to be followed by other corporate sponsored ‘senators’ in future elections.
    Corporations more powerful than Palmer are no doubt eyeing off their chance of winning their own seats in our Senate – Clive’s ‘investment’ in our democracy has demonstrated a sure way to insure against restrictive regulation and provide lucrative investment returns in the form of stripped/negated regulations.

    I fear this is the start of the seemingly inexorable drift towards an Australian oligarchy.
    A repeat of what has occurred with the US Senate over the last few decades, where a flood of corporate money dominates and paralyses US political governance, regardless of which party Joe Public elects.
    The present weight of corporate money ‘invested’ in our political processes is to soon become an avalanche at the next senate election.

  32. mark delmege

    I never liked Al Gore especially after he appointed Lieberman his running mate for the Chad elections. He is a warhead, arch conservative and Israeli Firster.

  33. mark delmege

    ..besides there is an argument that suggests an ETS is more eyewash than greenwash. And that if we were really serious about pollution better methods would be pursued. Just say’n.

  34. corvus boreus

    Agreed, mark d.
    Al Gore’s background is God and Guns all the way. Purely a pragmatic power player, called a ‘born conformist’ by his own mum. His prominence in debate muffles the voices of the truly knowledgeable on the subject, and he is one of the first ‘authorities’ cited by ‘skeptiks’.
    “Who’s James Hansen? Is he related to Pauline?”

  35. corvus boreus

    Ah, the loopy lord, Rodney Dangerfield’s weird bastard brother.

  36. Douglas Evans

    You raise interesting points. You should get a legal opinion. You might think about contacting Brian Walters to see if he is prepared to offer one at any level. He’s a terrific person and previously helped me (with thoughts and contacts) in an attempt to restrict IPAs influence over the ABC. If you don’t know him you can find him in Wikipedia.
    Surprised to find myself quoted. The short-sighted fixation on the ETS/carbon tax fails us in two ways. For those inclined to trust the dire warnings of the climate scientists but who don’t understand what is required to address them it became the magic bullet. A talisman to be protected at any cost. Although the design of the about to be repealed ETS (unlike Rudd’s disingenuous sham) allows for it to be ratcheted up to useful levels it was never going to be more than one useful tool in a necessarily diverse toolbox. For those who disbelieve the scientists and/or just don’t care it is a hated symbol that must be destroyed.
    All ETS’ are market driven devices and as such are susceptible to manipulation to protect corporate self interest. The rest of the world is moving to incorporate such schemes and we should have one also but we must understand that the market will not save us. Losing ours will set us further back in the inevitably competitive transformation of the global economy now underway. However losing it will have little effect on the current marginal reduction in our rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 and it will not hasten especially the onrushing climate-armageddon.
    The really important aspects of the Clean Energy legislation package (insisted on by the Greens, Oakeshott and Windsor as a condition of supporting the legislation) and the RET seem likely to remain intact until the next election and the economic scales are now tipping rapidly in favor of renewables. Fossil fuel is in its death throes but all the thrashing around over the next decade can still cause plenty of damage.

  37. John Lord

    Quoted you Douglas because I wanted to give a variety of opinion and you are always intelligent.

  38. Lee

    “Particularly since the PUP senators have shown no interest in politics prior to their heavily funded (from where?) campaign.”

    Yes it’s interesting, isn’t it? None of them show any great knowledge of politics either and the most important issue to focus on is Tony Abbott parading his daughters around before the election.

  39. JohnB

    Thanks Doug (July 4, 2014 at 8:03 am),
    Have sent him an email requesting some guidance.

  40. darrel nay

    I found the following article interesting (50 ex IPCC climate scientists ditching the anthropogenic global warming idea):


  41. JohnB

    darrel nay
    – the only thing interesting about the denialist rubbish by John O’Sullivan you have linked to is that there are still gullible people around who will believe cherry-picked/unsubstantiated nonsense.

    From DeSmogBlog : http://www.desmogblog.com/john-o-sullivan
    – John O’Sullivan is a UK-based climate denialist blogger, writer and the sole active director of Principia Scientific International – a membership group promoting fringe views on climate change science and role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. O’Sullivan, a former school teacher, claims the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide is unproven and that human-caused climate change is a “fraud”.
    John O’Sullivan has not written any peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change.

