I haven’t read it but I’m sure it’s wrong
I wonder if Coalition politicians understand how ridiculous they sound when they disagree with, or cite, things they admit to not having read. It’s a recurring theme.
The latest is our new Environment sock puppet, Melissa Price, who, despite not having read the latest IPCC report, was quick to tell us how wrong they were about coal and how they had ignored technology that doesn’t exist in their recommendations/warnings.
Just like Christopher Pyne, who was able to give us his opinion that the original Gonski report was rubbish immediately after it was released and before he had seen it.
Or Tony Abbott who assured us that BHP’s Olympic Dam project was not going ahead because of the carbon and mining taxes despite the fact that it would not have attracted any mining tax because it wasn’t a coal or iron ore mine and despite the stated reasons from BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers, none of which were tax. Tony admitted he had not read the report.
Then there was Ian MacDonald who chaired a Senate inquiry into children held in offshore detention. He slammed the report from the Australian Human Rights Commission — but then admitted he hadn’t read it.
“I haven’t bothered to read the final report because I think it is partisan,” Senator MacDonald told the hearing.
Back to Tony Abbott, who loves to quote Ian Plimer to back up his claim that climate change is crap, the climate has always changed, yet he hasn’t actually read his book. He has read what ‘others’ have said about Plimer’s book.
Scott Morrison’s response to the IPCC report was that it did not “provide recommendations to Australia” and that his government’s focus would be “to ensure that electricity prices are lower” for households and businesses, alike.
Kinda like, “we will decide how high our emissions can go and the manner in which we will increase them. Or go away, you can’t tell us what to do.”
The ultimate example of how this government couldn’t give a shit about informed advice from experts was the appointment of Tony Abbott to fix Indigenous education.
They tell us they are pragmatists, not ideologues. What crap. Their idea of being pragmatic is to tell whatever lies are necessary to allow themselves and their mates to stay in control of the gravy train.
75 comments
Login here Register here-
totaram -
Keith -
Kaye Lee -
Keitha Granville -
John Hermann -
Matters Not -
Regional Elder -
Presser#1 -
Olemancroc -
Pappinbarra Fox -
Terence Mills -
Kaye Lee -
helvityni -
Henry Rodrigues -
New England Cocky -
James Cook -
Terence Mills -
Stephen Fitzgerald -
Egalitarian -
Kyran -
Geoff Andrews -
Kaye Lee -
Jagger -
Adrianne Haddow -
RomeoCharlie29 -
Zathras -
Terence Mills -
Arthur Tarry -
George Theodoridis -
DrakeN -
roma guerin -
Henry Rodrigues -
Michael -
Patagonian -
Matters Not -
Matters Not -
guest -
Kaye Lee -
Kaye Lee -
Stephen Fitzgerald -
Stephen Fitzgerald -
guest -
Matters Not -
Max Gross -
Matters Not -
Matters Not -
Henry Rodrigues -
ChristopherJ -
Keith -
Matters Not -
ChristopherJ -
SteveFitz -
Keith -
Keith -
Kaye Lee -
Cowspiracy -
SteveFitz -
Diannaart -
Diannaart -
Diannaart -
SteveFitz -
Keith -
Wayne Crowley -
Kaye Lee -
SteveFitz -
SteveFitz -
Wayne Crowley -
Kaye Lee -
M -
Kronomex -
SteveFitz -
Keith -
Kaye Lee -
ChristopherJ -
SteveFitz
Return to home page“Their idea of being pragmatic is to tell whatever lies are necessary to allow themselves and their mates to stay in control of the gravy train.”
Nailed it!
The problem is that there are a lot of people who don’t seem to get it! Amazing, isn’t it?
Kaye, I believe that the LNP do not know how the IPCC came to the conclusions they did.
It was not just a matter of having a chat and placing words in a Report.
Each year there are thousands of research projects on climate change published providing the source of data used by the IPCC. It is my understanding that earlier drafts of the IPCC Report were somewhat more fulsome in their comments and were toned down a little.
The “Prime Minister”, “Deputy Prime Minister”, “Minister for the Environment” and “Energy Minister” are very clearly anti science, along with the rat bag Monash group.
Before making comments on policy areas we can at least expect Ministers to have read Reports as you stated in your article.
It is now fair to ask various LNP Ministers, what policies do they have to deal with the dystopian world they are creating.
Keith,
Barnaby and prayer will fix the drought. Umbrellas and sunscreen will save the reef. Truancy officers and welfare cuts to carers will fix Indigenous education. Power prices won’t go down but that will somehow be Labor’s fault. And giving more money to religious education will make kids more likely to swallow fairy tales, whereas giving more money to public education is not an option – we should pay teachers on the basis of their student’s results. Tell you what, I would think about agreeing to that if we did the same with politicians. Oy vey, they are a weird bunch.
Of course they don’t read them, then they would have to have cogent arguments not just rubbish infantile statements.
They don’t care about the future, about the damage to the planet. They will all be dead long before the disaster strikes. Plausible deniability.Keitah
Their anti-science stance has much in common with that of the U.S. Republican Party.
RE;
Have some sympathy for Melissa for she is the perfect example of a political lightning strike. Melissa had a few thing going for her. First, she is from Western Australia and WA is not looking too good politically at the present for the Libs. Second, is her gender. Bishop pulls the pin and with females somewhat scare in government and Cabinet ranks, Melissa is in the strike zone. Third, she worked in mining (sort of.) Fourth, Melissa served as the Assistant Minister for the Environment under Josh and when he became Treasurer – bingo she’s done a Bradbury.
Noticed also that she was unavailable for an interview on the 7.30 Report tonight. Clearly out of her depth (currently). Perhaps the next election will put her out of her misery.
In 1996, the course of this nation’s progressive development changed profoundly with the election of the Howard Government. In that year, Australia entered a dark epoch, and 22 years later, with more than 16 years of LNP government, the destructive impacts of that change are everywhere and are multi-layered across the wider Australian community.
Fundamentally since 1996, the Commonwealth of Australia as an inspired foundational concept inherent in our nation’s beginning has been systemically undermined by other forces, the market force-driven, acquisitive private wealth of Australia (and internationally), and its attendant socially and economically regressive ideology. Thus we have been governed since 1996 by ideological zealots, sociopathic liars, insular political charletons and/ or political puppets for mining or other private sector corporate interests.
