We’re now at stage three (cartoon by Josh).
The warmenistas are calling for bipartisanship.
Climate change is another issue on which a bipartisan approach is needed. Whatever system we adopt to tackle it, it will work only if business can trust future governments to honour commitments made by the current one.
Why bother have elections if future governments cannot reverse bad decisions by current government? Andrew Bolt deals with this quite nicely so I thought I’d point to when Kevin Rudd was pursuing his bipartisan approach to climate change.
They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.
The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government.
Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet, even Lord Monckton shouldn’t even bother with the pretence of science and just admit the currency of their prescription for inaction has all the legitimacy of a roulette wheel.
Basically, let’s just sit back, do nothing and see what happens.
The alternative – our alternative – is to base policy on the evidence.
No responsible government confronted with the evidence delivered by the 4,000 scientists associated with the international panel could then in conscience choose not to act. In any public company, it would represent a gross contempt of the most basic fiduciary duty.
Malcolm and Barnaby might like to bet the future of Australia on the off chance of winning an election, but this Government will not.
A fairly well-known bloke once said that when gambling:
You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.
Know when to walk away, know when to run.My message to the climate change skeptics, to the big betters and the big risk takers is this:
You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.
You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.
That is too big a risk, too radical a departure from the basic conservative principles of public policy.
Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet – stop gambling with our future.
You’ve got to know when to fold ‘em – and for the skeptics, that time has come.
The Government I lead will act.
Time for the libs to disown their direct action plan due to changed circumstances, i.e. the exposure of the depth of the scam.
They should at a very minimum defer action pending further consensus on countermeasures which will be adhered to by all.
blogstrop
24 Jul 12 at 12:14 pm
That Lowy speech was one of the most disgraceful speeches by an Australian PM in history and the MSM the next day said nada in terms of criticism.
It was nasty, unbecoming and small-minded even if you believed in AGW catastrophism at the time.
Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in his blog shortly after that speech:
Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Chilling Speech
JamesK
24 Jul 12 at 12:16 pm
Excuse me, but we did have bipartisanship before the last election – 149 members did not want a carbon tax. That’s about as bipartisan as you can get. And the Australian people voted in favour of that position.
Milton Von Smith
24 Jul 12 at 12:28 pm
MvS – 149 ran on, and were elected on, a no carbon tax platform. Who knows what they really wanted?
Sinclair Davidson
24 Jul 12 at 12:42 pm
I’ve spent about thirty years doing work in science labs. I say that the scientific evidence supports the Sun as the main cause for temperature rise in the last century, with further contribution from the 60 year cycle. CO2 has only a small, logarithmically self-limiting effect.
Perhaps Mr Colebatch would like to debate just why, when the scientific data shows that no action can possibly be justified, we should destroy our economic future? For no reason?
For extra points Tim, since the Cat is an economics blog, you might like to forensically dismantle the arguments in Carlin 2011.
Bruce of Newcastle
24 Jul 12 at 12:42 pm
Thanks for the reminder of Krudd’s speech.
It reminds me of what a piddling, pious, prissy, pontificating, prat that he was then [and still is now].
And these buffoons think that by putting the pretentious little prick back in as PM that he can save them from the inevitable train wreck for Labor that is now rushing at them.
Insanity.
James P
24 Jul 12 at 12:51 pm
No. That would be the warmists. I’m not sure what you would call their methods, but it’s not science.
Stephen Hawking:
AGW theory was debunked years ago.
jupes
24 Jul 12 at 1:00 pm
I am sick of calls for bipartisanship.
I want Labor and the Greens crushed and their policies thrown out.
H B Bear
24 Jul 12 at 1:01 pm
And anyone who invokes their children or their grandchildren in an argument over so-called global warming.
H B Bear
24 Jul 12 at 1:03 pm
Labor begs to differ:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3569390.html
Ivan Denisovich
24 Jul 12 at 1:03 pm
Tony will eventually toe the accurate Labor and Goldman Sach’s line….ie. the CO2 tax is temporary and trivial.