    From O’Sullivan’s esay:
    “…so infuriated over the blatant lies is Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, that last week he resigned in disgust…”
    From SkepticalScience: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
    “…Listening to Giaever’s opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. ..”

  42. corvus boreus

    Cheers for the post, Darrel n, information is always useful, and the link to the hard right denialist kooksite(even a Monckton link) helps clarify your slant for future dealings.

  43. darrel nay


    I am well aware that there are many genuine believers in the concept of AGW. Similarly, there are plenty of people who feel smothered by the voracity of the AGW movement.

    Regarding the criticism of Dr. Giaever, I would suggest that Einstein wasn’t a ‘climate scientist’ either – but if he were to deny anthropogenic global warming, would we claim that he was unqualified to comment? Dr Ivar is an eminent scientist and was offering his views – not a peer-reviewed article. The technique of describing Dr. Giaever as a climate pseudo-scientist is from the ideology that suggests we should all be fully compartmentalised and only live within ‘the box’. Science morphs into authoritarian ideology when it discourages disagreement. The article I linked to provides another 50 views as to APW and the functioning of the IPCC.

    We all learned a little science at school and/or university and it wouldn’t say much for our education system if we were all deemed too dumb to review the science for ourselves and to then draw our own conclusions for example I am not a doctor but I am prepared to say that lobotomies were bad medicine. Sure, many scientists believe that AGW is a big problem, but equally many scientists believe AGW is a big fraud. You don’t need to be a ‘climate scientist’ to realise that they have difficulty predicting tomorrow’s weather with certainty, let alone crystal-balling global destruction years in advance.

    I continue to be disturbed by the claim that there is a consensus, when so many good people, who are active environmentalists, disagree. Further, those who deny AGW aren’t trying to levy taxes on the whole world – a sure recipe for a backlash. If the tax were to be levied voluntarily (ie. a donation) then the proponents could pay it and those who disagree with AGW would not feel that they were being dictated to by the ‘believers’. It is the nature of a free human being to resist being dictated to.

  44. darrel nay

    We generally recognise the rampant corruption in government and the corporations, but, many of us seem to think that everything is squeaky-clean at the IPCC. – please forgive me if I harbour some doubt.

  45. corvus boreus

    The voracity comes from veracity and the urgency of the situation, and you are bullshitting(!!!) when you claim parity between scientific consensus over AGW(just one of many issues of human biospheric degradation)and scientific belief in a conspiracy of systematic fraud in the science of climatology. Check statistics on comparisons of viewpoints presented in peer reviewed scientific publication. Digest the dialogue of commercial media with scepticism, particularly those with proven records of false information or proven links to organisations with vested commercial interests.
    The IPCC findings are publicly open and accountable, their ‘discreditation’ came from lying media(do you believe Fox?) sourcing from cyber-criminals, since clarified and the scientists exonerated, by open investigation. The only erroneous information submitted was the infamous “Himalayan glacier” paragraph of the previous report(the errant scientist after investigation was removed from his position for his mistake and the claim corrected). Governments, and especially corporations,by comparison, are subject to scant review or transparency.
    AGW is one symptom of an overall pattern of accelerating decline in function of natural systems, consequences of policy based in dogmatic ignorance of crucial natural cycles. This needs urgent address.
    Your post,cloaked in language of moderation, promotes the generalised disdain of credible science being popularised by ‘conservative’ zealots, and the fact that you make bullshit claims of false dichotomies based on a conspiracy theory, with links to a denialist site, makes you nothing but an obstructionist tool.
    Checklist; small guvment, lower taxes, deregulation, FREEDOM, and, yep, global warming is a myth of conspiracy.
    Again, Thanx for tha fresh ideaz, but we are not on the same page, ‘mate’.

