Climate change: we don’t need no stinkin’ advice!
The United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Paris, France in 2015. The conference objective is to achieve a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.
One of the world’s foremost climate scientists, James Hansen, has suggested that
“If leading nations agree in 2015 to have internal rising fees on carbon with border duties on products from nations without a carbon fee, a foundation would be established for phaseover to carbon free energies and stable climate.”
Head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, told a conference in February
“Overcoming climate change is obviously a gigantic project with a multitude of moving parts. I would just like to mention one component of it—making sure that people pay for the damage they cause. We are subsidizing the very behaviour that is destroying our planet, and on an enormous scale. Both direct subsidies and the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuels ate up almost $2 trillion in 2011—this is about the same as the total GDP of countries like Italy or Russia.”
In recent weeks UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, US Secretary of State John Kerry and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim have all called on countries and business to take the threats posed by global warming more seriously. Jim made what many believe was an historic call for investors to consider ditching holdings in fossil fuel companies.
The IPCC released a paper on 30 January, 2014 stating
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
On 4 March 2014, a new report released by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO concludes the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rising, and left unchecked further emissions will cause more warming this century.
“The report found that since the 1970s there had also been an increase in extreme fire weather, but predicted worse was to come. More extreme fire-weather days are slated for southern and eastern Australia, areas devastated by bushfires this spring and summer, with longer fire seasons in these regions to drag on. In bad news for farmers, a likely increase in drought frequency and severity is predicted as average rainfall in southern Australia decreases. Cyclones are expected to be fewer, but fiercer, while more extremely hot days and fewer cool days remain a reality on the horizon. The BoM and CSIRO said the record-breaking heatwaves like the kind that swept Australia the past two summers were “very unlikely to have been caused by natural variability alone”. Cutting global emissions would be crucial to preventing the worst global warming has in store, but that alone wouldn’t be enough, the science agencies warn. Adaptation is required because some warming and associated changes are unavoidable.”
The latest Global Legislators Organisation (Globe) study shows 64 out of 66 countries had put in place or were establishing significant climate or energy legislation in 2013, with almost 500 laws to tackle climate change being passed in countries which account for nine-tenths of global emissions.
“The organisation’s president, Lord Deben, who is also the chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change which advises the government on the issue, said: “It is by implementing national legislation and regulations that the political conditions for a global agreement in 2015 will be created.
“We must see more countries develop their own national climate change laws so that when governments sit down in 2015 they will do so in very different political conditions to when they did in Copenhagen.”
I could go on quoting scientists, economists, experts, world leaders…the evidence is overwhelming, scientific consensus has been reached, and the warning has been issued along with a plan of attack. We can ask no more from our scientists. They have done their job. We now have to fight those increasingly rare fossils who would ignore the warning for short term gain for a very few individuals.
Rather than listening to experts and the rest of the world, Tony Abbott, to quote Lord Deben, relied on the “very dubious” work of a small minority of climate analysts, and his was “the last example of a government coming to power on the basis that really all this [climate change] is nonsense”.
In 2009 on Four Corners , Abbott described scientists from the IPCC as
”the people who will tell you as if it’s as obvious as night following day that we have a huge problem and that unless we dramatically change the way we live, life as we know it will be under massive threat. As I said, there’s an evangelical fervour about those people which you don’t normally associate with scientists.
I think that in response to the IPCC alarmist – ah, in inverted commas – view, there’ve been quite a lot of other reputable scientific voices. Now not everyone agrees with Ian Plimer’s position, but he is a highly credible scientist and he has written what seems like a very well-argued book refuting most of the claims of the climate catastrophists.”
When Tony Jones asked Tony Abbott in a Lateline interview in November 2009 if he had read the IPCC report on global warming he replied “No, I don’t claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents. I’m a politician. I have to rely on briefings – I have to rely on what I pick up through the secondary sources. “
When asked if he’d read Plimer’s book he said “I’ve quoted a couple of passages, and I confess I’m probably more familiar with the book through people who’ve written about it than I am through having read it myself.”
You will hear Ian Plimer quoted by Tony Abbott, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Gina Rinehart, and pretty much everyone that thinks climate change is crap. As with all supposedly “reputable scientific voices” in the denial camp, following the money always leads to the same place.
Prof Plimer is a geologist who currently serves on the board of stock exchange-listed miners Ivanhoe Australia and Silver City Mines, and has held previous board roles at CBH Mining and a number of other Australian mining companies. The companies he is involved with mine minerals including gold, zinc, copper and uranium, in Australia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
According to disclosures made to the Australians Securities and Investments Commission, Professor Plimer was appointed by Gina Rinehart to the boards of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments on January 25 2012 which plans to export 55 million tonnes of iron ore a year through Port Hedland when it is up and running at full capacity.
He is also listed as a member of Mrs Rinehart’s Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision (ANDEV) lobby group, which has taken strong positions on corporate taxation and climate change initiatives.
Aside from Mr Plimer, we have had Cardinal Pell give a submission on climate change to the Senate, and then give the 2011 annual Global Warming Policy Foundation speech in London that was described by climate researchers as “dreadful”, “utter rubbish” and “flawed”.
“Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense….. I am certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Uncertainties on climate change abound … my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people’s minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes.”
Cardinal Pell’s ‘evidence’ all comes from The Hancock Free Enterprise Lecture, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, June 2011 delivered by none other than Lord Monckton and sponsored and attended by Gina Rinehart. Monckton is a fruitcake that is always good for a laugh, but hardly someone who should be advising on anything other than propaganda machines.
And then of course, we have Maurice Newman, Tony’s business adviser, who as head of the ABC in 2010, decided that denialists needed more airtime and so Monckton flooded the MSM, especially the ABC, all of whom basically ignored James Hansen who was touring at the same time.
In January this year, Mr Newman, in a column published in The Australian newspaper wrote that the
“climate change establishment (whatever that is) is intent only on exploiting the masses and extracting more money. The United Nations has applied mass psychology through a compliant media (he really did write that) to fool the world into thinking the activities of industrialised countries have changed the climate. The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling,”
Who needs a Climate Change Authority or Department of the Environment when you have Plimer, Pell, Newman and Monckton? We also have Greg Hunt’s Direct Action Plan to look forward to if they ever decide to introduce it.
So shut up all you tree-hugging socialists….
We don’t need no stinkin’ advice!
30 comments
Login here Register here-
PeterF
-
JohnB
-
Kaye Lee
-
Kaye Lee
-
-
Anomander
-
Zofia
-
scotchmistery
-
Sue Lofthouse
-
Kaye Lee
-
Stephen Tardrew
-
Keith
-
Mike 1
-
allenmcmahon
-
Stephen Tardrew
-
2rhoeas3
-
mikestasse
-
mikestasse
-
FSM is coming.
-
Zofia
-
Ian
-
allenmcmahon
-
allenmcmahon
-
Zofia
-
mikestasse
-
Stephen Tardrew
-
Kaye Lee
-
Jp
-
mars08
-
Return to home pageWE elected them, and share in the world’s condemnation of these fools.
Abbott’s election would not have been possible without the relentless false messages, fabricated by the insanely avaricious wealthy via an omnipresent propagandised media.
We should save our most vengeful rage for the perpetrators of this slowly compounding cruel crime against humanity – the Koch’s, the Murdoch’s, the opportunist politicians, the selfish tame journalists etc.
Misinformed “electors” are but pawns in this macabre game of power for short term profit.
The ad that keeps on giving 🙂
Pingback: We don’t need no stinkin’ advice! | lmrh5
Brilliant work Kaye, this article is going straight to the pool room!
Pell’s words amuse me the most “Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense…” Pissed myself laughing at that! This statement coming from a man whose whole private life and career has been centred around belief in an imaginary friend who lives in the sky.
With each passing day my anger and dismay grows at this tawdry excuse for a government and my conversation becomes diluted with more and more expletives.
For a while I’ve been thinking of having a bumper stickers printed with a picture of Tony and the phrase “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him”, just so I can proudly say to the world I’m not one of those idiots contributing the destruction or our nation or our world.
I’m just wondering if anyone else may be interested in one? Or perhaps someone might like to suggest other ideas for bumper stickers.
World leaders, from various organizations and the business and finance community, are calling for action on AGW. They see the very pressing need to move from high-carbon economies to low-carbon economies.
The financial institutions must increase their investment in clean energy while decreasing investment in the fossil fuel industries.
There is a big push from organizations (350.org, Ceres, Carbon Tracker Initiative, Asset Owners Disclosure Project, Share -Action, Greenlight Campaign, The Australia Institute, Carbon Asset Risk) to move investment from fossil fuels to clean energy. They want the financial institutions, superannuation funds and banks etc, to divest from fossil fuels.
The world is in the process of moving to a new universal climate agreement which will avoid a rise in global average temperature of more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This will appear on the table at the UN Climate Change Conference in Peru, 2014 and reach final agreement in Paris 2015.
When this agreement is reached 60% – 80% of fossil fuel reserves will be ‘unburnable ‘ or become ‘stranded assets’. My super fund has just replied to my letter of concern regarding the investment in fossil fuels and the risk of ‘stranded assets’. They have estimated that these ‘stranded assets’ have an approximate value-at-risk on the ASX200 of 14%-15%.
Have you written to your super fund and told them you don’t want to be invested in fossil fuels?
Have you asked them about their exposure to climate related impacts?
And if it has, how it has assessed the risk to investment value?
There are 12 million Australians with superannuation (April 2013).
Australians have $1.62 trillion in superannuation assets (August 2013).
Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy. (APRA)
You have the power in your hands to make a difference.
Write to your super fund telling them of your concerns about AGW and how their investments (your money) in fossil fuels are a major part of the problem.
A new report has just come out, Climate Proofing Your Investments (produced with 350.org and Market Forces). Dr Richard Denniss (Executive Director of the Australia Institute) had this to say:
“Our findings show that fossil-free investment portfolios cannot only provide similar returns on investment but they also help mitigate the risk of an ‘unburnable carbon’ bubble bust.”
Kaye Lee as ever well researched and admirably reasoned piece.
I got three quarters of the way through it and stopped reading it for information and continued reading to enjoy your writing hand.
We can shout from the roof tops, we can preach in churches where Pell holds no sway, but we can’t change the opinion of the mad monk because he believes he has god on his side, and no amount of whipping ever changed a churchman, though I suspect there are a few of Pell’s apostles cooling their heels in non-church-run institutions all over the country.
Only the Australian people can change his actions even if not his mind, and a few more Galaxy Polls where he is shown to be losing the backing of this essentially racist, Luddite population.
What we need is for every single one of us posting breathlessly on left leaning fora, to recruit 2 more to the cause, not just to post, but to listen to reasoned argument on why Australia needs a Royal Commission into Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin, looking at every instance of his misleading the people and the parliament with his lies, prevarications and bullshit.
Then he will change his mind because he is far more interested in keeping his useless, heavily abused seat in parliament than he is in stopping his planned phuquing of this, OUR country.
@Zofia thanks for the tip. I’ll be following that up with my super fund.
Thank you, thank, you thank you Kaye. Well done.
You would think there would be a point where a simple sentence would convince the dunderheads.
It’s getting hot dumb bums and your to blame.
Just hoping.
Great work again Kaye. Since the IPCC report there have been more worrying scientific reports that have come out amplifying the message that climate change is real. I am yet to see a report that discounts climate change that has not been debunked..
Kaye Lee, You are right. It is the likes of George Pell and Tony Abbott that have no clue of Climate Science, All they tend to do is trim the edges of their argument and add prolific Bulldust. Thank You for the Terrific article, by trying to educate, some may learn.
‘The world is in the process of moving to a new universal climate agreement which will avoid a rise in global average temperature of more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This will appear on the table at the UN Climate Change Conference in Peru, 2014 and reach final agreement in Paris 2015.’
It is most unlikely to happen. There has been no effective agreement since the Kyoto agreement which expired in 2013. Copenhagen was supposed to produce a binding to take over from Kyoto. Each year there is a meeting and each year the final agreement gets pushed backed. There is nothing to suggest things will change.
Carbon trading, like trading with many intangibles, is fraught with problems. The EU has the only major carbon trading scheme, the market has collapsed twice because of the overallocation of free credits and fraud is endemic. Just Google ‘carbon trading fraud’ and enter a very murky world.
In the US the Chicago Exchange set up by Al Gore among others opened a $1.00 share peaked at $7.00 a share and finally collapsed when the price dropped to 10cents a share. Call me a cynic but Al Gore and the other major investors sold at $7.00 and it was the small investors that got taken to the cleaners. Gore has moved from ‘green’ investments to high tech medical and just recently purchased $29 million of Apple stock – good corporate citizens apart from an aversion to paying tax.
Thought some of you would like to look at the IPCC report.
First paragraph is suggested 2 degree C warming by 2100 however the second paragraph warns of 3 degrees C based upon differing data-sets. The last paragraph includes continued forcing to 2300 at a devastating 8.7 degrees C. This is a potential roller coaster to hell.
Analysis of anthropogenic emission pathways shows that pathways that likely limit warming below 2°C (above pre-industrial) by 2100 show mission of about 31 – 46 GtCO2eq yr–1 and 17 – 23 GtCO2eq yr–1 by 2020 and 2050, respectively. Median 2010 emissions of all models are 48 GtCO2eqyr–1 In cumulative terms, the 2°C temperature target implies cumulative carbon emissions of about 1000–1300 GtC, of which about 520 GtC were emitted by 2011
This assessment still supports the conclusion from AR4 that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is likely in the range 2-4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value remains near 3°C. Values above 4.5°C are found in some models, and are not inconsistent with observed warming trends, but are less likely to agree with observations and reconstructions of past changes. The transient climate response (TCR) is very likely in the range 1–3°C, with a most likely value near 2°C based on the observed global changes in surface temperature and ocean heat uptake, the detection/attribution studies identifying the response patterns to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, and the results of perturbed physics
ensembles and CMIP3/5. While the uncertainties for both climate sensitivity and TCR are not significantly different from those estimated in AR4, the amount and quality of evidence has increased substantially. The results are supported by several different lines of evidence, each based on multiple studies, models and datasets.
Long Term Climate Change
Continuing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2100 as in the RCP8.5 extension induces a total radiative forcing above 12 W m by 2300 that
would lead to a warming of 8.7°C (range 5.0 – 11.6) by 2300 (relative to 1986 – 2005). Continuous negative emissions beyond 2100, inducing a total radiative forcing below 2 W m by 2300 as in the RCP2.6 extension would reduce the warming to 0.6°C (range 0.3 – 1.0) by 2300.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/review/WG1AR5_FOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=30#tabts2
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=154#tab310
Thank you Kaye. This article and others like it really need far and wide distribution, as I am sure that the majority of people just don’t have any idea of how their World is being changed and the dangers associated with continued high emissions. I live in far Nth Qld., and can only get involved through my computer. I do, as much as I can. I think the power of the LNP at sloganeering to the general public is a force hard to overcome. Especially as we have a strong Murdoch Press.
Your article has enlightened me even more as to the rolls played by the likes of the Pells of this World. The Koch brothers in the US are a huge influence on that Country, being multi-billionaires and controlling fossil fuel industries. To me, their influence and power is frightening. As is the influence of Gina Rinehart, and the people she surrounds herself with.
I have lived here for nearly 30 years and the changes here are evident. Our natural world is being heavily impacted. Let me give you an example, this year, for the first time in my life here, I heard not ONE call from either the green tree frog, or the giant white-lipped green tree frog (both normally prolific) during our changing ‘Wet’ season. As my garden is designed for their habitat, this is highly concerning. This may not seem important to some people, but believe me it is. Our Natural World is imperative to our health, our bio-diverse world is degrading.
Even for Conservatives, it is hard to understand how more intelligent members of that Coalition, are not rebelling against this lunacy.
@ Zofia: Have you written to your super fund and told them you don’t want to be invested in fossil fuels?
Any one with any brains should be self managing their own super. We pulled my wife’s out when she turned 55 and invested some of it in PVs now our roof…… they make FAR BETTER return than her suprfund ever did…….!!
On the highway to a smokestack hell, Faust met a devil who said to him:
“Give me all your tomorrows, all your children and all your children’s children, and I will make this one day, for you, a paradise.”
“my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality” – Probably the most moronic, pathetic and ironic thing ever said.
allenmcmahon
I understand fully your reluctance to believe anything will be different with the Climate Change Conference in Paris, 2015. We have seen the inability of governments to reach consensus in conferences from Copenhagen through to Warsaw although some progress has been made. Facing imminent climate change catastrophe, governments have been incapable of making the decisions needed to prevent this from happening. However, there are a lot of good people working hard to achieve positive outcomes at these conferences who haven’t given up and who see that agreement on targets must be reached in Paris, 2015. The continuing disastrous events (floods, droughts, super storms, typhoons, fires) are pushing governments to act. They can’t ignore the costs of these events and the effects on their economies for much longer.
I believe the world has a choice, but time is running out – governments can either embrace the changes needed to transition, fairly smoothly, into low-carbon economies or we will all be subjected to economic disruption far greater than the GFC.
“If effective regulation to tackle climate change is introduced, fossil fuel companies and other high carbon assets could suffer a substantial loss in value. …
Conversely, if climate change is allowed to advance unchecked, the risks are even greater : extreme weather events and growing volatility of food and fuel prices are likely to hit returns across entire portfolios in ways that are both dramatic and unpredictable.”
Louise Rouse (Guardian Finance Hub)
Pension funds that ignore climate change are failing to protect savers.(October 2013)
So I hope agreement is reached in Paris, 2015.
Re Plimer, ‘reputable scientists’ don’t publish books, they publish peer-reviewed papers. Any scientist whose claims to fame rest on publishing a book cannot be considered ‘reputable’.
James Hansen published a book ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’.
It annoys me that when any scientist who is skeptical of global warning ceases to be a ‘reputable scientist’ particularly when many of the critics are singularly unimpressive academics or activists bloggers.
Ian Plimer is professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and is a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide. While many of his colleges disagree with his views on global warming he is a well respected by his peers. He is also a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Eureka Prize winner (x2), Fellow of the AusIMM, Fellow Geological Society, Centenary Medal, Clarke Medal, Leopod von Buch Plakette, Sir Willis Connolly Medal.
‘Plimerite’ a new phosphate mineral was named in his honor for his work in the field of geology.
Plimer used to be adored by the left back when he was an outspoken critic of creationism and came to public attention following the publication of his book ‘ Telling Lies for God – Reason verses Creationism’.
Of course he must be totally biased because he derives some of his income from fossil fuel companies, who we know have no real cause for remunerating experts in geology or any of the earth sciences for that matter unless its to subvert critics of CAGW.
Well I guess I earned my check from ‘Big Coal’ this month unless of course I am a ‘bot’ which is entirely possible.
I wouldn’t call any of these academics and scientists “singularly unimpressive”.