The real pot of gold scam for the Institutions and Statists everywhere is the forever ETS. Certain to dwarf all but Forex derivative markets when the UN makes it compulsory world wide in a decade or two.
Despite Tony’s protestations… you want an ETS?, he’s your boy.
Alfonso
24 Jul 12 at 1:06 pm
“Who knows what they really wanted?”
That’s easy
AKA as Evolutionary Communism, or as I would put it, cooking frog socialism. It’s also the goals of Technocracy that is based on an economic system based on the exchange of “energy” units rather than the price mechanism we live with today.
Since EVERYONE uses and gets energy, what’s not to like about an intermediary item of exchange based on carbon credits? Apart from the patently utopian absurdity of it.
Louis Hissink
24 Jul 12 at 1:12 pm
Zombie trolls love this place. Especially dumb ignoramuses who bombard us with their secret knowledge about how democracy really works. Or how the statist fascists want it to. It’s all for you own good.
Here’s something that’s for your own good. Fuck off.
Tom
24 Jul 12 at 1:19 pm
I want to act to save my children and grandchildren. I want them to be able to have jobs in manufacturing, mining and agriculture that are threatened by this useless CO2 tax. I want them to live in a wealthy Australia, not one impoverished by sending billions of taxpayer’s dollars overseas for permits to burn coal that we already own. Abbott needs to pull his finger out and scrap the immediate implementation of his ‘direct action plan’ or lower the cap on spending on it to a token, say $100,000.
Cold-Hands
24 Jul 12 at 1:20 pm
Yeah, and that is why the Left wants to raise on jack-high nothing.
ar
24 Jul 12 at 1:35 pm
Ah, the heady days of peak climate hysteria.
Rudd’s speech was the high water mark, and the tides been ebbing ever since.
Keith
24 Jul 12 at 1:38 pm
Ah, for those heady days of ‘Peak Oil’. Remmember them? Margoyle promised we’d be all dried up by now.
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 2:08 pm
How’s this: Found and excerpted from Scott Sumner’s blog. Look who’s switching to coal.
JC
24 Jul 12 at 2:12 pm
Settle down Tommy….your Tony is a LibLab. The shock of that recognition might well put you off the Lib welfare statists about a year into their first term.
Alfonso
24 Jul 12 at 2:13 pm
I have a nagging suspiscion that Alfonso is quite correct.
Hope I am proven wrong.
Kaboom
24 Jul 12 at 2:16 pm
Tony Abbot’s government should be an order of magnitude better than GillRudd’s, but that still leaves room for lots of improvement.
Eddystone
24 Jul 12 at 2:23 pm
Who is this Alfonso of whom you speak?
JamesK
24 Jul 12 at 2:23 pm
He sounds like a terrible person.
JamesK
24 Jul 12 at 2:24 pm
Someone who mistakes the Cat for a Lib booster site?
Eddystone
24 Jul 12 at 2:24 pm
Check out Tony’s own words in his book Battlelines. It will leave you in no doubt that he is a big spending welfare statist. The Liar must go, but there is an even bigger fight to be had in convincing the Liberal Party to be liberal – you know, stuff like individual liberty, limited government, rule of law and free markets.
johno
24 Jul 12 at 2:32 pm
The LDP must get Liberal preferences and the Liberals must get over 50% primary votes.
The ALP and Greens have to be wiped out for two decades and the Liberals smacked out of their doctors wife mentality.
.
24 Jul 12 at 2:36 pm
Newman. But he’s just one guy.
JC
24 Jul 12 at 2:37 pm
dot, most doctors wives are doctors themselves.
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 2:40 pm
Don’t tell Tommy, johno, trauma counselling is expensive.