  46. corvus boreus

    To promote contemplation rather than just refute, if you would deny AGW, you would deny the idea that human actions are capable of consequentially warming the surface of the planet.
    At the most simple level, we get adjoining acres. You clear-fell yours,and grow monocot crops or hard-pave it. I leave some trees on mine.
    I stand in the shade(trees absorb heat as well as light, catalysis for photosynthesis) and feel comfortable because it is cooler, less cooked. You drop with sunstroke because the pasture and grain-crops(although 25% more efficient in metabolising carbon) provide no canopy cooling. Your areas of Concrete and bitumen obviously provide no relief.
    Temperature readings(empirical evidence) confirm this phenomenon.
    This is human action affecting micro-climates within a natural system.
    Expand on this concept.
    Or refute, then progress.

  47. Douglas Evans

    corveus boreus @1.56am
    What are you doing online at that time? Thanks you saved others the effort of once more going to the well to refute (this time) Darrel Nay’s nonsense. Trouble is it makes no difference. The liars, cheats and fools who exploit the gullible on this issue have already caused enough delay and confusion to ensure that climate catastrophe is now unavoidable. What we are witness to now is a rear guard action to delay its arrival.

  48. Douglas Evans

    darrell nay
    Probably completely useless responding but … Don’t rely on others to predigest the truth for you. Bookmark this site and read it regularly. See if you can refute anything that you find on it. http://www.climatecodered.org/

  49. darrel nay

    Corvus Boreus,

    In response to your claim ‘ if you would deny AGW, you would deny the idea that human actions are capable of consequentially warming the surface of the planet’ I would say that your statement assumes that warming occurs in a simple system, free of the multiple buffering effects which nature provides to balance temperatures and atmospheric constitution. Let me be clear, in that, I am not a fan of large-scale paving and monoculture however only a few of the AGW proponents have sold their homes and moved into tents, or the like, as a statement of their convictions.

    I will say that if the reality of AGW is as serious as many predict then dissenting opinion is not really the big issue. We face a litany of environmental abuses (eg. water pollution, ag. chemicals, GMO’s, etc.)and I believe the important thing is for us to keep being active and to recognise that there will be a variety of environmental approaches. Are the fans of AGW in any way concerned by any of the methods being deployed to combat warming (eg. chemtrails or genetically whitening crops to reflect sunlight)?

  50. corvus boreus

    You would assume incorrectly then Darryl. Do I seem to you to be ignorant of the ‘buffering’ processes nature provides, especially in biological context?
    I am aware of the potential masking effect of vapour adhering to atmospheric particulate pollutants, and the possibility that this is deliberate geo-engineering. I am aware of the habit of genetic tampering, and the risky techniques used to do it. These are solutions in the same way that continuing to drink is the solution to a hangover.
    The biggest problem is ever increasing numbers of humans are cutting down and digging up all the life-based carbon, burning and melting it, and pumping it into the air and oceans as pollutants. This is rendering our planet increasingly hostile to an ever increasing number of species, including ourselves. Feedback processes are already manifesting, reducing human control and increasing uncertainty of worst-case estimates.
    Dissenting opinion based in Dunning/Krueger and mental laziness, combined with ignorance fed by creedence in fraudulant mountebanks, delays implementation of crucial remedial action and leads to anti-scientific knuckle-draggers (hi tony) steering the ship ever faster towards disaster.
    Now go talk to a tree and ask what it does for us.

  51. corvus boreus

    Ser Douglas E
    Thank you for the concern regarding my display of post-witching nocturnalism. As a non-progenitor, I have the personal leisure of erratic hours, which is particularly helpful when deadlining paperwork to consolidate continued employment. Temporary alterations in focus of brain function, like online discussion, can help this one maintain enthusiasm for a monotonous task(along with breaks for walks and water).
    Regarding your comments of the hopelessness of the task of re-enflowering our pillaged mutual mother, and the pointlessness of debative discourse, yeah, I get you.
    I have the, shall we say, contingency of possession of access to property chosen for proximity and purity of basic survival resource. If and when it all falls down, I have shelter, water and food. Try to be cautiously clever that way.
    Meanwhile, for continued societal function(get it while it’s there), I operate under the principle that, in my pessimistic conclusions, I may be mistaken, so we should act based on the idea that a difference can still be made.
    This includes making logical, basic knowledge level refutations of stated fallacies. If the misinformed ignore the proffered facts, others may read and heed or contemplate.
    To haiku it,
    Hearts and bladders drained,
    we stand shoulder to shoulder.
    Pissing on bushfires.
    May we both enjoy what remains of this day, under a shared sky.