(1) PROFESSOR DAVID KAROLY – University of Melbourne School of Earth Sciences
(reviewed Plimer’s book Heaven + Earth)
(2) PROFESSOR MICHAEL ASHLEY – professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW
(reviewed Plimer’s book)
(3) PROFESSOR KURT LAMBECK – earth scientist and President of the Australian Academy of Science
(reviewed Plimer’s book)
(4) GAVIN SCHMIDT – a senior climate scientist at NASA
(5) PROFESSOR IAN ENTING – mathematical physicist from the University of Melbourne
(provided a detailed, point-to-point critique of Heaven + Earth)
(6) MATTHEW ENGLAND – joint director of the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre
(7) PROFESSOR CHARLIE VERON – former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science
(8) PROFESSOR BARRY BROOK – School of Earth and Environmental science at the University of Adelaide
Regardless of Ian Plimer’s qualifications and his awards, he wrote a book which has been totally discredited by other academics and scientists. He is a Climate Change denier and his book has added to the disinformation on Climate Change. He chose to put this misinformation into the public domain to do as much damage as he could, and perpetuate the idea that there was still some debate about the science of Climate Change. When we should have been concentrating on how to solve the problem of Climate Change, scientists had to spend time proving his statements were not credible and scientifically factual.
He has done a disservice to science and to all of us.
He needs to be castigated not praised.
Check THIS out……….Time to Wake Up: The Climate Denial Beast (16 minutes)
mikestasse
March 9, 2014
Certainly worth a look.
Consequences US centric
The Beast is an abomination of greed, oligopoly and psychosis.
allen,
As I said to Tom Harris when we were jousting after a previous article, where the money comes from should be irrelevant IF the science is factual. And that is where Plimer makes me even angrier than Monckton.
As you rightly point out, he has done some good work in the field of geology. His forays into climate science however abandon the scientific rigour that he shows in his chosen field
Plimer sets out to refute the scientific consensus that human emissions of CO2 have changed the climate. If he is right and he is able to show that the work of literally thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize.
He has no peer-reviewed papers on climate science The arguments that he advances in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that abound on the internet. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.
To quote Michael Ashley:
“Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics.”
@allenmcmahon, “James Hansen published a book ‘Storms of my Grandchildren’.”
Can you really be that stupid that you don’t understand what Ian’s point is when he says ” ‘reputable scientists’ don’t publish books, they publish peer-reviewed papers”? It doesn’t mean that a scientist is not reputable because they publish a book. It means that the repute of a scientist is not solely based on the publication of a book; it’s primarily based on their body of peer-reviewed work.
Why don’t you give us a comparison of James Hansen’s peer-reviewed climate science work with that of Ian Plimer’s? _ emphasis on “climate science”. It should be an interesting comparison.
As someone has already pointed out and given links to, Plimer’s book has been widely and meticulously debunked as horse-shit. One of his most egregious claims is that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activity. Is that true, allenmcmahon? And if it’s not true, does it not mean that your “reputable” scientist is a liar or a clueless idiot in respect to climate science?
George Monbiot exposes the dishonest, prevaricating turd:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
What a disgusting scam!!! These politicians have no shame!!!
First you make up some bogus information and use it to seed fear and doubt in the community. You make them think their future is going to be bleak and barren.
THEN, with the help of your MSM media mates, you drown out any dissenting voices. You accuse anyone who disagrees with your information of wanting to destroy the Australian way of life.
THEN, when the public is sufficiently frightened, you put forward a reckless “solution”. This simplistic solution is used to win a feeble mandate from the electorate.
From this point it’s easy… keep the hysteria simmering along in order to keep the votes coming AND hand out buckets of money the “experts” brought in to manage the fabricated issue!!!
Er… ah… ah… wait a minute. This is a discussion about climate change, isn’t it? hehehe… I thought it was about asylum seekers. Never mind…..
Pingback: Day to Day Politics. Extra. Breaking News. The world can breathe a little easier. – WRITTEN BY JOHN LORD | winstonclose