And thanks Kaye, in the examples you provide in this article, specifically, Price, Pyne, Abbott and McDonald, there is abundant evidence is all those characteristics in each of them.
For the last 5 years, we have endured government which if we go by the NewsCorps NewsPolls, the majority of Australians really didnt want and still don’t want. This makes the coming Federal election, an opportunity of pressing political significance. The zealotry of neo-liberalism that has filtered through all sectors of our public services, is increasingly being questioned, and the inanities of both the utterance and actions under the ‘ leadership team’ of Scott Morrison are becoming more obvious to most Australians.
There is much work to be done in the next seven months to rid the nation of these imposters at the 2019 election.
Every time one of this lot openins his/( or occasionally) her mouth, I understand how the legend of King Canute has survived over these hundreds of years. Reality challenged, they are wholly irrelevant except in their own silly minds.
I had a bad dream last night in which all cabinet ministers. When I woke up I was reassured that it was true.
I am getting really angry bitter and depressed by this ignorance in knowledge and attitude by these stupid right wing morons. The earth is heading for a mars landscape. Sooner rather than later. I just want to live long enough to see the realisation dawn on their faces and say I told you so.
We should demand of those we elect to high office that, as an absolute minimum, they read and consider international reports prepared to keep us informed.
I would like to see an informed discussion considering in detail the findings and recommendations of the IPCC.
Maybe , as Newscorp, Sky and the coalition would have us believe , it is a load of rubbish (I personally doubt that is the case) but I want to hear reasonable, informed and balanced discussion and debate.
Thank you Kaye, for again highlighting the deplorable state of reasoned debate we have reached in this country under this deeply flawed and ideologically driven rabble.
Melissa says “I don’t accept that we don’t have the right mix of policies, and I don’t accept that we’re not going to meet our targets.”
She obviously didn’t bother reading her own department’s report either which says “Total emissions in 2030 are projected to be 570 Mt CO2-e, which is 5 per cent below 2005 levels (597 Mt CO2-e). ”
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/eb62f30f-3e0f-4bfa-bb7a-c87818160fcf/files/australia-emissions-projections-2017.pdf
They really have no shame. Tell a lie and hope we are stupid enough not to check. Well Melissa, some of us actually read the reports.
Yes, no shame, but plenty of baseless blame for the other side…..
At the risk of appearing sexist, the benighted minister seems to be a rundown version of the ‘awe inspiring’ richest woman in the world, the effervescent Gina of WA. Same views and same demeanor and same lack of respect for the environment. This woman is there to further the aims of the mining sector and nothing else. Scummo is the same knob head who was quite happy to be seen caressing a lump of blackshit in the parliament and he picked her for the job. Nothing more to say folks.
Now Kaye Lee, You are very naughty and I must protest your accurate derision of our elected Liarbral Notional$ misgovernment. These individuals are the worst rejects from a spoilt bunch of pandered private school students unable to get a proper job because of their lack of analytical skills. They are perfect recruits for foreign owned multinational corporations wanting to legally minimise to zero any tax liability and are willing to betray the best interests of the Australian voters they double talk while personally benefitting from the largesse of their corporate financial patrons at our expense.
There is only one solution that I see for this situation: an immediate Federal election so that we may despatch this bunch of incompetents to the WPB of Australian political history.
Wonderful article, Kaye. I’m constantly impressed by your research, clear and concise arguments and the extent of your archives/memory. And, for the first time I can remember, your anger is peeking through, Expressions like “sock puppet”, “f*ck off”, “couldn’t give a shit” and “what crap” are a bit of an emotional giveaway. That’s an observation, not a criticism in any way. [I certainly have no right to critique anything the AIMN contibutors write.] You have my enduring thanks for the work you do which crystallises my muddled thoughts. [I’d better stop. I’m sounding like a stalker]
From Bernard Keane at CRIKEY
Yes John H – The U.S. Republican Party believe in a hierarchy of authority: superior, subordinate; wealthy, deprived; privileged, underprivileged; property owner, tenant; master, slave; regulator, regulated; powerful, powerless; leader, follower. That’s alone is what drives them.
To compensate for a lack of grey matter they lie and cheat and distort and corrupt to maintain their illusion of power. They flock together for safety in numbers just like our own Liberal Party. Along with no brains goes no heart, no empathy, no social conscience and no vision for the future. Having a conscience does not wash with them. They are too wrapped up in their own pathetic little self-serving insular world to think of others.
Great observations Kaye.
With respect, Ms Lee, the “I haven’t read it but I’m sure it’s wrong” approach is the third approach, used only when the first two approaches don’t work.
The treatment of reports is a time honoured process, perfected by corporations around the world.
The first treatment is to skew the basic enquiry. Like Howard and Kyoto, or the then newly appointed Environment Minister GHunt when he lobbied the UN on the Great Barrier Reef. It is an adaptation of the tobacco industry commissioning dozens of reports on the impact of nicotine and tar, which allowed them to delay governments, globally, taking action. It’s the same as the asbestos industry did. It’s no surprise the fossil fuel industry is doing it now, or that our government is doing it.
The second treatment is to commission a study then excise whole sections or demand that sections be rewritten by spin doctors. Like the banking industry and the Clayton Utz report. This government did that as well with the UN.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention
Sometimes, you concede a little bit of the report, while dismissing the need for action on a ‘trust me’ basis.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/climate-change-impact-australia-may-be-irreversible-report
They sort of forget that nobody trusts them anymore. The third treatment is the one where you deny the facts on the basis “There weren’t enough pretty pictures and you used the wrong crayons, now go away you poo-poo head”. Another time honoured tradition in delaying the inevitable by bullying, used by corporations and governments everywhere. Bearing in mind it is the last resort, it comes as no surprise that this mob of incompetents use it so often.
Many of the reports contained in the IPCC review are citing ‘irreversible’ time lines. The pessimistic ones suggest we have already passed the ‘irreversible tipping points’, with the more optimistic timelines being 12 years until the irreversible tipping point.