  52. Kaye Lee

    Popping in here also helps make the books balance….EOFY and I am sinking under a mountain of spreadsheets. It’s amazing how sitting on the verandah looking at the birds and the ocean can help the figures add up when I return. When stuck at the comp the AIMN makes a refreshing break in between trying to reconcile the lives and businesses of my extended family (wish I never did that stupid accounting course).

  53. DanDark

    Lol Kaye I wish I did that stupid accounting course, but shit happens, I hate the beach, hate everything about it, I live 10 mins away, but it takes a loaded gun at my head to get me down on that beach, so hence got a few old gun wounds lol

  54. David Linehan

    Darrel you say …”It is the nature of a free human being to resist being dictated to”. Indeed who would argue with that. However day after day I see or hear or both, budget emergency, budget deficit out of control, debt, debt, debt.
    When Hockey, Abbott, and their economical duds like Ciobo eventually realise this Goebles like theory, ‘say it often enough and it will be believed’ isn’t swaying the great majority, it will be too late to salvage reality.
    They have lost the young voters, they have lost majority of the female vote under 60, obviously the workers of the nation on low and middle incomes will be leaving them in droves and so it goes on. Hell Abetz hasn’t had the guts to introduce his Work Choices MK11. That will go down like the proverbial lead balloon. That’s without mentioning beneficiaries.
    Returning to your nature of…so what about climate change? I believe the majority of free human beings have decided and want definitive action now.

  55. corvus boreus

    I don’t like beaches too much, except as a spot to access the ocean when I need to scream underwater, or as a surface to comb along looking for oddities, but I do love headlands. Eagles and other raptors abound in their updrafts, and at the moment you can watch passing cetaceans making spittle-jets and doing big belly-flops. Pretty cool.

  56. DanDark

    yes I see quite a few eagles in my part of the world, we have rain forests we have beaches, all 20 min driving to each, but we also have a lot of rusted on lib voters, other than that can’t ask for anymore, eagles the all seeing clever ones 😉

  57. corvus boreus

    Eagles? Yeah good eyesight, and I would give them the bodybuilding category as well, but they lose to ravens in quizzes and puzzles. 😉
    Ps my electorate’s coastal tourist and votes National. Argh.

  58. DanDark

    Argh yea me to,, all national noddies, it’s scary every time We leave house, they are after our pound of flesh, we only leave now with our armour on, and our escape car ready an idling in supermarket car park, can’t be too prepared as I tell the kids, the old scouts motto, comes in handy lol

  59. Douglas Evans

    darell n
    Like David Linehan my eye was caught by “It is the nature of a free human being to resist being dictated to.” What an interesting thing to say. If more than 90% of all doctors you consulted about (let’s say) blinding headaches were to tell you that those headaches were caused by a malignant brain tumour and present you with brain scans that confirm the diagnosis, how resistant to their diagnosis would free human being darell n be? If more than 90% of all the electricians you consulted about (let’s say) flickering lights and a constant buzzing noise were to tell you that you need to get your electric wiring renewed or your house will burn down, would free person darell n pay attention or ‘resist’? If more than 90% of all the mechanics you consulted about (lets say) a loud metallic shrieking noise whenever you applied the brakes in your car were to tell you that if you don’t get your brakes repaired they will fail and possibly cause someone to die, would you pay attention or resist being dictated to? None of these folk could prove to you that what they say is true but I suggest that unless you are totally irrational in each of these cases you would take the former option. Assuming that you are not totally irrational my next question is ‘what is different about climate change and/or the massive amount of empirical data supporting the global warming hypothesis and/or the almost total consensus of appropriately qualified actively engaged scientists that would cause you (and others of your ilk) to ‘resist’? Please don’t bother to respond with the usual stream of links to the usual bunch of online industry funded liars and deceivers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: