National Farmers Federation needs to abandon farm wars…

By David C. Paull   At a critical time when farmer lobby groups should…

We need better outcomes. But how?

We receive a lot of mail at The AIMN, but this suggestion…

“Until the lion learns how to write, every…

"The first is an old habit of men of this ilk of…

Good Cop/Bad cop

By Keith Antonysen    If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd be believing…

On the politics behind the Nobel Peace Prize

By Maria Millers   It is clear that over the years the Nobel Peace…

A letter to the editor from Morrie Moneyweather

Editors note: At The AIMN, we take people's criticisms seriously, even if inflammatory.…

Space Dildoing with William Shatner

Overpaid breakfast hosts on an Australian network sniggered, wondered and pondered. Why…

Rejecting the Cashless Welfare Card a Good Start…

It is now approaching a decade since Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest was approached…

«
»
Facebook

Human-induced Climate or Natural Cycles?

Climate deniers are trying hard at present to deal with the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report. The Murdoch media has been doing such denying for many years by publishing many authors who deny IPCC science, because they can. And the result is numerous claims by these deniers, none of which actually agree very much with each other. The IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts” (2017) demonstrates the muddle when its editor tells us there are many contradictions among the authors, but it is hoped that these contradictions will be reconciled.

The latest IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts” (2020) takes a different stance and rejects the idea of human-induced climate change and puts the whole matter down to natural cycles. It is this idea which guides the work of Chris Mitchell in his essay “IPCC report shows devil is in the detail for climate alarmists” (15/8/2021, pay-walled).

Mitchell makes three points in his introduction. One is that the Report adds little to the 2014 report and that it is a political report according to Graham Lloyd (a fellow journalist who has compiled so many of those denier contributions over the years) and he claims that it does not bode well for the Glasgow meeting in November.

Secondly, he suggests reducing CO2 emissions to 1.5C – 2.0C by increasing targets is a waste of time because the developed world is already reducing emissions, but India and China are not reducing emissions before 2030 – so emissions will still rise from developing countries.

[Why there could not be reductions across the board does not seem to be considered, but the fault, it seems, is with other people.]

Thirdly, finance people are asking Australia for increased climate ambitions, but there is “voter hesitancy” in paying for climate action.

[Rather like citizen hesitancy with vaccines. But what is the cost of no or very little climate action?]

Mitchell claims there is and will be conflict between countries and also within the UK about paying for climate action while, according to the Daily Mail, “the Chinese are burning coal like there is no tomorrow.”

[What we see here is what climate activists are accused of; that is, being alarmists. It is a favourite tactic used by deniers: activists are alarmists while deniers give only “the facts.” Besides, who is providing China’s coal?]

While Barnaby Joyce chips in with the thought that he is not going to ruin his lifestyle while helping to improve the lifestyle of Indians and Chinese.

[This is part of the neoliberal claim: that selling coal to others lifts them out of poverty, but to stop selling coal would ruin our own lifestyle. The first thing to say is that both India and China are aware of the limits of a carbon economy, but Australia is still caught up in a technology climate plan which will still allow the burning of coal plus “technologies”.]

Mitchell keeps a keen eye on what happens on the ABC. Adam Bandt, in speaking with Fran Kelly, mentions what Johnson has done in the UK and what Biden has done in the USA. Mitchell claims all Johnson has done is abandon his heat pump policy and Biden has seen record gas and oil exploration and exports.

[Is that all Johnson has done? And what about Biden?]

According to worldoil.com 17/2/2021:

“US will import 62% more crude by 2022 due to domestic production declines, says EIA ( US Energy Information Administration)”. It goes on to say “The EIA Short Term Energy outlook 2/2021 estimated that 2020 marked the first year that the US exported more petroleum than it imported on an annual basis.”

[But see the headline above. Obviously one has to keep up with changing facts.]

Bandt asked about Oz’s carbon emission. Mitchell claims Oz’s emissions reductions are ahead of most countries and ahead of its Paris commitment for 2030.