Historically, stage three is the last refuge before capitulation. Bearing in mind the monumental incompetence of this mob and their being beholden to IPA ideology on behalf of corporate Australia, there is no point in trying to reason with them, let alone shame them with their incompetence. It is those timelines that makes this conversation urgent and all we have is a hope and a prayer that;
A) Labor wins the next election.
B) That Labor will take all necessary steps to address the issue (bearing in mind the corporates won’t be happy).
It is no wonder that the distrust in our politicians renders such optimism and hope absolutely futile. We have no assurance from Labor they accept the urgency and gravity of the situation. It is also no wonder that so many of us seek action through environmental groups and movements at a local level. Local councils and state governments have proved far more receptive to activism and that is where a lot of these groups are directing their campaigns.
It seems ironic that our state governments were incepted out of an archaic notion of ‘colonies’ and should by all rights have long since been dispensed with, yet are now one of the few hopes for ‘we, the people’. The states have allowed this mob of incompetents to play with COAG agendas or cancel meetings since 2013. Maybe the states should simply convene their COAG meetings without federal participation. They’d get more done, wouldn’t they?
It really is a fascination that information is such a rarity in the information age.
Thank you Ms Lee and commenters. Take care
Yes, James Cook. I too noticed a vague irritability in Kaye’s contribution today. A frustrated impatience, a loss of cool. I put it down to her realisation and acceptance that the PR battle over climate change has been lost to the forces that argue that our 1% contribution to global pollution is insignificent: like being in a 100 man tug o’ war team and stepping aside to have a fag. The bludgers have won.
I do apologise for losing it a bit but I have been trying for years to politely point out the facts hoping sharing information would help. Now I am getting well and truly pissed off. I HATE being lied to
I hate being lied to too, what I can’t understand is around 50% of the population seem to consider that lying is completely acceptable these days, blame shifting is a given whilst common sense is in rare supply.
Keep up the good fight Kaye, with your informative and splendidly researched work, it keeps a light shining into the tunnel.
Kaye Lee reflects my irritability, impatience and frustration with this Lib/ Nat/IPA misgovernment and their corporate masters, and the propaganda that is disseminated on their behalf by our media grunts.
I find her journalism far exceeds that of the MSM mouthpieces, for truth and the willingness to source accurate information, and then her attempts to dispel the misinformation that the paid minions are happy to print under their names.
I also have problems with government ministers who cannot be bothered to read or publish reports that pertain to their ministry.
Surely this is a dereliction of duty.
In any other profession, failure to read reports pertaining to your job, would constitute dereliction of duty, and should result in dismissal.
Would you employ a doctor who failed to read articles regarding new medications or treatments? Would you employ a lawyer who failed to keep up to date with legislation?
None of these ministers and their lackeys in government display the intelligence or skills that are required for their jobs.
They can’t even lie effectively. Or they believe that the Australian electorate are as dumb as they are. Admittedly the people who continue to vote for them obviously are, but those of us who read and listen deserve better.
It’s like our government have been taken over by primary school kids, who believe if they keep producing the same lies and denials, they will eventually be believed.
Great comments from all, especially Kyran.
And Henry Rodrigues, thank you for the laughs. The image of the effervescent Gina of WA, and the run down version Melissa Price, will never leave me.
Once again joining in the general approval of your work and your pissed-offedness is well understood since I think most of us share it. I have been giving some thought to Wentworth and what seems to be an expectation Sharma will just scrape in. This has made me wonder about his position on Palestine, as a former ambassador to Israel. Is he Jewish? If yes do we need another apologist for Israel in Parliament?. Note, criticising Israel over its actions is not anti- semitism. If, however he has a strong position on Palestine then …. I regard our government’s recent positions on Israel and Palestine to be one of the scandals of our nation. However re Wentworth, a Lib win would be a disaster on so many levels.
At least the Coalition opinion on Climate Change is now official. They’ve left themselves no wriggle room to placate, confuse and fool voters.
Deliberately ignoring and avoiding reports because they may be partisan and may conflict with your own prejudices is the tactic of religious zealots and dedicated idealogues, and sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you” is the practice of the ignorant and immature.
Meet the new boss – same as the old boss(es).
RC29
Interestingly, semitic is defined as :
Semitic
adjective: Semitic
relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.
As regards Dave Sharma he is not Jewish but, as reported by the SMH he does have strong connections in the Wentworth Jewish community because of his term as Australia’s ambassador to Israel :
The Wentworth Liberals definitely need the money after their previous million dollar man was turfed out !
I just don’t understand how this current batch of conservative politicians form their opinions/statements on all sorts of issues. They defintely don’t use factual information, nor do they seem to want to listen to people who really know. I don’t want such peoiple governing Australia. I lived through the Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon era and thought then that things couldn’t get worse. But they definitely have with Howard and his current batch of, as Kaye Lee says, sock puppets. Why is Howard is so respected by this current mob – he was dreadful – except, perhaps, when judged by the only measure that seems to count for conservatives ie: keeping hold of governemenmt by all means possible, be they fair or foul. I’m totally over this total emphasis on money/entitlement which is very much to the detriment of most Australians, and the total lack of ‘seeing beyond the nose on your face’. ‘Men and women of Australia ……….’.
Many thanks, Kaye.
The day the LNPs will read anything other than their bank statements (from the Cayman Islands) I’ll break open a bottle of some expensive liquid or other.
Thank you Kaye.
I was about to comment, but what I wished to say has been adequately expresed by others.
Thank you all.
Thanks Kaye for expressing how I feel.
Adrianne Haddow…………. You’re welcome to my observations. But make no mistake, the levity that I use is only to soften the intense seething contempt that I have for these stupid climate deniers and their patrons Can’t wait to see the back of these fools.
More please Kaye
Unbelievably lazy behaviour from an employee of the Australian taxpayer. She’s the bloody environment minister for pity’s sake, she should not only be have read it from cover to cover, she should be able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the contents. But then the Liberals ARE largely pig-ignorant..