Alfonso
24 Jul 12 at 2:41 pm
If Abbott retains the carbon tax, it will as big a sellout as Gillard Labor. He is not “mine”, you fuckwit. I can’t stand smartarse knowalls like you coming here with tickets on yourself about what’s really going down in politics. You think you know more than us, OK: names, dates and verbatim conversations. Otherwise, shut up and fuck off.
Tom
24 Jul 12 at 2:44 pm
…and – why have they ruined the Liberal party?
.
24 Jul 12 at 2:44 pm
I bet he abuses himself with a troll doll and runs like a chicken thief from powys.
.
24 Jul 12 at 2:45 pm
dot, while more research is needed (isn’t it always), I would bet money on the infiltration of you know who: chop, chop, chop…
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 2:51 pm
Ah yeah right the Papists are teaching their women to attend Eastern suburbs dinner parties and marry doctors they matriculated at U Syd with, in order to fuck the shit out of the dry agenda and turn the Liberal party into St Vincent de Paul’s social justice centre HQ?
I’m backing away slowly man.
.
24 Jul 12 at 2:54 pm
Well, dot, I haven’t thought it all quite through as far as you have, but are you sure you might be not being just a tad excitable in your theory of conspiracy, schismatics, and intrigue?
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 2:57 pm
A couple of tweaks, and Rudd’s speech is spot on.
‘They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.
The logic of these
skepticswarmerists belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government.Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, Janet, even Lord MoncktonJuliar, Swan, Combet and Wong shouldn’t even bother with the pretence of science and just admit the currency of their prescription forinaction has all the legitimacy of a roulette wheel.Basically,
let’s just sit back, do nothing and see what happensthey want to do something, anything, even if it is completely useless and damages our future.The alternative –
ourthe realist alternative – is to base policy on the evidence.No responsible government confronted with the evidence delivered by
the 4,000 scientists associated with the international panelthousands of scientist who do real science could then in conscience choosenotto act. In any public company, it would represent a gross contempt of the most basic fiduciary duty to embark on such a mad and useless scheme.Malcolm and BarnabyThe Liar might like to bet the future of Australia on the off chance of winning an election, butthis Government will notthat does not make it right.A fairly well-known bloke once said that when gambling:
You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.
Know when to walk away, know when to run.
My message to the climate change
skepticsalarmists, to the big betters and the big risk takers is this:You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.
You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.
That is too big a risk, too radical a departure from the basic conservative principles of public policy.
Malcolm, Barnaby, Andrew, JanetJuliar, Swan, Combet and Wong – stop gambling with our future.You’ve got to know when to fold ‘em – and for the
skepticsalarmists, that time has come.The Government
I lead will actshould respect the science.’johno
24 Jul 12 at 2:58 pm
I’m looking forward to being even more vicious with those inbred spivs than I am with out n’ proud leftists.
The only thing better than executing leftists is executing leftists who pretend they aren’t.
Infidel Tiger
24 Jul 12 at 3:10 pm
And dot, thinking about the mixed marriages I know (and no, I don’t mean the XX-XY ones), the Vatican Candidate is just as often the husband as the wife!
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 3:10 pm
And you’re right, they DO justify all this papism and ALP voting as “social justice”.
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 3:12 pm
Let em burn!
Pickles
24 Jul 12 at 3:28 pm
Bipartisanship refers to agreement between 2 parties. So, ALP and the Greens will be bipartisanship?
Jack
24 Jul 12 at 3:39 pm
You bet your sweet bippy!
Tom
24 Jul 12 at 3:43 pm
If they run, they’re lefties, if they stand still, they’re a well trained lefty!
.
24 Jul 12 at 3:46 pm
‘The bells, the bells…’ Tommy.
LibLab follower Tommy will eventually get that his heros are neither conservative nor liberal but just another lot trying to satisfy the universal desire to live on other people’s money…..because they all vote and this is Australia. You won.
Alfonso
24 Jul 12 at 4:09 pm
Some of that s right alfonso. But suggesting they are the same is horseshit.
Howard was brave or foolhardy enough to try workchoices. The alliance lied and regulated to even before keatng hawke reforms.
The liars party under the lying slapper formed an alliance with the worst grouping of scum that’s ever been called a political party here in Australia.
The slapper also blatantly lied.
Lastly, they are perhaps the most incompetent rabble to ever hold government.
So your characterization is either a nice disguised attempt to mudd the waters or ignorance.
Let them prove themselves over the first 6 months and see how they go. After that it will be open season.
Jc
24 Jul 12 at 4:21 pm
You seem to think the people here will have a problem attacking from the right. Don’t be under any illusions.
Jc
24 Jul 12 at 4:22 pm
dot, what’s your figure on the % the state should make up GDP again?
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 4:28 pm
I loath bipartisanship!
Firstly, the other side is wrong in their approach and often in their objectives. The voters finally put them on the opposition benches for the next 3, 6 or 9 years and that is where they belong: powerless and irrelevant and whose job it is to snipe.
Secondly, written constitutional arrangement dictate the extent of power sharing: two-houses of parliament elected differently, proportional and other methods of election, the length of terms, federalism, and parliamentary versus presidential executives.
Thirdly, knowledge grows through critical discussion, not by consensus and agreement
Fourthly, if the righteous majority silences, ignores or co-opts its opponents, it will never have to defend its belief and over time will forget the arguments for it.
As well as losing its grasp of the arguments for its belief, Mill adds that the majority will in due course even lose a sense of the real meaning and substance of its belief.
What earlier may have been a vital belief will be reduced in time to a series of phrases retained by rote. The belief will be held as a dead dogma rather than as a living truth.
Beliefs held like this are extremely vulnerable to serious opposition when it is eventually encountered. They are more likely to collapse because their supporters do not know how to defend them or even what they really mean.
Mill’s has scenario involves both parties of opinion, majority and minority, having a portion of the truth but not the whole of it. He regards this as the most common of the three scenarios, and his argument here is very simple.
To enlarge its grasp of the truth the majority must encourage the minority to express its partially truthful view.
Three scenarios – the majority is wrong, partly wrong, or totally right – exhaust for Mill the possible permutations on the distribution of truth, and he holds that in each case the search for truth is best served by allowing free discussion.
Mill thinks history repeatedly demonstrates this process at work and offers Christianity as an illustrative example.
By suppressing opposition to it over the centuries Christians have ironically weakened rather than strengthened Christian belief, and Mill thinks this explains the decline of Christianity in the modern world. They forgot why they were Christians.
Jim Rose
24 Jul 12 at 4:46 pm
He’s trying to muddy the waters.
They current choices are about as different as light is from dark.
If you can’t see that much at least, you’re either not looking or you have an agenda.
Rousie
24 Jul 12 at 4:55 pm
Stage 5 – join an NGO & relocate to Tasmania
Rousie
24 Jul 12 at 5:11 pm
You must be joking Rousie.
You have Surf and Omo with marketing points at the margins.
I done told you, they’ve already won, because you’re convinced of the vast philosophical divide between LibLab or is that LabLib.
Alfonso
24 Jul 12 at 5:11 pm
Alfonse:
The parties are not the same. The most important reform conducted since WW2 was workchoices. That was not only reversed by the Alliance, it was taken further back in time. Secondly the current government has spent its time raising taxes while the previous was lowered them.
Stop talking shit.
Arguing what you are is delusional.
And don’t comeback with that snotty nosed attitude comparing Heinz to Campbell soups or crap like that.
JC
24 Jul 12 at 5:36 pm
I read some of the comments on that Age article. I need a shower now.
The stupid is blinding.
The arguments from authority bubble from everywhere. They even call people ‘deniers’ and link to Skeptical Science.
There’s even one joker saying the IPCC models are correct even though they were wrong. I’d love to hear the explanation for that.
Who are these sad, angry, ignorant people? Why do they cling to their doomsday cult so tenaciously?
brc
24 Jul 12 at 5:46 pm
Alfonso, you are not listening, not making any sense; here we want the Labor scum out of office yesterday and the Greens completely destroyed. Main game. For the rest of it, statists will get what they deserve and so will people interpreting others when they know nothing about them, having been here all of two minutes themselves.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
24 Jul 12 at 5:52 pm
stuff like individual liberty, limited government, rule of law and free markets.
I have a feeling Tony is probably ok on the first and third (seriously, he’s the only politician I can remember actually saying that it wasn’t a good idea to ban fast food ads). It’s the second I think he may have tendencies for the dark side.
Quentin George
24 Jul 12 at 5:53 pm
Who is this prat Fonso?
I had though he was the Tillman of which we speak.
JamesK
24 Jul 12 at 5:55 pm
Honestly for someone labelled the “Mad Monk”, I can’t think of many examples of Tony wanting to censor or ban as much as the supposed “progressives” in the ALP Left and Greens.
Quentin George
24 Jul 12 at 5:56 pm
Work Choices – that’s like banning the unions, so we are told by the unions.
Gab
24 Jul 12 at 5:58 pm
We could do it at 20% with the same outcomes now.
15% constitutionally limited. Over 20% is sheer Bolshevism.
.
24 Jul 12 at 6:01 pm
It’s the Fonse.
Oh and Fonse, that reminds me.. Finkelstein.
JC
24 Jul 12 at 6:03 pm
Fonzie -
The liars have rallied the conservative base like no conservative leader ever could.
If you don’t get why this is happening you’re either an intellectual midget or intellectually dishonest.
Next thing you’ll tell us is that Newman & Bligh were cut from the same cloth.
Rousie
24 Jul 12 at 6:31 pm
You’re a very sheer grader Doctor Dot. What happens when a regime slides from 17% to 18, or even – YIKES! 19%!? To the gallows!!?
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 6:52 pm
LNP is saying ALP is bad.
ALP’s own people also reckon ALP is bad.
That’s what we call bipartisanship.
Henry
24 Jul 12 at 6:57 pm
Automatic rebates out of Treasury. If this is not possible, automatic, irrevocable dismissal.
.
24 Jul 12 at 7:00 pm
Oh NO! Dictator Doctor Dot, you are soooooo, like, SCARY!
Peter Patton
24 Jul 12 at 7:09 pm
… can only be communism.
Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, you hysterical, anti scientific idiots.
Rabz
24 Jul 12 at 7:12 pm
Dot is fantasising. Including of sex. Uni Syd was never like that. To much booze. Did anyone mention the French public sector is barely 56% of GDP and the newest idea is to increase that to make everything better? Fortunately you don’t need much money to make wine and cheese, but the geese will be happy since no longer will punters afford foie gras to go with their gruel. I wonder how many Fairfax journos started their infinite monkey impersonations in Honi Soit?
Bruce
24 Jul 12 at 7:26 pm
The “Abbott will keep the carbon tax” line is an attempt by Gillard to avoid awkward internal party questions about the ALP’s 2016 election chances.
If Abbott repeals the tax, what is the ALP to then do? If they try to argue for reintroduction, they will face that election on that issue, and have to make the case without access to treasury analysis – doomed to fail.
But any reversal would damage credibility (“that’s what you said last time”), and this would be compounded by both the internal division it would create, and the resulting public perception of that internal division.
Much easier to just be in denial about the whole 2016 argument, rather than face facts. It’s Gillard’s standard playbook.
2dogs
24 Jul 12 at 7:37 pm
Patton,
Government is scary. We need to keep them on a leash.
Also my experience Bruce. Leaving pubs on Broadway at 4.30 am with no voice. Ah good times.
.
24 Jul 12 at 7:47 pm
Exactly, 2dogs. The bullshit meme being propagated by Green Labor zombies that it doesn’t matter who you vote for you’ll get the carbon tax is possibly the most dishonest tactic I’ve seen in decades of watching Australian politics, designed to minimise the annihilation that is on the way for both the Greens and Labor. It’s this administration’s last big lie on top of all the others. And people who come here peddling the lie are working for this government and are probably on staff somewhere in the system, recycling troll identities to minimise suspicion. Think of recent troll identities who haven’t been banned, but have suddenly disappeared.
Tom
24 Jul 12 at 7:54 pm
Blimey – where did all the trolls come from?
Mk50 of Brisbane
24 Jul 12 at 10:04 pm
From the special home, Mark.
Gab
24 Jul 12 at 10:19 pm
I have written before about the Belmont Forum that Australia is participating in through its Department of Climate Change that issued the global restructuring around sustainability document in March 2011. The Belmont Forum is also a partner with UNESCO, UNEP, and others in that Future Earth Alliance which plans to begin to operate next year–2013.
The bipartisanship push and the business wants to know initiative is trying to keep the funding in place even with electoral changes. The ICSU website http://www.icsu.org/future-earth/transition-team
lists Karl Jones, Executive Director, Catastrophe Management Services of Willis Re, Australia on the Transition Team. That would strongly indicate Australian Big Business is familiar with the Future Earth Alliance and its agenda even if the typical Australian or American or Brit has never heard of it.
Robin
24 Jul 12 at 10:38 pm
A Federal budget under $100B would be inline with the original plan for the place.
XXiiiA costs another $130B.
The rest is properly state business and should rightly be devolved.
Thing is, the federal budget is where all the excess is there to be cut. States have only limited options in making the cuts that will be necessary over the next five years, and after the first 5-10% will all hurt the major backbone services.
But $200B+ can be trimmed from the Federal budget without blinking an eye.
Driftforge
24 Jul 12 at 10:39 pm
Except you didn’t act, Kevvy – you threatened a double dissolution (like your hero Gough did over Medibank) but then suddenly you saw Abbott opposite you instead of Turnbull, and you ran from that option in terror with your knickers thoroughly drenched.
Unless that was the action you talked of…
perturbed
25 Jul 12 at 2:34 am
CAGWarmist Abbott won’t keep the CO2 tax, Champion, but he will eventually, in the fullness of time, after much consideration, in the spirit of complying with international ‘law’, do the ETS the Institutions lust after…..a brand new profit centre of unlimited size.
LibLab: you gotta admire their business plan.
Alfonso
25 Jul 12 at 7:36 am
I just finished reading Obama’s US Innovation Policy for the Global Economy which insisted that all the countries are going to a Neomercantile Industrial Policy economy directed by government.
Doesn’t anyone working in the exec branch for any of these govts know any history?
Moving beyond free markets and distinctions between the public and private sectors is stagnation if we are lucky.
And that was before those 3 words I am so tired of hearing–basing the future economy around health, climate, and energy offering well-paying jobs.
Please somebody save us from the politicians and their cronies.
Robin
25 Jul 12 at 7:58 am
So troll Alfonso do you think international law is actual law….despite requiring our ratification which involves us passing the laws to the extent they are applied?
.
25 Jul 12 at 9:29 am
Fonzie -
You may well be a midget, but I am betting more along the lines of intellectually dishonest – just a coincidence that your talking point is popping up from all the usual suspects huh?
Btw – are you from Brisbane. Are multiple aliases part of some tax minimisation strategy? Wouldn’t have thought trolling paid that well.
Rousie
25 Jul 12 at 10:16 am
And I fancy tears before bedtime for followers of conservative icon and liberal values holder, our Tony, when he doesn’t repeal the mining tax…..a face saving but slight modification will be the extent of it.
Oh the humanity.
Alfonso
25 Jul 12 at 1:57 pm