[Of course, the Coalition target is not a big one, and even if the Coalition does achieve it, it will leave much to be done by 2050. The question is: Where will the Coalition be in 2030 or 2050? The www.industry.gov.au March 2020 quarterly report tells us that overall emissions fell1.4% or 7.7m tonnes – now 14.3% below 2005 levels. Still a way to go. Some emissions have occurred through the effects of the pandemic. An SMH headline, 10/8/2021, says: “Australia’s climate policies falling short of United Nation’s global goals.”]

Bandt told Kelly that Oz is lagging on renewables. Mitchell’s comment was: “The numbers show Australia is a leader on wind, rooftop solar and solar farms.”

[Remember how the Coalition has been happy to subsidise coal. But is not happy about subsidising renewables which are becoming cheaper than coal and making coal a stranded asset. Here, anyone would think that the Coalition invented renewables, so full of praise for renewables as they are.]

Bandt claims that “Morrison is putting Australian lives at risk with his 2030 targets.” Mitchell replies: “Yet 2021 is to date one of the coolest years since 2000, largely because of a strong La Nina phenomenon.”

[climate.gov’s state of climate tells us “June 2021 was the fifth warmest on record.”]

More dramatically, the carbonbrief.org article (26/7/2021):

“While the early months of 2021 have been cooler than much of the past decade, global temperatures have risen in recent months as the effects of La Niña have started to fade” gives many instances of extreme weather events, which the World Weather Attribution says are “virtually impossible in the absence of warming caused by human emissions of CO2 and other hothouse gases.”

There is a string of events listed. “This year is now on track to end up somewhere between the fifth and seventh warmest year for the earth’s surface since record began in the mid-1800s.

“The past two months have seen record-breaking heatwaves in the western US and Canada that are fuelling devastating wildfires, as well as flooding events in Europe, India and India driven by extreme rainfall.”

And there is more on the website.

And a word about heat affecting the planet. This comes from a little book about climate change entitled ”Dr Karl’s Little Book of Climate Change” written by Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, published by the ABC. He writes:

“The amount of extra heat from the Sun trapped by the current level of Greenhouse gases is about 400,000 Hiroshima atom bombs each day. That’s an incredible, but dreadful, number. However, this energy is spread over the 510 million square kilometres of the entire planet’s surface, not just concentrated into a single square kilometre.”

[And he goes on to explain details you might not have heard before.]

Now we come to the most amazing claim made by Mitchell in his entire essay.

“Here’s a fact this newspaper has been emphasising for two decades. Man-made climate variability in the short term is dwarfed by natural changes to climate.”

[We come to an interesting and revealing part of Mitchell’s essay. The IPA climate publication for 2020 has bagged the IPCC manmade science and now claims climate change is a result of natural cycles. Mitchell claims The Australian has been emphasising natural cycles for 20 years. Meanwhile, he calls upon Graham Lloyd to make a contribution.]

Graham Lloyd (30/7/2021) has “reported a stunning admission reported in Science magazine.” The Science report is that some climate models are “running hot”. But first, let us go to someone else to discuss climate models, always a matter of contention.

[A team of 9 from different places write about climate models in “Yes, a few climate models give unexpected predictions – but the technology remains a powerful tool” (The Conversation, 9/8/2021).]

“(Models) unequivocally show that warming of the planet since the Industrial Revolution is due to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. This confirms our understanding of the greenhouse effect, known since the 1850s. Models also show the intensity of many extreme weather effects around the world would essentially impossible without human influence.

“The latest scientific evidence, using observed warming, paleoclimate data and our physical understanding of the climate system, suggests global average temperatures very likely increase by between 2.2 degrees C or high as 5.6 degrees C.

“… scientists use climate models cautiously, giving more weight to projections from climate models that are consistent with other scientific evidence.“ (Prevention Web, 8/8/21)

So it is not a matter of models only. And scientists know when predictions are wrong and can search for reasons why. Whereas deniers cry alarmism, yet use models, too.]

Lloyd’s writing on models concludes with reference to Professor Michael Asten, geophysicist, who says:

“There is a discrepancy between models  and observational studies. And that has been obvious since the year 2000. It’s even clearer now in 2021. The only surprise to me is that it’s taken so long for the establishment to admit there is a problem,” Asten says.

“In 2021… the global temperature has decreased to the same value it was 15 years ago. The report ignores this. I argue this is a significant flaw in logic.”

“Asten,” said Lloyd, “took the rational approach to over-hyped reporting.”

“The world has already warmed 1.1 degree since 170 year ago and the world’s a nicer place…170 years ago was a little ice age. If we warm another 0.4 of a degree I don’t see that is a problem and, no I am not frightened’.”

Asten is easily debunked by The Conversation team of scientists. His ideas about models and observation is wrong, as are his quoted temperatures.

But it gets worse with further research into Asten and his ideas about natural cycles. There is a published notice of an Environmental Seminar 21 August , 2020 at the University of Queensland.

In an abstract for that Seminar, Asten explains he will discuss and compare:

“… proxy temperature cycles contained in data sets from European glaciation, China agricultural records and two global constructs. A high correlation between European and China data sets, especially for 800 – 2000 CE, demonstrates a level of synchronicity between possible regional phenomena. Spectral analysis shows a series of spectral peaks in all data sets consistent with those detected globally in cosmic ray flux, which supports the theory of natural climate cycles being partially under astronomical control.”

So there we have it. “Cosmic ray flux” and “natural climate cycles … under astronomical control”?

How does that sound? About right? Just the kind of thing to impress “informed” Murdoch readers?

And for real analysis by a real astrophysicist, Professor Michael Ashley, at The Conversation (31/8/2011): “Event horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage” where the author is scathing about the climate coverage at the time when Mitchell was editor of The Australian and debunks various deniers, including Asten. Well worth a read.

It appears that nothing has changed at Murdoch Land. They claim they present alternative views for people to decide what they think. In fact, it is such a muddle of disparate views there is no sense to be made of it and all it has achieved is delays in what should be done about climate change. Very dangerous and alarming.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

18 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Phil Pryor

    Mitchell of the Merde Dog menagerie of mendacious maggots is a no-one, not qualified, experienced, suited to science. A former editor is rather like a supervisor of the sewage works, or a foreman of the tip, one capable at the requirements of the job and little more. No decent information can be had from media like the foreign flea’s fantasy and fraud fabrications, for the old foreigner is himself of little intellect but plenty of greed, filth, pose and ego. They LIE and do not feel required to be honest when a story, scoop, rumour, leak, hint, fabrication will do the job for donors, clients, patrons, advertisers, and assorted members of the insider’s clique. Peasants (us?) should shut up, eat the shit, be grateful, consume and abuse, just get on with being peasants in our insecure, under rewarded world…

  2. Keith

    Over the last years there have been thousands upon thousands of research reports published in reputable journals ensuring that a journalist, a single book, or a Professor; cannot dismantle.

    “The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467619886266

    I had been loaned the IPA book by a mate who bought it from a second hand store, it merely is a compendium of debunked myths (what a surprise).

    The IPCC is a summary of the latest climate science research based on 14,000 studies and many more authors.

    The Australian is but a newsletter for deniers.

  3. Dianne

    Yes Keith, all you advance is valid but the fact remains it’s not a vote-changer. Or at least – not in sufficient numbers to be electorally significant.

    Yes it’s perhaps the biggest issue we face but it’s certainly not new and to date hasn’t proven to be crucial as to how citizens vote. Yes, voters will agree when questioned or polled but when the time comes they will cast their ballot otherwise.

    Why? The shallow response sees them as stupid, dumb or hebetudinous – easy prey for a manipulative media. And while that analysis might be valid for some, overall it’s far too simplistic.

    At a deeper and more significant level, perhaps the way our democracy operates is just not suited for such matters? Currently sentenced to be too short-term, too immediate, bound to the here and now?

    Perhaps, Democracy as a means for governing, as predicted by thinkers in the past, just doesn’t work and what we might need is a benign, altruistic Dictator?

  4. Fred

    Love the post.

    Dianne, while there are arguments that suggest democracy is heading down the toilet, are you sure dictators are the answer?

    In OZ we are expected to turn up and vote, which leads to apathy. In the US, “the center of democracy” and UK, voting is optional, which can lead to severe skewing by motivated groups. I’d argue the US electoral system is a complete crock. China now effectively has a dictator after “self promotion” and constitution changes. Myanmar has a dictator (Min Aung Hlaing) as a result of a coup. Afghanistan now has a form of “shared dictatorship” with 6 key Taliban and Haibatullah Akhunzada as supreme leader after a war.

    So who would you rather have Unka Donald, Boris, Putin or ScoMo on the elected side, Xi, elected then getting the gig for life, taking it to a new level in the middle or Min or Haibatullah or some other self appointed dictator? `

    It doesn’t seem to matter what the system, the nutjobs and despots rise to the top, whether by skulduggery or force

    What we need is a better bunch of pollies.

  5. BB

    “What we need is a better bunch of pollies” Indeed we do Fred.

    What we need is honesty and truth in politics and in politicians. Yep, I will always be a dreamer, how sad is that? 😔
    Where loyalty is to citizens, the people, not to the back pockets of politicians.
    All politicians get paid far too much as it is, which leads to unacceptable levels of complacency and corruption.
    The politicians pension ‘reward’, gold card, free this & that for life is a crock which leads to more complacency.
    And then politicians are happy to, they still want to rort the system, feather their own nests, noses in the public purse.
    They make all sort of laws to cover their arse, get away with what amounts to financial & ethical criminal conduct!

    A complete clamp down on any and all donations from all corporations, all businesses etc need to be banned.
    Elections to be paid for from the public purse, not from private sources.
    Propaganda, donations such as the $60 mil by palmer last year are criminal, and skew any fair election.
    And the previous elections Turnbull chipped in a fair bit to the Liberal war chest, a few mil I think it was, and on it goes.
    Make elections fair by banning all donations.
    A complete and total clamp down on the revolving door of jobs after politics.

    And further to all excesses of floating money in political jobs, we need a truly secular government.
    That religion, the church has tentacles into the inner sanctums of government is unacceptable.
    Do away with all the damn hypocrisy, swearing truth, bla, bla, bullshit, on the bible crap, a book of fiction FFS!
    Religions brainwash people from the cradle to the grave.
    Religions impede and thereby distort a persons free thought, to be a discerning intelligent person.

    Further to making sure people become intelligent, all education needs to be FREE..
    Gough had the right idea.
    That Humanities has been subjected to a huge uni cost, making it unattainable for most students. FFS!
    It’s ironic to think that so many pollies in power today had a free education.

    We need an honest court system, not one that has judges who have been bought, are biased and sit in judgement.
    We need a jury system in all and every court of law to make the final judgement.
    Far too much of our justice system has been bought.
    Justice is for those who can afford it, is that right.

    We have a nasty RW Liberal government at present that prosecutes and jails people who tell the truth, whistleblowers.
    In an effort to cover up their crimes and total incompetence. To cover up their RW greed and selfish behaviours.
    Becoming an authoritarian government, to the detriment of truth and honesty.
    A wannabe DICTATORIAL government, unaccountable, irresponsible, above the law of the land!
    FFS!

    How about a genuine republic, anyway, whatever, but the last thing we want is a dictator of any kind!
    There is no such thing as a benign, altruistic dictator, lol, such a term can only be described as an oxymoron! .

    I read somewhere once that government should just be one giant bureaucratic office with ZERO power.
    Now that makes sense to me.
    Power belongs in the hands of the people, not the government.

    Oh well, I live in hope things will change.
    I hope folks wake up this next elections and put the L/NP LAST on their ballot paper.
    And I hope that commonsense kicks in and folks realise that to kick the L/NP out another party has to win!
    So think about that folks, which other party has any hope of getting enough votes to win?
    The Greens on 10%?
    Independents on even less %?

    yep reality is Labor, like them or not, if folks keep on with denigrating Labor we will end up with the L/NP for a 4th term…
    The destruction on the Social Fabric will be horrific, and so far it’s been devastating enough, austerity is only the beginning.
    The divide between the haves and have nots will become a dark bottomless pit, a chasm of total injustice.

    Folks need to wake up to the total bias and bullshit that exists in the MSM, the Main Stream Media. They support only the L/NP.
    Murdoch a force of evil, News Corpse. The Dark Forces of Sky News, nothing but deceitful sold out biased RW pseudo journos.

    Wake up folks, the future well being of Australia is in our hands, and it ain’t the Liberal/National Country party.

    So vote wisely, there is no 2nd chance.
    Climate change.
    Renewable energy
    The future of the planet, of our children.

  6. guest

    Dianne,

    You say the electorate may be “easy prey for a manipulative media”.

    I would have thought that this post is a demonstration of how “manipulative media” works. There is hardly anything which Mitchell says which is true or accurate. Yet he will claim accuracy, vast research, best commenters, perfect unassailable ideology, always right and always has been.

    Oz is currently being swamped by Murdoch and its minions. There are many places in Oz where they get only Murdoch.

    You suggest that some topics are not suitable for elections, the electorate is thinking of other things, such as their hip pockets (?).

    But a very high percentage of the population is concerned about climate change. But we are told that the government is doing something about it, better than anyone else in the world. To believe that is to be naive and ignorant,

    Climate change is a legitimate subject to vote about – and the IPCC tells us why. But you will not find Murdoch supporting the IPCC. Murdoch has the IPA as its think-tank.

    Are rising temperatures a suitable topic, or wild fires, or extreme flooding rains, or lack of natural diversity, or melting ice at the poles, or pandemics…?

    There are many examples of deception made to deceive the electorate and others. One is the matter of the Great Barrier Reef. The UN has suggested it is in danger. Our environment minister took people snorkelling in a patch of green coral. The implication was supposed to be that all was fine withe GBR – ignoring the facts of the size of the GBR or how non-resilient that green coral is.

    Another icon for some is the demise of polar bears. Deniers will tell us that the bears are fine. But scientists will say there are polar bears in decline in other places. It is matter of where one looks – not just a matter of cherry-picking.

    One more example; you can find them for yourself. It is a matter of opinion, of course, but outright assertion without evidence is not a good argument or debate. A Murdoch writer claimed this week Gough was Oz’s “worst Prime Minister”. In Independent Australia this week (18/8/2021) Alan Austin analyses the dreadful rule of Tony Abbott and his adviser – with telling details.

    Abbott did not last long, dismissed by his own party. Trump was defeated in a national election Trump himself said he was robbed. There were Murdoch people who agreed with him, even here in Oz.

    Much can be found out there that counters the Murdoch propaganda – but it must be read and understood to be taken into account – or we will continue to be led astray.

  7. leefe

    “What we need is a better bunch of pollies”

    What we need is not politicians, but statesmen (I use that term in a gender-neutral sense). We need people in government – a majority of the people in both government and the Public Service, in fact – who put the needs of the society, and the genuine betterment of society and its members, before their own personal preferences and private issues.

  8. Dianne

    Guest – Does this manipulative media have a deleterious affect on you? And if not then why not?

    Perhaps, if we had more active and informed citizens as recommended in the National Goals for Schooling then the solution would be well in hand.

    One would assume that active and informed citizens would call out falsehoods whenever and wherever they appear. Further, one would also proceed on the assumption that an active and informed citizen would welcome corrections. Or at least be open to dialogue.

    But we live in a world where an unknowing expert and/or politician is anathema. A world where those in power are expected to have all the answers. A world where doubt is unacceptable and (ridiculous) certainty is demanded.

    Thus there is the real danger that sometimes we get the politicians we deserve.

  9. Phil Pryor

    Comments here are unusually long, keen, informative, pessimistic, so, all’s well in a nation going down fast…Education promised much, and I benefited long ago to believe that better would come as hoped for, by the long lines through Socrates, and followers, Voltaire, Kant, into an age of Einstein and Freud. But, superstition has remained, intensified, into a huge pot of suppurating sin supporting sludge, with little of peace, love, progress, forgiveness, enlightenment, reason and logic. The greedy, selfish, evil, survive and prosper, more than ever; corporate and consumer society has intensified the suppression and denial of ordinary decency, morals, ethics, behaviour. Entrenched elitist egotistical indifference is supreme, while the meek and honest are spurned as “weak”. Coalitions of interests, as with the Mafia/Church, or the Oil and gas/military, or the media/political wannabes, these dominate and we are electronic consumer peasants hoping for “our” representation and input, but looking from afar and ignored. It seems to be bad, is getting worse, no relief in sight. That’s why some of us are tired with our need to rant daily, and many have left sites like this, for terminal frustration…

  10. guest

    Dianne,

    Yes, I am affected by manipulative media. I know many other people are affected as well and speak out, and I know that many people are affected, but do not know it.

    When i referred to “informed” readers, I was being ironical because the Murdoch media claims its readership is informed, when an article such as Mitchell’s discussed above is clearly spreading misinformation.

    And of course there are people who know that it is misinformation, but there is no suggestion that there could be dialogue with propagandists when they hide behind a paywall and and ridicule the ‘elites’ who might dare to question them.

    I am also worried by what you say, Dianne.

    An “unknowing expert and/or politician is anathema”, you say, and you can be sure the neo-liberals will decide who is knowing and who is not. See how they say advising pandemic experts are “un-elected” and therefore have no authority, whereas journalists, especially those of certain persuasion, know all about everything – about climate change, or pandemics, or justice, of freedom of speech, etc.

    “Those in power,” you say, “are expected to have all the answers.” And some of them think they do, and do not consult, not even with the electorate. If there is any hesitancy, the Murdoch media will seek to put them right. That is what Mitchell is doing in his article. He is telling the ‘informed’ readers that CO2 has little to do with climate change: it is about “cosmic flux flows” and “astronomical control”.

    If you think a benevolent dictator (of the Socrates kind) would do the trick, you can be sure there would be many volunteers of the dubious kind.

  11. Dianne

    Phil Pryor – active and informed citizenship is an ongoing, indeed, a never-ending task because accelerating change is the obvious constant. Howling at the moon might be good for the metaphorical soul but in essence, it’s intellectual masturbation.

    guest – when I mention an unknowing expert and/or politician the reference is to voter expectation(s). Very rare to hear a politician say – “I don’t know”. And it’s because such an admission is tantamount to political suicide.

    Fact is – politicians, most of the time, simply don’t know. But that’s not what the punters want to hear.

    As for the likes of Bolt, Jones, Murray et al at SAD, they should be laughed at. But they’re not. Look at Fox in the US and one can see our future. Depressing!

    Need active and informed citizens with a critical consciousness but currently all we have is a tiny minority so inclined. But giving up can’t be an option.

  12. BB

    Dianne.

    What you say is true.
    Australia “needs active and informed citizens with a critical consciousness”

    The L/NP actively & insidiously suppress education, intentionally making access to higher education difficult & expensive.
    Keeping as many of the population ignorant, dumb & pliable, who end up voting against their better interests, is the intended Modus Operandi of the L/NP, & their trained lackeys, the MSM, free bs repeat TV, & other nasty gutter RW pseudo journos.
    Murdoch &co, Costello, etc., keep an iron grip, & dictate terms to the L/NP. Insidious, subtle, nasty, criminal but very effective.

    What can be done?
    The only solution IMO is to keep plugging away at individuals we all personally know who vote L/NP & try to educate them!
    Keep in mind with all the skulduggery of the RW dark forces the L/NP only won by a very slim margin, 1 or 2 seats.
    It won’t take much to unseat them. So every person we turn away from the dark side is a huge step in unseating the L/NP.