Patagonian re:
IF (and it’s a very big if) she is an employee of the Australian taxpayer, then presumably the Australian taxpayer can sack her. How would that happen? Has the Australian taxpayer (acting as a taxpayer) ever sacked a Minister – or even a Member of Parliament – in the past? Just askin …
Re:
Not surprised. Indeed I would be surprised if she had read the report or attempted to read what is a very lengthy document. The full report is 375 MB and given the FAQ Brochure of 30MB translates to 80 pages approx , it’s unreasonable to expect a Minister to read a document of 1 000 pages, particularly when it involves complex concepts, somewhat foreign to the reader. (see below)
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Realistically, someone in the Department would provide a summary which would then go to the Minister’s Office but at that stage it’s unlikely to land on the Minister’s desk. Rather it would be sent to a policy adviser who (in consultation with the departmental author) would provide a much reduced summary in plain english (without) technical terms – then to (perhaps) the Chief of Staff who would probably further modifications and eventually given to the Minister.
(Should point out that each Minister is different when it comes to briefings. Trump, for example wanted briefings no longer than one page. Even that proved to be too lengthy. So now he gets ‘drawings’. In Queensland we now have the Qimar Clive Berghofer Medical Research Institute courtesy of Clive Berghofer, a former Member of the Queensland Parliament who had no ministerial career because he had great difficulty with the printed word. Went on to make a fortune as a land developer (and other enterprises) in the darling Downs Region and left a fortune to Medical Research.)
One cannot expect people to become experts just because they become Ministers. And nor should they try. Ministers are the public face of expertise. That’s what they should work at. (Sort of. LOL)
You are right to be upset with the Coalition lack of policies, especially with regard to Climate Change and to energy.
I do not see how they can claim respect and civility when they are so obviously keeping their heads in the sand to protect their own interests and those of their adherents. They talk such rubbish.
Take for example the non-science even of scientists such as Ian Plimer. One of the questions he asks is: If man-made CO2 causes global warming, why doesn’t natural CO2?
One can see how the falsehood is embedded in the question. It is not a question of either man-made CO2 OR natural CO2; it is a matter of man-made CO2 AND natural CO2 combined.
Pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were at about 280ppm – now at 410ppm and it makes no difference? According to Eggleton (2013, p. 57) “…this 280ppm of CO2 helped to keep the thermostat at 14 degrees C. It is now estimated that doubling the amount of CO2 would raise the global temperature by at least 3 degrees C.”
These political climate deniers need to be questioned more closely. But I fear that the argument has been so dumbed down that the questions are not asked and the misinformation escapes without challenge.
It is enough to make anyone swear.
MN,
I am an expert at nothing. These documents usually come with an executive summary which you can then investigate further in the report if areas interest you. There are many experts who also publish commentary about the main features. If one wishes to be informed, one doesn’t need to be an expert, just to listen to them.
This Minister, like all the other Coalition (and too often Labor) politicians, prefers to just refer to the talking points provided by marketing people. That is a complete abrogation of any pretence at wanting to be informed about anything except how to sell a lemon.
For example, the response used by every single Coalition politician when grilled about the Ruddock review – “This is a report TO government not FROM/BY government” and “It hasn’t been through Caucus”. In response to emissions rising again – “Emissions are at their lowest level per capita in 28 years”. So f’ing what? That’s like saying when you have another baby that your mortgage per capita has reduced.
If you accept the job of Minister, then the least you can do is a bit of your own reading.
guest,
The example I use to those who say man-made contribution is miniscule in comparison is that of titration where it is that last drop that causes the reaction to occur. They don’t seem to understand the concepts of saturation levels, tipping points, or equilibrium let alone feedback loops. The same could be pointed out to those who say Australia’s contribution is miniscule.
@ Matters Not
The IPCC Climate report has been reduced to one foolscap page for the polies – No diagram required:
HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:
WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT 1.5C OF WARMING?
While warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels has widely been thought of as the threshold beyond which dangerous climate change will occur, vulnerable countries such as low-lying island states warn rises above 1.5C will threaten their survival. Their concerns meant a pledge to pursue efforts to limit temperature rises to 1.5C was included – after tough negotiations – alongside the commitment to keep them “well below” 2C in the global Paris climate agreement in 2015.
SO WHY THIS REPORT?
When the target was put into the Paris Agreement, relatively little was known about the climate risks that would be avoided in a 1.5C warmer world compared with a 2C warmer world, or about the action needed to limit temperature rises to that level. So, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked with providing the answers.
WHAT DOES THE REPORT SAY?
It warns the world is well off track to keep to the 1.5C limit. Even with the promise’s countries have made as part of the Paris Agreement to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, the world is set to breach the 1.5C threshold by around 2040. Based on those promises, we are heading for 3C by 2100 and even warmer after that. As more greenhouse gases lead to more warming, stabilising the planet’s temperature at any level will require emissions to fall to zero overall. To keep temperatures from rising to more than 1.5C in the long term, countries need to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050, with steep cuts in other greenhouse gases such as methane. Methods to take excess carbon out of the atmosphere will also be needed.
HOW CAN ALL THAT BE DONE?
Well, it will require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented change across the whole of society, according to the report. Renewables would have to supply 70% to 85% of electricity in 2050, there would be a small role for gas power with technology that captured and stored its carbon, while coal would be virtually non-existent. The feasibility of solar, wind and battery storage has improved significantly in recent years, which could signal the system is transforming, the report says.
But it is not just electricity: transport, buildings and industry would have to become significantly cleaner. Taking excess carbon from the atmosphere requires measures such as planting new forests or, more controversially, burning plant material for energy and capturing the carbon to store underground, which is known as “BECCS”. Millions of square kilometres would need to be turned into forest or used for growing renewable energy crops – which could undermine food production.
WHY MAKE ALL THAT EFFORT FOR 0.5C?
The report says a 2C rise will lead to more heatwaves and extreme rainstorms, more people facing water shortages and drought, greater economic losses and lower yields for major crops than 1.5C. Sea level rises would be 10cm lower with a 1.5C temperature rise compared to 2C by the end of the century. While coral reefs could decline 70% to 90% with 1.5C of warming, virtually all the world’s reefs would be lost at 2C, while far more creatures and plants across the world face losing a large part of their range. The Arctic is likely to be ice-free in summer around once a century at 1.5C but at least once a decade if warming climbs to 2C.
HOW HAS THIS REPORT BEEN DRAWN UP?
The IPCC does not do any of its own research, so the report draws on more than 6,000 research papers to reach its conclusions. The report’s authors and representatives of 195 governments which are members of the IPCC have then met to finalise the “summary for policymakers” report, which involves agreeing it line-by-line. The aim is to make the report as clear as possible while still scientifically robust – and to ensure that everybody is behind the document.
The IPCC report has been embraced by 195 countries but, not Australia. Not by our pathetic government. I feel shame for all of us and, sorrow for those poor people being battered by unprecedented hurricanes ravaging the planet right now, during the hottest year on record.
Matters Not,
There have been many IPCC reports and others over many years and the stance of the Right is ignore all of them because of their economics and politics. It does not suit them to know about the IPPc reports. Economics/politics trumps science.
We can see their failure in the policy failures they produce consistently.
They also have a problem with mathematics. Their claim that 1.3% of world CO2 emissions is insignificant is nonsense. Our emissions per head of population is the highest in the world. There are many countries of the world with similar or lower emissions, but if 100 countries each reduced their emissions by 1% of world emissions, we have achieved a great deal
But this Coalition government is not going to achieve its piddly target – even if they try to kid us that they are.
To think they can tinker around the edges is unforgivable. Their excuse is that a couple of other countries produce much more CO2 – but only in recent decades – and it is temporary while they catch up a bit. Whereas the West has been emitting CO2 for the past 200+ years as if they have some kind of privileged position (hence their talk of mythical “clean coal” – and “money and jobs”).
Re:
Not sure what meaning you give to embrace but historical evidence suggests the required political response will be sadly lacking. Take the United States as an example:
Hardly a warm embrace from the President of a very high polluting nation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/09/trump-climate-change-report-ipcc-response
And there’s this view.
Certainly there has been some bells ringing, as they have in the past, but how that translates into future action remains problematic.
KL, re Ministers. Good ministerial behaviour is difficult to define in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. But certainly Ministers should be ‘readers’ of – and ‘listeners’ to – advice from reliable and trusted sources which must include their departments.
One danger that must be faced is the Minister who claims to be the expert. Take Doctor Dennis Jensen as a classic example. He was desperate to be the Minister for Science (not that the government had one) because he had a PhD in materials science from Monash University, and before entering politics worked as a CSIRO researcher. He also was known for questioning the anthropogenic causation of climate change. Just imagine trying to brief that Minister on this report.
Yes guest politics trumps science every time. (Not that science in itself translates directly into policy.)
“Their idea of being pragmatic is to tell whatever lies are necessary to allow themselves and their mates to stay in control of the gravy train.” The LNP in a nut shell!
As a follow up. Scientists have a legitimate role in telling us what needs to, or must be, done to solve a (scientific) problem. They provide the end point as it were. The goal. But that’s the limit of their expertise. Scientists are not policy gurus (and most scientists don’t claim to be.) It’s the policy experts that outline the options (the ways) a particular goal might be achieved. It’s then up to the politicians to decide the way. (In a democracy that is.)
This morning Sabra Lane ‘interviewed’ Morrison on Australia’s Paris commitments re carbon emissions. The question was fair enough (what was the source of his information that Australia would reach the target) but on the two occasions she asked, Morrison took her on a Gish Gallop while she remained silent. No interruption. And as a result the ‘guts’ of the question remained unanswered.
Seems to me that she should be ashamed that she let him off the hook. Perhaps it’s time that we citizens – acting as legitimate voters – put pressure on our ABC to do its job and not let politicians pressure the ABC so that the job is not done. (Don’t waste your time writing to the ABC. A reply takes forever and it’s always a non-response.)
Matters Not…….Sabra Lane, Leigh Sales, Katharine Murphy and rest of the media bunnies, especially those employed by News Corp and Ch 7, are all known as sympathisers and aiders and abetters of the coalition. Most astute readers and listeners are well aware of their past softly softly treatment of Turnbull and now Scummo.
Thanks Kaye and everyone reading and contributing. I know it’s all fake news, but I keep coming back.
I started this comment days ago in response to Paul, Steven, Keith and many others, so it rambles a bit, given the time taken in gestation. Pretty sure is on topic.
There is lots of hope from the commentariat about reversing our warming climate and getting rid of those pesky CO2 and Methane molecules. I am not offering that, only my take on what I read and observe.
I think we are all agreed here about the disaster of the LNP when it relates to doing things to mitigate AGW. Many people I converse with, or whose comments I read, extend their hope that there is a political, democratic, technical solution, even looking to Australia’s alternative government to show some leadership.
Yet, the older of us have longer memories of Labor. And the curious ones among us will conclude that the ALP is a very different kettle than the UK’s Labour party.
Granted, from them we haven’t had the the ‘none core’ promises of a former PM, but they still lie shamelessly and have yet to show in the 40+ years I’ve been here that they are a vehicle for anything other than themselves and their mates.
(It was Labor that did the deal with the public servants to create a new master class in the APS (the SES), so that both MPs and their senior advisors could prosper. I can’t conclude otherwise seeinng how salaries of both have diverged from society since.)
My family came over here for Gough, not the disaster that we’ve seen since. Only Maggie Thatcher gave my father thought about going back and here we are…all of us between and rock…
Stuff to reconcile, think about, or not.
The real players with the $s almost certainly see better than the rest of us how the trajectory is going for our blue planet on its corkscrew path through the cosmos, the people and life on it. But, the same players also feel that they can survive on filtered air and canned food, bunkering down for the Eden that is to come.
Yes, the wind will blow it all away…
Kaye, I don’t think I have seen any evidence that you can reason with these people. They have zero empathy, very low in self awareness (as everyone tells them how perfect they are) there is no gentleness in them, they have all of the political and $ power, will only give it up if they are forced, and probably not then.
I do not believe there is a democratic, political solution. There is no urgency because neither side of politics can see the emergency of the situation. Many, many people have looked at the trillions of inputs to what makes our spot ‘habitable’. Most experts, we are told at least, say that we have years, decades, to fix this.
Yet, smarter people than me feel they have really failed to consider how incredibly sensitive all life is to sudden changes in the things that sustain them. Plants are particularly sensitive to weather, but all sources of food are at risk. Some species will last a season or two, but it’s food we all need, and ‘food’ will run out for all life forms when the earth can no longer support the small life forms and complex plant life forms that sustain us. All my senses and much of what I read and observe tell me we are past the tipping point.
Talking now, and I would not be here in this place now if I didn’t think there is a point to all our time spent on line in this and other places, is only useful, IMHO, so that people can be somewhat prepared.
My own partner tells me she doesn’t want to know and I get that from my friends as well. My calm, outline of the facts, provides them, nonetheless with sufficient evidence of nuttiness, a conspiracy, when I am just an out lier that sees things more clearly and was born with a curious mind. The people that I engage with, on and off line, hear and process what I say but prefer to just live for the here and now. Very few of them have lived through a time when the population has said enough and had the courage to act. When that happens this time, it will be too late. The villains (for the most part) will have disappeared… and I don’t want to die angry as it’s is the worst and most damaging of the emotions I experience…
I won’t apologise for being pessimistic in this space as it’s been estimated (UN) about 200 species die out every single day. And that’s a number on an inverse, exponential curve
and Im done
A year ago Wallace- Wells wrote a long article in the New York Magazine, it received much criticism; as a result the article was republished with annotations. Wallace-Wells has just written a confronting article in relation to the latest IPCC Report. We can deal with the worst of climate change providing huge efforts are made.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html
We need to not vote for dangerous LNP politicians, Dave Sharma is the first needing to go. He believes that currently the LNP have the reduction of greenhouse emissions under control (pigs fly).
A film created prior to the Paris Accord in relation to temperature increase is very concerning since temperature has increased further since.
Also, consider Anton Vaks et al:
It is complete recklessness to ignore what the science is saying about climate change.
Labor needs pushing hard on climate change, while the LNP are a dead loss/useless/dangerous etc.
Keith re the first article – the rise in sea levels and possible mitigation measures, perhaps Trump’s penchant for walls might eventually have applications.
As for Labor, one wonders how committed they are – beyond political consideration, particularly their support for Adani, at least at some stages in the political cycle. Perhaps only a committment of pragmatic convenience?.
Thank you, Keith, the last shining knight I saw… Labor will be in charge eventually, as they’re better at giving the appearance of care for ‘working families’. So, it’ll be better place for a while, but we are at the end now, mate.
In very simple terms, no one ever frames the situation about the children and that is where we are now, knowingly destroying their futures. Never think of the kids when we decide on how little we should dole out from those rare ‘taxpayer dollars’
No. It’s never about the kids. It’s always about that ‘we’ have more important priorities for the dollars, when they know dollars aren’t rare at all when the government spends them. (It’s called microecomics – thanks Bill Mitchell.)
I mean ask yourselves (an assumption I know) how many children should be homeless in Australia tonight? If you can’t house, clothe, educate and or feed your children, should society allow you to be a parent? Ouch!!!
How many kids are going hungry tonight because their parents’ smokes cost 30 times what they sell for in the very same countries we import them from? I know. Cigarettes are bad and we need to deter people, get them to cut back or give them up. If a few kiddies suffer a bit, well policy choices are rarely without costs and, hey, they’re young.
Keith, and Kaye, I no longer believe there is no solution to our problem. We could elect all the ‘progressive’ people in the world to run things. It’s too late. Too many of us now. When there are start ups that are seeking to make ‘beef’ steaks from plant material, a product which has no links to the original product and often has to be colored so that the consumer is fooled into thinking it really is meat.
I mean is it just me or are we in a dream? It feels like the governments are working in tandem with the rich and the corporations, no longer for the people. We all see it, but don’t have anything to counter it
@Matters Not
You have shown your hand and, as your name implies, you don’t particularly care and it matters not. But don’t fret, you’re not alone. Either do corporates or the governments who panders to them. Let me elaborate…
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation has launched a bid to secure further donations of as much as $400 million. With $100 million of that earmarked to double the funds set aside for the reef restoration and adaption plan.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/no-time-to-mess-around-reef-foundation-starts-400m-donation-drive-20181011-p5094e.html
“Adaptation plan” What they are saying is, the reef needs to adapt to climate change. No mention of taking remedial action to prevent climate change. The Great Barrier Reef Foundation have also shown their hand. They don’t care about climate change, we will adapt to it.
The resistance by our own government, on behalf of the corporates they represent, have no intention of taking action to prevent climate change and their inaction proves that. Their thinking is the same. Bring climate change on, we will adapt.
I have lobbied every coal producer in Australia and abroad to develop a contingency plan to extract CO2 at point of emission and from the atmosphere. I have been totally ignored. Our government has shown their hand on behalf of these corporates as outline above. They don’t care about climate change or the outcome.
That’s the stark realisation and that’s why governments and corporates don’t act. Because they don’t care. Their whispered motto: “We will adapt to climate change and screw the rest of you and screw the planet”. The evidence is right there staring you in the face so, what do we do?
We need a government that listens to people and represents the wishes of the people. That is not a Liberal government, they represent what corporates want and what corporates want is ever increasing money, power and control at any cost. To have any chance of action on climate change we desperately need an alternative government prepared to legislate in favour of climate protection on behalf of the people they represent.
At the moment, this is a two-sided fight – Government and Corporates v The People. This scenario is not democracy, this is the death of democracy and climate change has exposed it. There are organisations around that fight for the best interest of everyday Australians like Getup: https://www.getup.org.au/ If you have the capacity, donate or, jump in and help out.
Christopher J
One matter that crops up often is the state of the economy. In Western countries generally, it my understanding that profits are going up of corporations yet wages are stagnant. When you add the high possibility of a trade war there is a high proballity of economies crashing. As John Abrahams states in The Guardian .. the high costs of climate change over the last decade are not being taken into account. Lord Stern has previously warned us about the costs of climate change will increase without taking action.
John Abrahams sheets home a human finger print on the latest disaster in the US, Hurricane Michael. It was a storm that gathered momentum at a unexpected quick pace through extra warm maritime waters.
So, through factors suggested, and others such as private debt, break down in economies is a likely outcome. The terrible result being a slow down in manufacture creating a slowing down in emissions of greenhouse gases. In my mind, that is a better option than the ultimately deadly business as usual paradigm. Though, modern monetary theory suggests that would not be as great a disaster as can be imagined.
It really gets to an appalling stage where completely terrible situations occurring that by pass the reckless conservative politians, are better than what the conservative politicians are pushing.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/11/victims-of-hurricane-michael-voted-for-climate-deniers
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costs-especially-for-the-us-and-india
Matters Not
When you mentioned walls may have applications for sea level rise, did you mean down at Antarctica? A few weeks ago there were suggestions that where grounding lines are moving in the wrong direction for a number of huge glaciers, walls might be built under the glaciers creating artificial grounding points.
https://mashable.com/article/ice-sheet-wall-glacier-collapse-geoengineering/#wjthPZPwCOqd
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/20/build-walls-on-seafloor-to-stop-glaciers-melting-scientists-say
Speaking of walls, our new Environment sock puppet posted a happy snap of her visiting Geraldton.
“Last week while I was in Geraldton, I popped down to the new foreshore development at Beresford between meetings.
It sure looks different! Great to see development happening in our regional centres.”
No mention of the extensive damage done by erosion there.
“The City of Greater Geraldton is facing the adverse impacts of coastal erosion and inundation on our coastlines. The vulnerability of land use and development within the coastal zone from these physical processes is expected to increase in the future.”
Their risk management plan describes the consequences from erosion to the Foreshore Reserve and Beach as catastrophic.
“Permanent loss of flora and fauna – will not recover. Long term or permanent loss of function >75% of community affected. Loss of recreation space.”
https://www.cgg.wa.gov.au/live/my-environment/coastal-hazard-risk-management-and-adaptation-planning/the-consequences-of-erosion-inundation.aspx
But there’s Melissa happily posing in front of a pile of rocks they have put there in a desperate attempt to hold the sea at bay.
Long story little, we are saddled with politicians who are like putty in the hands of sponsor-lobbyists and media moghuls. To that unintelligent coalition of the willing idiots it is all about representing the vested interests. Flipping the bird to the planet and setting up conditions so that dysfunction rules for the next generation is a bonus. Representative democracy, will it ever happen?
Kaye Lee – Once again, they are talking about “adaptation”. Adapting to climate change! No talk, by government, about taking action to avoid climate change. God help future generations – We are being governed by idiots.
With people occupied “adapting” to climate changes, the resultant fear and angst will create the very circumstances for control, for opportunistic exploitation, further entrenching the powerful.
One of the adaptations for corals is currently being explored by scientists (yeah, science is selectively believed) https://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-adaptation-designer-reefs-1.15073
What scientist cannot do is replicate diversity, heat adapted coral will out compete other corals, resukting a loss of diversity.
Diversity is the primary value (beyond price) of the the complex web of life that is the Great Barrier Reef.
Below is the heat tolerant reef around Samoa.
https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.16814.1397727007!/image/Coral1.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/Coral1.jpg
Will the business argument to conserve the GBR be enough?
https://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5772d3c04321f142368b4774-1200/great-barrier-reef.jpg
Can’t seem to edit above.
The image was taken from here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-visit-the-great-barrier-reef-2016-6/?r=AU&IR=T/#the-great-barrier-reef-is-the-worlds-largest-coral-reef-system-its-composed-of-more-than-2900-individual-reefs-and-900-islands-and-it-stretches-over-1400-miles-thats-almost-the-length-of-the-entire-east-coast-of-the-us-1
Diannaart – Your right. The “them against us” the LNP are creating, kind of explains Bastille Day, the Rum Rebellion and Eureka Stockade. People just need to get hot enough under the collar and, with global warming that’s fast approaching.
Might explain why the Liberal government gave authorisation for our military to respond to riots with shoot to kill authorisation. Exactly what you would expect from an extreme right tin-pot dictatorship.
I’m with Alex Turnbull who has taken the opportunity to tear strips off the Morrison Government. Accusing them of being extreme right and urging voters to abandon the Liberals.
It is getting to the stage where a Neo Inquisition is part of conservative ideology, Abbott and Trump have either re-written or made science research papers disappear. There is no support for climate scientists; major Reports supported by objective data are ignored. Opinions against science are in no way changed, meaning already it has been a death sentence for numerous people, with many millions more metaphorically awaiting execution.
I find the tone of response to this article a mirror image of what I find on non believers or conservative commentators sites. As Kaye points out in comments above, the executive summary is really the report that everyone focuses on and uses to support their positions. This executive summary is not a scientific summary of the papers and reports it is a negotiated beauracratice piece of politics put together in the hope of appeasing those with vested interests.
As Kaye highlights you can go from the executive summary to referenced reports to review and understand the original paper and its conclusions.
At this time I am not yet convinced of man made global warming (anthromological ) I am convinced of global warming as part of climate change and that man may be contributing to this. However as the primary cause of change this is yet to be proven to my satisfaction.
Given this position I am always flumoxxed by the lack of attention to how to cope with climate change rather than this perverse sense that we can stop it from happening.
if AMW is not the cause then we need to adapt society to a new climate .
If AMW is the cause how likely are we to stop what we are doing. Based on evidence of past 30 years and proven inability to get global consensus little own ability to act within ones own country it is very likely we will need to adapt. What does this mean for governments and society?
Wayne,
There is no doubt that anthropogenic global warming has disturbed the carbon cycle beyond its capacity to find equilibrium. We must stop burning fossil fuels. We must stop rampant deforestation. We must move to renewable energy and electric cars. We must eat less meat. We must make energy efficiency a prime consideration in building design.
I don’t know how anyone can remain unconvinced in the face of the volume of evidence. If all the scientists are wrong, no harm done – we have a cleaner healthier planet. If you are wrong, catastrophic collapse of society as we know it.
@Wayne – Once again, CO2 levels have risen from 278ppm to 412ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution as a result of burning fossil fuel and other human activity. Global temperature is increasing parallel to rising atmospheric CO2. What’s that telling a thinking person?
When it becomes apparent that government intends to “adapt” to climate change, rather than do anything about it, it’s a shock at the very least. Subsequently it gets your back up and the mood changes. Increased temperature equates to increased energy and extremes in climate – Open your eyes.
I’ve been breathing too much CO2 – Let me re-phrase that…
Increased temperature equates to increased energy equates to extremes in weather. Take a look at the news over the past few weeks and the last couple of days in particular. Month early cyclones, unprecedented hurricanes, Qld tornados, state wide droughts, fires, hottest year on record and so on. Increased global warming will impact humanity – I’d rather avoid that and, why take the risk.