    Folks need to understand & realise the only alternative is LABOR. So please post positive comments about Albo, etc..
    Put Labor 1st or 2nd (or the Greens 1st or 2nd), etc., and put the L/NP LAST on your ballot paper next federal elections.

  13. Dianne

    BB – it may be the case that some members of the LNP are not nice people but it’s a fairly safe bet that some ALP members fit that description also. But at a deeper and more significant level, party politics is about differences in attitudes and values held and expressed.

    Rip away the superficiality, dig even deeper and it’s also about assumptions made – many of which are not realised at a conscious level. Perhaps the most important (and unanalysed) relates to the nature of humans. Conservatives, generally speaking – and for example, see humans as being essentially selfish.

    One of their heroes is Ayn Rand who wrote a best seller entitled The Virtue of Selfishness. I suggest you read it IF you want to gain an insight into the modern conservative mindset. (As the title suggests, it is argued that humans are naturally selfish and therefore looking at the world through that lens becomes inevitable.) Suggest you don’t dismiss it out of hand but read the argument(s) carefully.

    Always a good idea to know what the enemy is thinking and why.

    One could go on and delve into other assumptions made but that path is only for the interested. Nevertheless, it’s a mistake to dismiss conservatives as being dumb, stupid etc by their very nature, even though many might be. No the real differences are in the assumptions made. The values and attitudes etc.

    So why not become an informed citizen!

  14. Fred

    BB and Dianne – so how do you propose to break the nexus?

    The catalogue of the current government’s vile behavior, corruption, lies, inaction, secrecy, rorts, etc. is extensive – they are unfit to rule. One has to wonder about the Nats putting BJ back into their prime seat given his form, so if that is best they’ve got then it’s a long climb to the moral high ground.

    Sure, the only real option at the moment is Labor, however…

    I live in a rock solid Lib seat, in fact so solid that very little gets spent on the electorate. On every occasion when the subject turns to politics while chatting to the locals, there is always a current govt misdemeanor that the collective are upset about. There is solid agreement that we need to address climate change. When I mention the concept of voting for Labor and making the electorate “swing”, I get howled down. How do you change voting patterns even when the voters are p…ed with the govt?

  15. BB

    Dianne,
    Rather an obvious, and arrogant patronising comment of yours, I don’t see the world in terms of being just black or white ok!
    To understand that there is good and bad on both sides is simple common sense. I don’t appreciate being lectured at.
    I have never considered that overall conservatives are dumb, I consider them as conniving selfish, greedy self entitled arseholes without any remorse at considering themselves of superior intellect to anybody they see as being a “leftie” or not of their ilk.

    No I’m not rushing out to read whomever, thank you, I already have my own opinions based on a great deal of life experience.
    I have zero interest or time to bother delving into the modern conservative mind, a regular cesspool of vomit, without doubt!

    Maybe it’s you that needs to inform yourself more widely and become as you rather narrowly put it, an informed citizen lol, instead of just assuming that anybody who does not follow your way of thinking is a less informed citizen, cuts both ways!

    Meanwhile the reality on the ground is that to get rid of the L/NP another party needs to win, the only alternative is LABOR.

  16. BB

    Fred.
    Yeah, you live in a staunch liberal stronghold, or maybe one that has been overwhelmingly brainwashed. Sorry to hear that.
    As I outlined in my post above to repeat myself and to repeat what is the only solution to break the nexus. Reality!

    *”What can be done?
    The only solution IMO is to keep plugging away at individuals we all personally know who vote L/NP & try to educate them!
    Keep in mind with all the skulduggery of the RW dark forces the L/NP only won by a very slim margin, 1 or 2 seats.
    It won’t take much to unseat them. So every person we turn away from the dark side is a huge step in unseating the L/NP.

    Folks need to understand & realise the only alternative is LABOR. So please post positive comments about Albo, etc..
    Put Labor 1st or 2nd (or the Greens 1st or 2nd), etc., and put the L/NP LAST on your ballot paper next federal elections.”*

    Fred you need to make such folk understand that in order to remove the L/NP another party needs to win government.
    So you need to be firm with them to use their commonsense, ask them if they fucking have any.
    Ask them who do they think may have enough % of the votes to take government off the L/NP.
    The greens on 10%?
    The independents, individually on even less %
    and amalgamation of Greens and Independents?
    You need to put their idiocy between a rock and a hard place.
    Do the maths..