@Steve and @Kaye Lee
I agree there is societal benefit to immediate moves to alternative energy options regardless of ones position on AGW. This is not my point,
My point is based on demonstrated human behaviour across nations, cultures and society in the past we cannot implement effective actions. I see a benefit of implementing strategies for adapting to life within a warmer climate. This sends the message clearly that climate change is happening and stops the focus on what is contributing to the change. What will we need to survive within a changed environmen?. How will farming change, transport change,eg the food supply cycle may need to move to a grown at home or closer to point of use etc. seeing actual changes in how we will live will do a lot more energise change within society than the current 30 year debates and useless policy statements we have achieved so far
Wayne,
We certainly have to look at adaptation as well because climate change is already here. But CO2 hangs around for a very long time so we MUST stop adding to it where we can. We must do more work on removing it too. The speed with which we are adding more CO2 makes it impossible for adaptation to keep up.
I think small-scale farming is something we must consider because, as you say, we need to lower transport emissions – another problem with globalisation and these massive agri-businesses. We look for economies of scale to reduce business costs and maximise profit whilst ignoring the social and environmental costs.
Of the 32 countries being monitored (which emit 80% of the harmful gases) only 7 are on track to meet their commitments. Leading the pack are Morocco and Gambia. Trailing the pack (critically insufficient) are Russia, Turkey, United States, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine.
Looks like the rest of the world is NOT embracing the need for effective action. (Check the graph.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/11/few-countries-are-meeting-paris-climate-goals-here-are-ones-that-are/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3e31617303
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/–5Y3oDoUkiQ/Va8wKBSeX_I/AAAAAAAAC0M/vzIazqIc0E4/s1600/Movies_Films_T_Terminator_3__Rise_of_the_Machines_010628_.jpg
This is how I see the future of our waterways, coastlines, and us under Scummo and the LNP.
Image taken from Terminator 3; Rise of the Machines.
What hurts me is that the Liberal party lied to us by omission. Their intention all along has been to adapt to climate change and do nothing about reducing the cause of global temperature increase. Do nothing about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Along with big business they would throw us to the wolves and they need to be exposed for that betrayal.
Wayne
You argue that natural cyclic events are operating which change climate naturally.
If that is the case, we should be viewing a cooling of Earth at present.
In the 1850s, Eunice Foote and a little later John Tyndall experimented with CO2. There is no doubt that CO2 creates warmth through interacting with infrared radiation which was shown all those years back.
Water vapour is virtually a secondary greenhouse gas requiring a warming atmosphere to be able form, and then, to be carried in the atmosphere. Less CO2 equals less water vapour.
IPCC Reports are virtually a compilation of the recent science that has preceded them, which is reviewed by scientists.
252 million years ago there are remnants left of the most deadly near extinction event ever experienced on Earth. Geologist Dr Benjamin Burger has provided a research report on the artefacts he found .. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin_Burger/publication/323402270_What_caused_Earth%27s_largest_mass_extinction_event_New_evidence_from_the_Permian-Triassic_boundary_in_northeastern_Utah/links/5a9488b345851535bcdab921/What-caused-Earths-largest-mass-extinction-event-New-evidence-from-the-Permian-Triassic-boundary-in-northeastern-Utah.pdf
Professor Michael Mann comments on the new IPCC Report, he believes the Report is too conservative .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSg4KpijU9k
Wayne, are you able to provide any credible references to support your view? You would need to provide references which have been officially recognised, they contain “doi” in their url.
was delivered there
On RN Radio prior to the IPCC Report being delivered, there was a debate about climate change broadcast; a representative from Shell acknowledged that anthropogenic climate change was happening though down played the need for speedy action.
Above I have referenced two videos that provide information that was known when the Paris Accord took place (October 11, 2018 at 9:34 pm).
When major Reports are commented on by Ministers without having read them it focuses on the particular Minister inability to make a considered opinion. That point alone is enough to cause major criticism. When the lives of millions and millions of people are put into jeapody, the Ministers responsible for decision making deserve any criticism they might receive. So the tone of what people have written here might not be to your liking; but, killing people and stealing the future from your people deserves very strong arguments. The IPCC Report draws on science not ideology.
Laura Tingle writes….
“Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a major report on the difference between global warming of 1.5 degrees and 3 degrees Celsius.
The ABC’s 7.30, Fairfax Media and Sky all put in multiple requests to talk to Environment Minister Melissa Price about the report, to no avail.”
Great range of comments, Kaye, your last says it all about this hopeless group of feeders we call the LNP Government. And, thank you, Wayne.
That adaptation word. It’s good to have this in our tool kit. Although, the food growers down in Gympie couldn’t adapt the other day when that ‘unprecedented’ tornado hit.
And, that tornado is exactly what scientists are talking about when they use the words ‘abrupt’ and ‘change’ in the same sentence.
If we accept that the planet is going to be warmer, then we are going to need our wheat and rice to adapt over time to higher temperatures, or find more temperate sources to grow them…
Yet, those small, very small, places on the earth which are good for crops and grains and fruits, places that man has often created and cultivated. Well, they are not going to be given time to adapt. This isn’t going to be gradual. Most of the food we eat is JIT. Some people think they’ll be okay, live off the land…catch a turkey, fish, you know the type… The only food sources left will be in the shops or in people’s homes. And, it won’t take you and your neighbors long to find there is no fresh water anywhere, outside of the remaining ice at the south and in the high mountains.
Our collective assumption of hope (it’s what we do, we just get on with things), well hope’s effing useless when all of us can see that not enough is being done.
And it’s hope that’s going to be our downfall – not enough people like me seeing the tsunami coming. Still time, but its only seconds now.
And no, my novels may have some truth telling in them, but there’s no end of the world in them, always a shining knight, with a noble heart, a gentleness and a cloak of invincibility. Wish Jake was here, he’d know what to do.
At least we know what we are dealing with now: A Liberal Party government that intends to “adapt to climate change” and, do nothing about capping increasing global temperature as they cling to the status quo and protect the coal industry.
Part of the way towards a solution, is a government that is willing to take action on climate change. The Labour government has said they will do just that, as an election promise. Bring in the progressive government and lets take it from there.