    Why did unions become a dirty word? Unions historically have been the main force is securing a fair wage and living for all.

    And try and convince any Greens that they need to stop being such an absolutist party on so many of their policies and agendas. Greens need to learn how to compromise somewhat, and bury any hatchets with Labor.
    That’s how Julia was able to successfully lead her minority government. With Greens on side. They can have disagreements.
    Same goes with many other smaller parties that call themselves independent and have more left leaning views than right.
    They need to give Labor their preference way before they give them to the L/NP.

    Everyone needs to understand that the only way to remove the Libs is to vote LABOR…

    I read too many disparaging remarks about labor, that are a concerted effort of RW trolls and underhand tactics of the L/NP.

    So Fred, good luck mate, we all need to take responsibility for getting rid of the Liberals, what comes after, well if it’s out of the pan and into the fire then we are all certainly well and truly fucked, and that’s how the libs try and put it to keep folks voting for them, they have no hesitation in gilding the lily, in lying, obfuscating and in being arrogant self entitled arseholes. Dirty tricks.

  17. Andrew J. Smith

    One also forgets or ignores the responsibility of the corporate sector in Australia, although improving with external pressures.

    This week from DeSmog has a feature titled ‘One in Three Directors at Australia’s Major Banks Have Ties to Oil, Gas, and Mining’

    By Rachel Sherrington on Aug 17, 2021

    ‘Nearly one in three directors of Australia’s largest banks have worked for firms operating in the oil, gas and mining industries, DeSmog research has revealed, prompting concerns about a “vested interest” on the banks’ boards that campaigners fear could delay action to address climate change…..

    …..The research found that one in five directors had past or current ties to the oil and gas sector, including previous roles at oil and gas giants Shell and ExxonMobil, as well as positions held at oil and gas infrastructure firms and power companies; 18 percent also had ties at one point or another to metals and mining companies, including two of the world’s largest mining companies, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton.’

  18. guest

    Andrew J. Smith,

    You are quite right about fossil fuels executives being involved in banks and other companies – and in politics. It is a matter of doors opening and closing They are involved in decision-making and value their experience and offer it to other executives who pay well to support each other’s. An experienced person could be involved in multiple companies as board members, consultants and advisers, heads of staff, lobbyists.

    Woodside has been a heavy player in gas and oil in Oz but has been in decline in recent times through declining investment. But a $41bn deal with BHP could save it. But what to do? Consultants come in? Old projects expanded or new projects? Blue hydrogen or green? Structural changes? In the past 15 years $300bn have been invested around the country.

    The merger is about saving the company and having time and money to make new arrangements “beyond fossil fuels”. Time and money. It is big business.

    And fossil fuels are being hounded. The Murdoch empire and the Coalition will not like idea. The International Agency has laid out a roadmap for the energy sector for net zero by 2050. It upsets the Coalition with its coincidence with the Coalition’s plan to use taxpayer funding for a $600m gas plant in the Hunter Valley. Gas, as experts have explained, is an expensive fuel.

    And the fossil fuel crowd, whatever their standing, are under pressure. From judges, for example, telling politicians they have duty of care for future generations of people. How is that for a challenge?

    And there are companies and individuals who are ignoring the government and doing what needs to be done. Even Adani is doing less about coal and increasingly more about renewables.

    The kind of claims made by Mitchell described in the post above might have some entertainment value for Murdoch readers, but gives navel-fluff encouragement for deniers, who are already flooded with contradictory denial memes.

    Aspects of the Woodside story an be found at the ABC, 20/08/2, “Woodsid-BHP merger paves way for Australia’s ‘last’ major LNG development.” and at 20021/05/20 “The International Energy Agency’s shift away from coal and gas makes things awkward for the government.”

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: