No more debates, says science minister (who isn’t a scientist)

Climate deniers robbing Australia of time to respond to impacts, Science Minister Karen Andrews warns.

“Let’s not keep having debates about climate change.”

Shut up, she explains. Andrews graduated as an engineer before a relatively brief career working in power stations and the chemical/petrochemical industry. Some sort of enwokening led to her doing further study to become an industrial advocate and a dispute resolver – eventually, for the Victorian government. Mmm.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Freedom of speech, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

225 Responses to No more debates, says science minister (who isn’t a scientist)

  1. Lee

    I did not vote LNP to get climate change alarmists like Andrews into government.

    Had I wanted to do so I would vote Greens or Labor.

  2. In today’s world, being a scientist doesn’t guarantee any sort of scientific rigour, especially when it comes to so-called climate science. To be honest, you’d probably have a better science minister if they were a farmer that comes from a long line of farmers.

  3. stackja

    Climate study is a science?
    The climate is changing without any scientists been able to explain why.

  4. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I haven’t seen much real evidence that the climate is changing at all; certainly not when past cycles of up and down in Temps are taken into account.

    So many of the measurements are ‘smoothed’ or cherry picked in time scales. So much of the ‘warming’ is hysteria (e.g. recently a figure for ocean warming that disappears when measurement errors are taken into account).

    However, ‘the science’ is a religion to the MSM, their celebrity virtue seekers and politicians who have no idea about scientific investigation and its uncertainties. People do believe the MSM and simply roll over to the zeitgeist.

    It won’t end well. Protect yourself where you can.

  5. MACK

    Why no more debate when even the climate “experts” themselves say: “The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties.”
    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025817

  6. The explanation by the BOM, bete noir to well known bloggers, is both logical and sensible. There is no climate debate just changes to the weather patterns which are on a 120 year cycle.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/indian-ocean-dipole-fuels-dry-australia-bushfires-africa-rain/11787874
    Researchers from different countries are coming up with similar results given there is a change in terms used to cover the same discussion.
    There is surprising consensus in this area

  7. Whalehunt fun

    The ignorance and gullibility is strong in this one.

  8. Turtle

    Once people accept the climate myth they then view all weather events through a catastrophic lens. This confirmation bias then builds up into a belief that the person has actually “experienced climate change”. It’s the opposite of Douglas Adams’ Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

  9. 59096

    Another day, another idiot!

  10. rickw

    “Let’s not keep having debates about climate change.”

    Ignorant fool.

  11. candy

    The Liberals are coming out as climate alarmists. They almost seem relieved.

  12. Tim Neilson

    Andrews graduated as an engineer before a relatively brief career working in power stations and the chemical/petrochemical industry.

    Enough that she should know better.

  13. calli

    Science Minister Karen Andrews – Tyrant

    No. It won’t end well. For her.

  14. Not Uh oh

    Be careful, this was the ABC reporting and they do have a tendency to play loose with the truth. The bit about climate deniers appears to be their words, not hers. I don’t know what her position is on co2 reduction or building more dams. I just know that I wouldn’t trust the ABC to tell me.

  15. Robber Baron

    She is receiving the best government advice, the debate must end. We must all shut up and pay our taxes.

    Taxation without representation.

    At some point, and only when it is desperate and has no alternative, government will listen, but until that point is reached, it will continue to deprive us of our freedoms and wealth.

  16. Phill

    I heard an ABC RN radio interview with her this morning. The interviewer used a variety of loaded questions to try and get his gotcha moment.

  17. a happy little debunker

    The last thing we should do is question ‘their consensus’ on climate change.

    We should not question as to why the BOM does not follow WMO’s guidelines let alone their best practice?
    We should not question what impact that has on their ‘temperatures’?
    We should not question the actual amount of man made climate change vs. natural climate change?
    We should not question the motives of the IPCC or their derived mandate?
    We should not question that Global Warming actually means a hotter and wetter climate – but they keep telling us that the current crisis is caused by a hotter and drier climate?

    No, we shouldn’t question them – because they apparently have ALL the answers!

  18. Iampeter

    Let’s not keep having debates about climate change.

    I kinda agree. It doesn’t make any difference to the political question anyway.
    The problem being for the skeptics that they don’t actually have any political arguments.
    That’s why they’re so interested in maintaining an entirely tangential scientific argument instead.

    As usual the left wins by default and those claiming to oppose them are just milking their followers without having any interest or ability to actually win on the issue and reverse course once and for all.

  19. Big Toe Hurts

    The wise and great King Canute demonstrated that even he could not control nature. Why do lesser mortals believe they can? Isn’t the rise and fall of the tide part of nature, part of the weather pattern? “The seas are rising” hysteria?

  20. Rafe Champion

    No discussion of idiots is complete without a contribution from Iampeter. Can Munty be far behind?
    Or did he step on too many rakes this morning?

  21. Roger

    Be careful, this was the ABC reporting and they do have a tendency to play loose with the truth. The bit about climate deniers appears to be their words, not hers

    “Let’s not keep having debates about climate change,” the Cabinet minister said.

    “Let’s accept that the climate has changed, the climate is changing and we need to look at what we’re going to do about that.”

    Her position seems quite clear to me.

  22. Bruce of Newcastle

    My memory may be faulty but I can’t seem to recall we have ever had an actual debate on it in this country. Except when the ABC was forced into hosting one with Lord Monckton, where he obliterated Richard Denniss.

    So if you count that as a settled debate, which the climate sceptic won hands down, that would mean we should immediately dynamite all the wind turbines in this country since they are proven to be unnecessary.

  23. Leo G

    “Let’s not keep having debates about climate change.”

    The only debate her “us” keep having is how to ensure there is only one debating team.

  24. areff

    If the only way we can get a swamp-drainer in The Lodge is go the republic route, so be it.

    No point in looking for decency, backbone or nous in the Liberal Party, and no hope of being rid of them in the meantime.

  25. Roger

    In a little over 6 months we’ve gone from “This is for the quiet Australians” to “Shut up!”

  26. cohenite

    Not Uh oh
    #3293207, posted on January 15, 2020 at 3:42 pm
    Be careful, this was the ABC reporting and they do have a tendency to play loose with the truth. The bit about climate deniers appears to be their words, not hers. I don’t know what her position is on co2 reduction or building more dams. I just know that I wouldn’t trust the ABC to tell me.

    Maybe but given the weak stupidity in conservatives, despite winning the climate election they still gravitate to the losers’ policies. Who advises these fuckwits.

  27. Roger

    If you can’t hold your own on climate change against an ABC reporter with an Arts degree you shouldn’t consent to being interviewed by them.

    And you certainly shouldn’t be Science Minister.

  28. cohenite

    My memory may be faulty but I can’t seem to recall we have ever had an actual debate on it in this country. Except when the ABC was forced into hosting one with Lord Monckton, where he obliterated Richard Denniss.

    http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.html?id=1418

  29. jupes

    “Let’s accept that the climate has changed, the climate is changing and we need to look at what we’re going to do about that.”

    This gormless woman and her government are stupid beyond belief. Even if you accept that CO2 has a major influence (which it doesn’t), the following are scientific facts:

    There is precisely NOTHING Australia can do to change the weather.

    There is precisely NO hope that the Paris Agreement can stop the planet from warming, because even if countries like Australia are stupid enough to cut their CO2 emissions, the worlds biggest emitter is allowed to keep increasing its CO2 emissions every year for another ten years.

    FMD how gullible (or traitorous) are the twits who signed the stupid thing on our behalf? The only responsible thing to do is to get out.

  30. Mother Lode

    Ridiculousness.

    The election that SloMo won, as a great surprise to all the garrulous political pundits, was the ‘Climate Change’ election. (Tony Abbot’s was as well.)

    The electorate (both times) said “Stop it with the fucking Climate Change!”

    What does SloMo’s government do when slavish submission to greenie dogma (esp AGW) has led to the worst bushfire season anyone can remember? Double down on Climate Change.

    I can’t help thinking the cynical calculation is that if they differ from the opposition then they might be caught out and lose votes to the opposition. If the say the same thing then they negate that distinction and will not lose votes, and anyone who disagrees with AGW cannot vote against them without voting for the warmie opposition, so they don’t have to worry about losing votes to the honest socialists.

    The Libs don’t fight to win, just no to lose – which means just hoping Labor doesnt win.

    What a pathetic bunch of mealy-mouthed nobodies. So gullible and easily seduced by baubles that they spend their lives representing a cohort of vested interests to us, instead of representing us to the vested interests.

  31. John of Mel

    I’m not sure it’s possible to win the general population over when they are fed smooth rubbish like this one

  32. miltonf

    The Liberals are coming out as climate alarmists. They almost seem relieved.

    That’s the feeling I get too Candy. They think it’s safe now to kick dirt in the faces of their former base.

  33. Climate has changed?
    Climate as in?

    Alpine climate?
    Polar climate?
    Tropical climate?
    Temperate climate?
    Tundra climate?
    Mediterranean climate?

    Which of these has changed?
    Where? Show me on a map.
    When?
    What has it changed to?

    Fucking morons. Anyone who thinks the various climates on this planet change in a human lifetime is a fucking moron.

    The only thing of significance to change is people who used to keep their heads down, now not only have loud voices, they are in positions of power and authority.
    THAT’S THE CHANGE and it’s mostly in western nations with the balance being the well to do grifters in shit-hole countries.

  34. NuThink

    Climate deniers? So there are people who actually deny that there is a climate. WOW!

  35. Docket62

    If ever you doubt the religion, be advised its profitable: Take a look at the latest ‘Grant recipients’ trousering $1M of Victorian money (to of 4 seconds to find this, I suspect its the tip of the iceberg)

    https://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/adapting-to-climate-change-impacts/community-climate-change-adaptation-3ca-grants-program

    Im thinking of applying – for EVERYTHING….. with my newly minted company “Climate Apocalypse Pty Ltd”. Name alone should get $60K from the idiot labor gumment

  36. Tim Neilson

    I just know that I wouldn’t trust the ABC to tell me.

    A salutary reminder. But I’m pessimistic.

    “Let’s accept that the climate has changed, the climate is changing and we need to look at what we’re going to do about that.”

    If, by “do about that”, she meant “do to adapt”, that would be an unimpeachable policy which would be and have been sensible for all of humanity all the way back to the decision to come down from the trees.

    But given that she’s a Photios Party Cabinet minister one suspects, unfortunately, that she may mean “do to signal our virtue, no matter how uselessly and economically suicidal”.

  37. Dr Faustus

    For climate science wonks.
    RSS, the satellite data centre, itself captive of the climate disasteratii, analyses how the actual satellite data matches the the results of the ensemble of computer models that predict 1.5C doom.

    RSS’s conclusions:

    Without including the assumed contribution of CO2, climate modelling is unable to model the climate – ie the climate is random, chaotic, and deeply uncertain on a global scale – and doesn’t lend itself to deterministic modelling (nor, apparently, stochastic modelling);

    Including the assumed effects of CO2, the models significantly overstate climate change;

    The models do not do “an acceptable job of simulating the past” – and this is “a problem” caused by “model physics errors” which affect future predictions.

    This analysis by people with a vested interest in AGW, forced to present an inconvenient truth.

    Like 3% of scientists, I know for a fact that the Government is staggering around blind in the grip of a natural process it can’t control, guided by the loudest voice amongst wrongsters, spivs, charlatans, and austistic child-prophets.
    Science schmience.

  38. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3293237, posted on January 15, 2020 at 4:05 pm

    This is absolutely correct!

    When answering the “political question” about climate change [whatever that question is], or about anything else, it’s vital not to be encumbered by any actual knowledge of the reality to which the political answer will be applied!*

    You KNOW it makes sense!!!

    * This form of mental process should be named, in honour of its most incessant practitioner, as “the Iamashiteater Fallacy”.

  39. cohenite

    John of Mel
    #3293300, posted on January 15, 2020 at 5:14 pm
    I’m not sure it’s possible to win the general population over when they are fed smooth rubbish like this one

    The best lies are always smooth. Everything in it is a lie. Eg very hot days now shows an increase since 1910 (WTF does the BoM begin in 1910!). But this is a replacement graph; here’s the original one:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-bureau-of-met-disappears-very-hot-days-graph-showing-the-most-hot-days-in-1952/

  40. A Lurker

    There needs to be better screening for aspiring Australian politicians because there are too many wanna-be totalitarians in the mix.

  41. Whatever are you going to talk about now that you have comprehensively lost the argument on climate change?

  42. Bronson

    Monty on another hiding to nothing the electorate has repeatedly regected and punished parties that took climate cost policies to elections. Scmo is signing his parties death warrant especially when the bills start rolling in.

  43. Confused Old Misfit

    My arse on a band box we’ve comprehensively lost anything!

  44. calli

    Liberty Quote

    I would rather die than shut up!
    — Lars Hedegaard

  45. Muddy

    Docket62
    #3293326, posted on January 15, 2020 at 5:37 pm

    There’s a yuuuge opportunity for deradicalisation programs for climate ‘deniers.’ Or at least studies to determine the feasibility of such programs.

  46. Not Impressed

    Fascism – Nazism here we come

  47. Beachcomber

    The S.F.L.’s language about the “climate emergency” is so vague and lacking in resolution and courage that the ABC-TASS media can verbal them and effectively use them as sock puppets. The S.F.L.s are too stupid and cowardly to stand for common sense and reason, and make that clear.

  48. Mark M

    As Labor failed to prevent any global warming bushfires, floods, heatwaves, cyclones, weather etc, how high must a LNP carbon (sic) tax be before the first bushfire is prevented … ? … Factcheck:

    “The last time Australians saw Labor’s climate policies in action, emissions went down 2%, the economy grew by 5% and employment increased by 200,000 jobs.”

    More Dodgy Climate Modelling with Flawed Assumptions

    https://www.tai.org.au/content/more-dodgy-climate-modelling-flawed-assumptions

  49. candy

    Monty
    Probably the best way forward is to reduce emissions which according to Left web sites is ceasing coal mining and big increase in renewables, is a question of do we want to go down that path. Put it to the vote.

  50. egg_

    Let’s not keep having debates about climate change

    Her brain hurts?

  51. egg_

    comprehensively lost the argument on climate change?

    The Chief Wrongologist hath sprech!
    Swedish Taxpayers seem to differ.

  52. Muddy

    A redefinition of terms: Fantasist vs. Realist.
    I posted this on an open thread recently, but I think it’s worth repeating here.
    There is a need to redefine the term ‘Alarmist‘ because it is seen as a badge of honour or moral authority now: To ‘raise the alarm’ about the state of our climate. Originally, I suspect it was applied to suggest a state of irrationality, however the method by which the message is delivered now appears to be irrelevant. Witness Saint Greta. Rational? No, but it hasn’t mattered; she has gained oodles of publicity, which is almost always the primary goal. The delivery doesn’t matter, and to a great extent, the content of the message does not matter either (by the time a factual inaccuracy is identified, the media focus has moved on). The term ‘Alarmist’ then, has not produced any results for us. Unless we choose to kept repeating the same non-productive tactic and expect a productive outcome, it is past time to change it.

    My tentative suggestion to replace ‘Alarmist’ is ‘Fantasist.’ I’m not totally convinced it’s the best option, however if we position ourselves as ‘Realists‘ and our opponents as ‘Fantasists,’ we may at least stand a chance of re-imaging our perspective as being grounded. Our opponents have long positioned us as denying ‘reality’ so for us to contradict that accusation and claim the ‘realist’ high ground, will at least throw our opponents off their usual game, and give us an opportunity to make further inroads into controlling the ‘game board.’

  53. Beachcomber

    There is no more debate at the EU. Von der Leyen and her fellow Merkelite-Marxists are spending €1,000,000,000,000 to pave the road to Green Year Zero.

    EU lays out 1 trillion-euro plan to support Green Deal – EU Commission President von der Leyen

  54. Terry

    Iampeter
    #3293237, posted on January 15, 2020 at 4:05 pm

    “The problem being for the skeptics that they don’t actually have any political arguments.
    That’s why they’re so interested in maintaining an entirely tangential scientific argument instead.”

    Bwahahaha – You fucking R-E-T-A-R-D!!!

  55. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Not Uh oh
    #3293207, posted on January 15, 2020 at 3:42 pm
    Be careful, this was the ABC reporting and they do have a tendency to play loose with the truth. The bit about climate deniers appears to be their words, not hers.

    Ah, yeah, no.

    This is a (very nearly) direct transcript from the staggeringly stupid fascist slag’s webshite:

    Fat Fascist Slag Blandrews: Well I’m quoted absolutely correctly in The Silly Moaning Haemorrhoid and The Yaged this morning and I did say that. Because every second that we spend talking about whether or not the climate is changing is a second that we are not spending on looking at adaptation, mitigation strategies. It’s actually a comment for all parties that have been involved in this debate. It really is time for everyone to move on and to look at what we’re going to do, in this case to look at mitigating dangers associated with bushfires.

    It’s also the same quote I heard her regurgitate on the ALPBC nooze this morning.

    The gliberals all need to die painfully, hideously and very slowly in a (revolting peasant induced) mass conflagration.

  56. Iampeter

    No discussion of idiots is complete without a contribution from Iampeter. Can Munty be far behind?
    Or did he step on too many rakes this morning?

    What’s the matter Rafe? Did I hit the nail on the head?

    Triggered that I’m pointing out you’re nothing more than a retiree aged, politically illiterate leftist that blogs on a right wing blog for some reason?

    Don’t feel bad. The entire conservative movement is at about your level of total fail and total lack of self awareness.

  57. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Stupid.Forking.Gliberals: “No more debate.”

    Ozzie Electorate: “No more votes.”

  58. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    And right on cue, Iamashiteater turns up to make an absolute imbecile of itself (again).

  59. egg_

    Climate has changed?
    Climate as in?

    Alpine climate?
    Polar climate?
    Tropical climate?
    Temperate climate?
    Tundra climate?
    Mediterranean climate?

    Oz Mediterranean climate is becoming more Tropical, ‘course!
    Warmer, more rain – shame about the grape growing season!

  60. egg_

    How many Koalas have to fry on the altar of Gaia next Summer?
    /Sans backburning

  61. Iampeter

    When answering the “political question” about climate change [whatever that question is], or about anything else, it’s vital not to be encumbered by any actual knowledge of the reality to which the political answer will be applied!*

    The sacrasm would’ve worked if you actually demonstrated what “knowledge of reality” affects the political question. Whatever that is…LOL!

    Oh the beclowning…

  62. Beachcomber

    To be fair to this particular S.F.L., she hasn’t said that shutting down coal, gas and oil mining, and coal fired electricity generation, will stop bush fires in Australia. She just vaguely goes along with all of the international agreement imperatives about restricting CO2 emissions. That allows the ABC-TASS media push their “climate emergency” agitprop.

    The thing that got the S.F.L.s over the line at the last election was Morrison gave very clear support to coal mining. No apologies, no ifs and buts. It won them the seats in Queensland and kept the seats in WA with the S.F.L.s. Are their memories really no better than goldfishes?

  63. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/how-climate-change-has-impacted-your-life/11766018

    Wow. Taxpayer funded agitprop as she is chundered.

    SHUT IT DOWN
    FIRE THEM ALL
    MOUND OF SKULLS
    SALT THE EARTH

  64. Beachcomber

    Unfortunately, saying “Let’s not keep having debates about climate change” just allows the ABC-TASS media to misrepresent this as the “science is settled” argument and thence push the radical Green Year Zero agenda.

  65. Squirrel

    In the face of an absolute barrage of criticism, Morrison is now doing a good job of dragging the focus of attention towards practical stuff – dealing with what has happened, and doing what we can to avoid it happening again (or at least as badly, again).

    I took Karen Andrews’ comment that “we need to look at what we’re going to do” in that context – i.e. a focus on practical preventive and preparatory measures for future disasters, rather than endless debate about the role of climate change in this disaster.

    Aside from the possibility that some genuinely useful things might result from this approach, it’s probably also the smartest way of responding to the relentless propaganda from Labor, the Greens and much of the media which would have the public believe that the solution to all our problems is for Australia to lead a global crusade on emissions reductions.

  66. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3293405, posted on January 15, 2020 at 6:56 pm

    The scientific reality.

    The political actions required in relation to “climate change” depend on (no doubt among other factors) the answers to scientific questions such as:
    (a) to what extent, if any, is the climate (given the current state of other factors) sensitive to changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2?
    (b) given the answer to (a), what changes to climate would be caused by a realistic range of likely increases in CO2 concentration over the foreseeable future?

    Only someone totally incapable of the most basic logical thought could believe that any “political” question related to climate change could be answered sensibly while treating the scientific issues as “tangential”…

    sorry, forgot who I was talking to. Carry on Iamashiteater.

  67. I took Karen Andrews’ comment that “we need to look at what we’re going to do” in that context – i.e. a focus on practical preventive and preparatory measures for future disasters, rather than endless debate about the role of climate change in this disaster.

    Mmyes, “adapt and mitigate”, savvy strategy from the swamp creatures.

    Or we could just stop listening to people who were criminally wrong about this all along.

  68. Steve

    The science minister is a Mech Eng.

    As an Elec Eng myself, I dont know how she can look people in the eye and say she “believes” even stridently so.

    Logic, facts and science say climate religion is a huge lie.

    This is not going to end well when key players in the govt are pursuing a shadow.

    In Israel, anyone who plays dungeons and dragons cant be in the military, as they are deemed unable to separate fact from fantasy…..

  69. Iampeter

    The political actions required in relation to “climate change” depend on (no doubt among other factors) the answers to scientific questions such as:

    Nothing about politics depends on any answers to any scientific question.

    You’re just another politically illiterate leftist on what’s meant to be a right wing blog.

  70. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    My tentative suggestion to replace ‘Alarmist’ is ‘Fantasist.’ I’m not totally convinced it’s the best option, however if we position ourselves as ‘Realists‘ and our opponents as ‘Fantasists,’ we may at least stand a chance of re-imaging our perspective as being grounded.

    A very good suggestion. What things are called matters in establishing a quick understanding in the Zeitgeist. The left have done great damage to us with the ‘denier’ label, aligning critique of the unproven CO2 hypothesis with the denial of the Holocaust. About time we responded back. ‘Green fantasist’ would sheet the matter home very well. And ‘realist’ is a good label for anyone who wants a more measured approach to matters climatic. For myself, I’m all for a forty year moratorium on anything to do with the climate in terms of policy or believing in ‘the science’. There is no science anything like good enough at the moment on which to found any policy. Give the matter time. In forty years there should be clarity: we either push a warming world strongly towards nuclear energy totally everywhere because CO2 has been shown to be a serious problem, or act in other ameliorations because any warming is proven to be ‘natural’, or the whole warming hypothesis all falls back into the realm of ‘historical stupidity’, like so many other millenarian cults. My money is on the latter outcome.

    Most Australians seem to favor some version of the ‘wait and see’ hypothesis. Astounding that the bushfires can be sheeted home to climate change when there is much greater evidence that green-induced fuel loads are the cause of them and that the country has experienced similar temperatures and burns previously in areas not well managed; now the whole continent’s forests are not well managed, and it hasn’t been as bad as this ever – for the aborigines used to manage the fuel load with cool burns of the sorts greens now stop us doing. This country has always burned. About time we strongly made that point to the credulous world lapping up our natural disaster as somehow climatic. It is not.

  71. Beachcomber

    Spurgeon Monkfish III at 7:10 pm
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/how-climate-change-has-impacted-your-life/11766018

    This piece has been made with the assistance of the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

    This is just one of many examples of how the ABC-TASS media and Universities collude to produce Marxist misinformation and agitprop, to feed to the Climate Cult.

  72. Given that you lot, and especially Rafe, were colossally wrong about climate change and have been pushing the wrong barrow for years, why should anyone listen to what you have to say about the matter in future?

  73. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    look at what we’re going to do, in this case to look at mitigating dangers associated with bushfires

    If the fat imbecile meant targeted hazard reduction burns and land/fuel load clearing, then fine.

    But of course, she doesn’t.

    Because da climayte change is roolly rool, I tells ya!

  74. jupes

    Are their memories really no better than goldfishes?

    That and they are as thick as a box full of hammers.

    Check out how fucking moronic this subject has become. Here is the latest “belief” of “scientists”:

    Algae is up to five times more effective at absorbing carbon than trees
    The 400-litre bag of algae produces as much oxygen as a hectare of Australian bush
    Scientists believe an expansion of this project could positively impact climate change

    Lol. No seriously, scientists “believe” that installing algae at breweries will change the weather!!!

    What a time to be alive.

  75. My tentative suggestion to replace ‘Alarmist’ is ‘Fantasist.’ I’m not totally convinced it’s the best option, however if we position ourselves as ‘Realists‘ and our opponents as ‘Fantasists,’ we may at least stand a chance of re-imaging our perspective as being grounded.

    It’s a bit hard to smear your opponent as a fantasist when reality is proving day by coughing day that they are right and you are wrong.

  76. jupes

    Given that you lot, and especially Rafe, were colossally wrong about climate change and have been pushing the wrong barrow for years, why should anyone listen to what you have to say about the matter in future?

    Lol.

    Have you purchased your bag of algae yet you gullible idiot?

  77. Cardimona

    m0nty
    #3293439, posted on January 15, 2020 at 7:31 pm
    It’s a bit hard to smear your opponent as a fantasist when reality is proving day by coughing day that they are right and you are wrong.

    Oi; m0nty!

    Have you found the links to the news reports of the “last few years’ random constantly-burning bushfires in the Daintree rainforest” stories yet?

    Or did you make that up?

  78. Confused Old Misfit

    Given that you lot, and especially Rafe, were colossally wrong about climate change and have been pushing the wrong barrow for years

    How are we wrong? One item of empirical evidence please.

    Chew on this for a bit.

  79. stackja

    Global Patsy: Since 1990 — Each Australian have already cut CO2 emissions by 40%
    Proving that actual carbon reduction is totally irrelevant…
    It doesn’t matter what any nation does. The CO2 blame-game is a fashion contest and success is not measured in megatons, but with megaphones.

    Over the last 30 years, the Australian population has grown faster than nearly any other western nation on Earth. At the same time the Australian GDP more than doubled. Despite that and against all the odds of being a large, remote, thinly spread population which makes a living from industrial mining and agriculture and is further on Earth from anywhere, each Australian has reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 40% each.

    In a normal world, if environmentalists cared at all about carbon dioxide, Australia would be the star of the Kyoto Agreement. Instead, when nearly all the major nations are failing to meet their Paris agreements, plus the US has left, Indonesia has threatened to, somehow when we are one of the only nations trying to keep up with this game, we are the big evil polluters?

    Dear Australians, it’s a con, and we are The Mark.

    Jo Nova

  80. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Wonderful to see this blog’s pointlessly indulged morbidly obese doughnut hoover and rake magnet bloviating about the monumental absurdity that is “climate change”.

    You are a fucking moron.

    I first heard about gerbil worming over three decades ago, you fat fucking imbecile. Vomited forth by the same bloated LSD fried hippie frauds who were claiming we were all going to freeze to death in an ice age in the nineteen seventies.

    I knew then it was bullshit and it remains bullshit to this very day. Emissions of Carbon Dioxide have increased over the last three decades, a minuscule proportion of which are anthropogenic. If the preposterous gerbil worming hypothesis was correct, so called global temperatures would have significantly increased since then.

    The temperature record indicates otherwise.

    So now it’s become da “klimayte change” of which there is no evidence, either. Unless of course, you’re referring to the record northern hemisphere winters, of which there have been plenty over the last few years.

    You can’t have it both ways, you hysterical illiterate innumerate ahistorical anti-scientific imbeciles.

    Go tell it to an extinctified poley bear, you obnoxious idiot. They’ll be as receptive as we all are.

  81. Eyrie

    “There needs to be better screening for aspiring Australian politicians because there are too many wanna-be totalitarians in the mix.”

    An armed to the teeth population with a penchant for and track record of political assassination will do it.

  82. Eyrie

    Kinetic recall elections.

  83. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Thanks, Beachcomber.

    Those poor li’l propagandists were born about 130 years too late. They would have been in their element in dougnut man’s, Syphilis von Spuddentropp’s and Iamashiteater’s beloved soviet unionionion, helping send tens of millions of revolting peasants off to their deaths.

  84. Robber Baron

    I was just at Aldi in Preston South doing a spot of shopping when in comes a loud low information voter complaining to one of the worker drones about how it is obvious that the storm is evidence of Global Warming and that the government needs to do something about it. Worker drone agreed and suggested that in addition to more government “action on climate change” that we also need a Prime Minister with a brain. Loud low information voter suggested a new government would be better, one that would solve the climate problem.

    We, as a species are ready to be harvested by the climate overlords for soylent green. It’s just a matter of time.

  85. Tim Neilson

    Nothing about politics depends on any answers to any scientific question.

    This is absolutely correct!

    Because political issues exist in a vacuum, totally divorced from the actual reality in which political measures will be implemented.

    Don’t worry about understanding anything, just launch into a diatribe about “politics” – it’s the Iamashiteater way!

  86. Roger

    I took Karen Andrews’ comment that “we need to look at what we’re going to do” in that context – i.e. a focus on practical preventive and preparatory measures for future disasters, rather than endless debate about the role of climate change in this disaster.

    She’s already on record from last year saying human activity has impacted the climate and we need to “modify our behaviours” accordingly.

    I’ll take a wild guess – she wasn’t thinking of bush fire mitigation measures at the time; probably more along the lines of “how can we nudge the proles from driving their own cars to using public transport?” or “how can we ration electricity and make it seem like fun?”

  87. CameronH

    So much for the climate change election. Expect the LNP polls to tank after this BS. After that they will claim that btheir polls are down because they are not doing enough about climate change. What a waste of an election victory.

  88. How are we wrong? One item of empirical evidence please.

    This is a deeply stupid question, given the events of this summer.

    I was just at Aldi in Preston South doing a spot of shopping when in comes a loud low information voter complaining to one of the worker drones about how it is obvious that the storm is evidence of Global Warming and that the government needs to do something about it. Worker drone agreed and suggested that in addition to more government “action on climate change” that we also need a Prime Minister with a brain. Loud low information voter suggested a new government would be better, one that would solve the climate problem.

    Yep. That is why you have lost. Even the low information voters know you lot are full of hot air on this issue.

    Your usual techniques of trying to obfuscate, deny and distract just won’t work any more. Now what do you do?

  89. Tel

    Only someone totally incapable of the most basic logical thought could believe that any “political” question related to climate change could be answered sensibly while treating the scientific issues as “tangential”…

    Depends on your objective … I’m sure there are a significant percentage of people who have given up even striving for the truth as an ideal, let alone worrying about logical thought. For a non-trivial part of these debates, all that matters is winning and everything else gets thrown by the wayside. Brutal repetition of talking points ignoring the obvious wrongness … nothing stops them. Incapable of either constructing an argument or following someone else’s argument, but still plugging away.

  90. Cardimona

    Oi; m0nty!

    Have you found the links to the news reports of the “last few years’ random constantly-burning bushfires in the Daintree rainforest” stories yet?

    Or did you make that up?

  91. Tel

    We can put this to the test … if the SAME national parks on the East coast of Australia where they burned fiercely this Summer, also burn just as fiercely next Summer, then I will admit that it’s caused by climate change. On the other hand, if we have a bunch of hot, dry days next Summer and the bushland which has already burned to a cinder is unable to burn a second time a year later, then it will prove that FUEL is the main issue here and all the climate numpties have to shut up.

    That’s empiricism … if in doubt, do a real world test.

    A real scientist would do it this way. A political propaganda agent would refuse.

  92. Roger

    Yep. That is why you have lost.

    On the contrary; we’ve won every climate change election.

  93. “last few years’ random constantly-burning bushfires in the Daintree rainforest”

    That is not what I said. Don’t make things up.

  94. Explain that to Karl Popper Karen.
    She is obviously waaaaay out of her depth.
    Say goodbye to all conservative thinkers ; and also to the working class who don’t like being hoaxed. They are much smarter than you think – if it is now Liberal policy to rip them off with climate taxes and charges, they might as well go back to voting Labor.

  95. Cardimona

    m0nty
    #3282380, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:13 pm
    The fuel load increases is the predominant factor. Everything else is secondary. When fuel loads are high enough it doesn’t matter what else you do, you will be pissing in the wind. Its an accumulation of energy stored. If it goes off at once nothing can stop it. Your 1% thing is peripheral, a red herring.
    This is illogical. Did we see constant bush fires in rainforests like the Daintree before climate change? No, even though their fuel load is greater due to extensive undergrowth. We do see it now because of climate change.
    You are arguing a slippery slope fallacy. Massive bushfires do not inevitably come from forest growth. Bushfires happen mostly because of extreme weather conditions. Summer weather has become more extreme more often with climate change.

    m0nty
    #3282401, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:33 pm
    No. And ‘we’ still don’t. Because of the rain in the rainforests, which are just as if not ten times more impenetrable than anything in Victoria or NSW. Neither the Grampians nor the Blues are rainforests.
    There have been bushfires in the Daintree and Iron Ranges in the past few years, areas which were supposed to be immune.

    m0nty
    #3282419, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:51 pm
    RobK, those Indonesian fires were deliberately lit to clear land. Hardly the same sort of situation. Your experience has no bearing on places like the Daintree now being subject to random bushfires.

    In your own words, you dissembling m0ron…

  96. Professor Fred Lenin (ISKRA)

    It looks like the liberal left wing of the Uniparty is in complete accord with the alp left left wing and the gangrene communist wing these people amuse me . It is totally impossible to stop illegal migrants invading our country , however we can change the climate with our laws. We are in need of a populist extreme right wing party as the abc would call it to reverse the power of the globalist fascist communist crony capitalist cabal that is setting the agenda .
    A movement that would tell the truth, scrap the crap , abolish career politicians ans party finances ,elimination of bribery (lobbying) and scrapping the u.n, and all its laws ,and clean up education and the bureaucracy ,MAKE AUSTRALIA GREAT AGAIN .

  97. classical_hero

    https://youtu.be/03ENOwIGjzE

    Climate alarmist prophets have a bad track record on what they predict. They should be laughed out of town by how wrong they constantly are. The fact that they are not is a travesty.

  98. Nighthawk the Elder

    No more debates, says science minister.

    Hang on, isn’t debate one of the cornerstones of science? I mean, did the various prestigious scientific societies throughout history just blindly accept the various papers written by the likes of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc? Oh look, Isaac’s giving a talk on falling apples. Good show old chap, here’s a knighthood for your troubles.

    Of course they didn’t just take their word for it. There was just as much enthusiasm to disprove the latest claim as there was for hailing the “new discovery”. They put every syllable under the microscope (once it was invented). And for theories that have not yet been proven by fact, the debate is far from closed.

    Once again this Arts trying to do STEM. And just because the minister once obtained a Mech Eng degree, doesn’t make her one, if she hasn’t practised for many years. I also have a Mech Eng degree and I’ve stuck with it for 30 plus years. I’m also old enough to remember that when I graduated, for the first few years of my working life I came to realise how much of my profession I didn’t know and what I still had to learn through experience.

  99. Confused Old Misfit

    Now what do I do? I attempt to engage you in rational debate where ad hominem is evidence of the lack of substantive argument either empirical or theoretical.
    For instance:

    given the events of this summer

    there would have to be similar evidence from the rest of the world to make your argument valid.
    This summer has been within the bounds of historical Australian weather.

    Blame the ocean currents for our bush fires
    The biggest cause of bush-fires in Australia is the drought. A lack of rain allows the nation to get scorching hot days and dries out the fuel. Yet our long term records show that obscene megatons of CO2 from China has no detectable effect on our long term rainfall. Not in the fire zones, and not across the whole country either. The main driver of droughts and fires therefore is the El Nino oscillation, the IOD, and the SOI. Tax the ocean! Stop the currents! Hold back the tide and pray to Karl Marx!

    Climate change made zero difference to rain trends in Australian fire zone

    A half hour search finds six long records of rainfall in the latest bushfire zone but no sign of a CO2 signal. But, hey, it’s not like we pay the BOM a million dollars a day to correct misinformation, or the ABC three million dollars a day to ask them hard questions.

    Droughts are the same as they ever were
    In the 178 year record, across the whole nation — there is no trend. All that CO2 has made no difference at all to the incidence of Australian droughts. Climate scientists have shown droughts have not increased in Australia. The graph here shows Sydney rain, but click the link to see Melbourne and Adelaide. Same thing. All the data we have, looked at in all the ways we can think of shows CO2 is not controlling our rain.

    A warming world means more rain. Other evidence also shows mega droughts were worse. 178 years of CO2 emissions have no measurable effect on rainfall in Australia.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/the-hotter-drier-climate-change-myth-the-rain-in-australia-is-the-same/

    There is more there but I think that’s enough for tonight.

  100. Yes Cardimona, what I said was true. There have been bushfires in rainforests like the Daintree, such as in the Iron Ranges. Do I have to draw you a Venn diagram to explain the meaning if the phrase “rainforests like the Daintree”?

  101. Boambee John

    cohenite at 1659

    Who advises these fuckwits.

    A bureaucracy heavily stacked with graduates in “environmental” science. That is, a department full of comitted greenies.

    Until they look outside the public service for advice, and develop the knowledge to challenge their departments, nothing will change.

    Politicians forget that they are elected to set policy. The public service is supposed to implement that policy. They might counsel against it, but once tge decision is taken, tgeir job is to implement it.

    Wonderful theory, but it takes politicians with real integrity to achieve the reality.

    We are doomed!

  102. Tel
    #3293500, posted on January 15, 2020 at 8:31 pm

    We can put this to the test … if the SAME national parks on the East coast of Australia where they burned fiercely this Summer, also burn just as fiercely next Summer, then I will admit that it’s caused by climate change. On the other hand, if we have a bunch of hot, dry days next Summer and the bushland which has already burned to a cinder is unable to burn a second time a year later, then it will prove that FUEL is the main issue here and all the climate numpties have to shut up.

    That’s empiricism … if in doubt, do a real world test.

    A real scientist would do it this way. A political propaganda agent would refuse.

    Correct. The left also refuse to support nuclear power.

    Nuclear could be encouraged without directly taxing anyone. You could have a multi decadal tax holiday on nuclear generation, mining & processing. The carbon tax that isn’t a carbon tax. At least you’re not slugging some poor dude who is on Centrelink benefits and just found a part time job with higher petrol prices for the audacity of driving to work. No need to demonise, plunder and force coal out of existence either.

  103. Boambee John

    m0nty at 1926

    Or we could just stop listening to people who were criminally wrong about this all along.

    Yes, those fools who stopped or impeded hazard reduction (both burning and active management of forests by forestry) should be comlletely ignored in future.

  104. duncanm

    someone should reschool her on the Scientific Method.

  105. We can put this to the test … if the SAME national parks on the East coast of Australia where they burned fiercely this Summer, also burn just as fiercely next Summer, then I will admit that it’s caused by climate change.

    So you want to take a mulligan? That is not how this works my dude.

  106. No monty, that’s exactly how it works. Repeatability and control variables.

  107. Confused Old Misfit

    Thank you, Frank.
    If he cannot understand that it is pointless to try to engage with him.

  108. Leo G

    someone should reschool her on the Scientific Method.

    Postmodernism reschooled scientific method long ago.

  109. Westie Woman

    One of the nurses I work with (I’m an RN) told the mum of a 9 months old baby to get him sunglasses because the sun is so much hotter now because of climate change!

    After choking on my coffee I interrupted and gave food advice – the mum had come to the GP to talk about baby feeding not bloody climate change.

    This climate change thinking is now set in concrete for some…

  110. Cardimona

    m0nty
    #3293544, posted on January 15, 2020 at 9:10 pm
    Yes Cardimona, what I said was true. There have been bushfires in rainforests like the Daintree, such as in the Iron Ranges. Do I have to draw you a Venn diagram to explain the meaning if the phrase “rainforests like the Daintree”?

    m0nty
    #3282401, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:33 pm
    No. And ‘we’ still don’t. Because of the rain in the rainforests, which are just as if not ten times more impenetrable than anything in Victoria or NSW. Neither the Grampians nor the Blues are rainforests.
    There have been bushfires in the Daintree and Iron Ranges in the past few years, areas which were supposed to be immune.

    m0nty
    #3282419, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:51 pm
    RobK, those Indonesian fires were deliberately lit to clear land. Hardly the same sort of situation. Your experience has no bearing on places like the Daintree now being subject to random bushfires.

    Yes, please, m0nst; draw me a Venn diagram you monumental dissembling m0ron.

  111. One of the nurses I work with (I’m an RN) told the mum of a 9 months old baby to get him sunglasses because the sun is so much hotter now because of climate change!

    Good god. Some of these nurses have passed “chem 101” and “chem 102”.

  112. Ubique

    No more debates

    What utter BS. No debate was ever allowed in the first place. There’s never been a debate.

  113. Alessio

    “What a pathetic bunch of mealy-mouthed nobodies. So gullible and easily seduced by baubles that they spend their lives representing a cohort of vested interests to us, instead of representing us to the vested interests.”

    Could not have described the Liberals any better. As I get towards the end of my life it makes me pleased to think I won’t have to witness the rank stupidity of the noisy minority and the coalitions bent to listen to them. A two party system does not work when both sides are the same. How do we rise above these ashes and chart a future from the past?

  114. Places like the Daintree are indeed now subject to random bushfires, i.e. they are now susceptible to bushfires due to drying out from climate change. This is undeniable given the Iron Ranges fire. Is English your second language, Cardimona?

  115. duncanm

    That’s the thing about this wonderful interwebs, Monty.
    Daintree bushfires, 1946

    Daintree Bush Fire
    Advice from Daintree states that bush fires are burning in most parts of the district. Giblin’s property was completely burnt out during the week. There is no grass between Daintree . and Mossman and the water boles are drying up. As this country is the chief source of the beef supply in this area the position is becoming serious.
    Our Mossman correspondent.

    Daintree, 1936

    Bush fires have been burning in many places from Rocky Point to Daintree and even into the township.
    A good heavy downpour of rain has been wanted by the dairy farmers. For weeks now storms have threatened to end the dry spell, but only a few drops have fallen..

  116. Leo G

    i.e. they are now susceptible to bushfires due to drying out from climate change. This is undeniable …

    Yet the Wet Tropics Management Authority claim that fire has been used in the Queensland Wet Tropics by indigenous traditional owners for many thousands of years. I expect that must have been pre-historic local climate change that made those non-Daintree rainforests susceptible, whereas the Daintree rainforest is only susceptible to global climate change.

  117. RobK

    i.e. they are now susceptible to bushfires due to drying out from climate change.
    You’re suggesting that the Daintree doesn’t have droughts?

  118. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I was just at Aldi in Preston South doing a spot of shopping when in comes a loud low information voter complaining to one of the worker drones about how it is obvious that the storm is evidence of Global Warming and that the government needs to do something about it. Worker drone agreed and suggested that in addition to more government “action on climate change” that we also need a Prime Minister with a brain. Loud low information voter suggested a new government would be better, one that would solve the climate problem.

    And this is the conversation I am overhearing everywhere. Unless ScoMo starts dissing this level of climate disinformation very quickly then he is on track very solidly to lose the next election.

    Some of those mouthy low-information Australians are very subject to influence of the wrong sort unless you start to counter it, ScoMo.

    Bread, buttered, side, choose. It’s not buttered by sitting still and letting Labor walk all over you.
    Choose your side for the quiet Aussies and start attacking the disinformation wars of Labor and the greens.

  119. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    It’s a bit hard to smear your opponent as a fantasist when reality is proving day by coughing day that they are right and you are wrong.

    20 years worth of pent-up burnt-out fuel load in the forests in newly declared national parks, and the extension of forest cover everywhere, will do that.

    Particulate pollution: brought to you by green neglect. Nothing to do with CO2 and da climate.

  120. I guess the answer to my question of what you will do in the face of the complete failure of your argument is… shut your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout LALALALALA…

  121. Nob

    I agree with Iampeter’s statements:

    It doesn’t make any difference to the political question anyway.

    and that it’s

    an entirely tangential scientific argument

    The climate will be what it will be, regardless of whether Australia had ever dug up a lump of coal or not.

    Better accuracy in weather forecasts is always welcome . These whose livelihoods depend on best guesses regarding weather – mostly marine operators, which I know about and probably farmers , who I haven’t really discussed it with – tend to subscribe to detailed forecasts from private companies if they can afford it.

    But by and large , discussing climate change with a bunch of internet idiots (choose your side) does nothing, absolutely nothing, to help mitigate bushfire risk and does a lot to exacerbate it by diverting resources.

    There is nothing, repeat nothing, that politicians anywhere can do that would make Australia less susceptible to hot dry weather. There is no amount of wind farms or solar panels or taxes or legislation or protests or media stunts that will change the weather. Not in Australia, not in China, not anywhere.

    The issue, as identified repeatedly by Royal Commissions past, is to manage the threat.
    The possible actions are fuel reduction, of which burning is only one method, and better firefighting strategy, including forest access maintenance.

    The early evacuation of many towns this time has probably saved many lives already.

  122. Nob

    The obvious follow-on from my penultimate paragraph is that firefighting strategy has continued to improve, whereas fuel reduction has gone backwards as anyone with eyes and memory and gumption to get off their arse and into the bush can see.

    Melburnians should particularly worry about the current state of some of the Dandenongs and adjoining forested areas.

  123. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Ubique at 10:05 pm:

    ” No more debates

    What utter BS. No debate was ever allowed in the first place. There’s never been a debate.

    That looks suspiciously like the definition for a “national conversation”.

  124. Turtle

    Unless ScoMo starts dissing this level of climate disinformation very quickly then he is on track very solidly to lose the next election.

    That’s the whole problem, and it has been all along. Unless the facts are nailed down people will just go along with the green fantasists who dominate the media.

  125. Mak Siccar

    For Monty, Iampeter et al.
    Please answer the following:
    (a) what is the ideal level of atmospheric CO2 and what proof is there that this is the ideal?
    (b) what is the ideal average temperature of the earth and what proof is there that this is the ideal?
    (BTW. The concept of an average temperature for the earth is a total nonsense.)

  126. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Leo G at 9:56 pm:

    ” someone should reschool her on the Scientific Method.

    Postmodernism reschooled scientific method long ago.”

    Neither Kochie nor Squalid Ali have ever mentioned this odd “scientific method” idea on their television shows.
    It is simply old men reminiscing about outdated notions from the last century. Old white men.

  127. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Phill at 3:57 pm:

    “I heard an ABC RN radio interview with her this morning. The interviewer used a variety of loaded questions to try and get his gotcha moment.”

    If Missy Andrews is stupid enough to appear on the ABC then the dumb cow deserves all the sneak attacks she gets. You’d reckon the Bishop experiment would have taught the Liberals to shove these vacuous bitches somewhere down the back of the building, sticking postage stamps on envelopes or something similarly suited to their talents.

  128. Mak: those stupid sophistry games are meaningless. You lost the argument.

  129. Nob

    This reminds me of the Macondo disaster.
    Greenies gloried in it and thought they had won The Argument.

    Six years later, Trump.

  130. Cardimona

    m0nty
    #3293599, posted on January 15, 2020 at 10:31 pm
    Places like the Daintree are indeed now subject to random bushfires, i.e. they are now susceptible to bushfires due to drying out from climate change. This is undeniable given the Iron Ranges fire. Is English your second language, Cardimona?

    m0nty
    #3282380, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:13 pm
    This is illogical. Did we see constant bush fires in rainforests like the Daintree before climate change?

    mUnter, the Daintree rainforest is not burning now nor has it burned in living memory.
    It’s fringes are inhabited by such loud, woke, whiny frightbats even you’d fit in there.
    If it was burning you’d be hearing their screaming via your GreenLeft Weekly or the Murdoch’s most extreme-left newspaper – the Cairns Post.
    It’s not burning.
    Now link to reports of the “constant bush fires in rainforests like the Daintree” or admit you’re just another leftard making up scare stories as you go.

  131. Bronson

    Munty answer the question what is the ideal level of CO2 and what is the ideal temperatures? If Yu believe in anthropogenic climate change then you must have an ideal target for the world? If not then what is your point? What are you seeking to achieve in the reduction of human produced CO2? If you can’t answer these basic questions then what is the purpose of your proposed action which by the way you have never identified?

  132. Iampeter

    Because political issues exist in a vacuum, totally divorced from the actual reality in which political measures will be implemented.

    No, they just don’t depend on any answer to any scientific question.

    In any case, you’ve already conceded you don’t even know what the political issue is, let alone what the argument might be, so as usual it’s not clear what you’re even arguing about anymore…

  133. Cardimona

    In any case, you’ve already conceded you don’t even know what the political issue is,

    So, what is the political issue? In your own words. Take your time.

    let alone what the argument might be,

    So, what’s the argument? Please be precise; we want to see if you have any idea what you’re waffling on about.

    so as usual it’s not clear what you’re even arguing about anymore…

    Well, clarify it for us bigshot.

  134. calli

    From the OT

    Is this kind of conflagration too convenient to ever try to prevent, insofar as such generates righteous ‘Thunbergian’ green thunder across the world, solving nothing, but further empowering the bureaucrats?

    Why yes. Yes it is.

    Cometh the disaster, cometh the grifters.

  135. Iampeter

    So, what is the political issue? In your own words. Take your time.

    Um…what should a government do and why.
    Shouldn’t you know this if you’re going to take a condescending tone? It’s only a blog about politics.

    Spoiler alert: the answer has nothing to do with climate science. Although most skeptics get the climate science as wrong as the alarmists anyway.

  136. Nob

    “solving nothing but further empowering the bureaucrats”

    Perfect description of modern outrage.

  137. Spoiler alert: the answer has nothing to do with climate science. Although most skeptics get the climate science as wrong as the alarmists anyway.

    Okay champ, what is the correct position supported by the empricial data?

  138. Iampeter

    Okay champ, what is the correct position supported by the empricial data?

    Yep, no one here has any idea what a government should do and why.
    Not a big deal. Only a blog about politics from a right wing point of view. Why would you need to have any idea about that?

    Back you go to wind-watching and spouting idiot talking points past each other with Monty.
    While actually agreeing with him without realizing it.

    Politics!

  139. You declare that everyone else is wrong on an objective physical standard and then won’t discuss the matter specifically.

    You’re full of shit, I Am Beating Off.

    As for politics, see what I said above, despite the best policy is actually to do nothing other than deregulate.

    Nuclear could be encouraged without directly taxing anyone. You could have a multi decadal tax holiday on nuclear generation, mining & processing. The carbon tax that isn’t a carbon tax. At least you’re not slugging some poor dude who is on Centrelink benefits and just found a part time job with higher petrol prices for the audacity of driving to work. No need to demonise, plunder and force coal out of existence either.

    Shut up and go away Beater. All you do is crap on and on and on about how much smarter you are than everyone else. You’re like everyone’s least favourite school age nephew on a sugar high.

  140. calli

    I know and you don’t know. But I’m not going to tell you what I know.

    Brilliant contribution.

  141. Iampeter

    Ah yes, the classic Catallaxy, I-have-no-clue-therefore-you’re-wrong argument.

    Bold strategy cotton!

  142. Leo G

    Neither Kochie nor Squalid Ali have ever mentioned this odd “scientific method” idea on their television shows. It is simply old men reminiscing about outdated notions from the last century.

    Normative beliefs are the new empirical data. Little value in the tedious idea of a theory when consensus is so convenient.

  143. Iampeter
    #3293827, posted on January 16, 2020 at 9:06 am

    Ah yes, the classic Catallaxy, I-have-no-clue-therefore-you’re-wrong argument.

    Which you are shitting on every thread with.

    Fuck off.

  144. Iampeter

    Which you are shitting on every thread with.

    Fuck off.

    Sure thing bud. That’s why you’re the ones asking me to explain everything. In hilarious tones of condescension and pretension.

    Real big brain you are.

  145. Porter

    I cannot remember if it was on this blog or elsewhere that I pointed out the deficiencies of the blonde bimbo minister- with apologies to the ladies but I think you would agree this one is a bimbo.
    I am however glad to see that many of you agree.
    Key points need to be constantly made in media comment boxes, in callbacks on radio, on social media and everywhere that you travel. The two I keep hammering are
    1. That they’re wrong to call people deniers (and therefore also denigrate Holocaust victims by trying to associate people with Holocaust denial ) because the issue is not denying climate change but questioning whether and to what extent man is responsible for it.
    2. Even if you accept anthropogenic global warming you have to demonstrate what impact Australia can have by reducing its carbon emissions
    – the age-old Andrew Bolt question is quite valid but how much will Global temperatures for Eve Australia reduces it’s carbon emissions to 0, etc.

    It was evident from the constant carping about climate change while people’s homes were burning that they were setting up for another onslaught to push climate policy. And that can only be countered with a counterattack so instead I’ve just agreeing with each other here it’s good to go and make your voice is heard elsewhere as well. Like cardamonia’s excellent letters to the Ed.

    Don’t be surprised about Scott Morrison folding. He has never stood up for anything in his life except for his own self promotion. He also does not have the personal authority to stare down others in the Liberal Party. He only ever had a handful of loyalists and he needed the pantwetters to get over the line. The only person who had the major numbers was Dutton and I’m I’m not sure how those numbers fare since the election with the new blood.

  146. Porter

    Apologies again but I’m really not having a good time with my vision.

  147. Munty answer the

    This is the point you are not getting. There is no debate. The country has moved on. You have to modify your talking points, because no one is listening to denial any more in the wake of this summer.

    The Science Minister is actually in your side, which most of you lot are too thick to realise yet. She doesn’t want to do anything either. She has just changed the language of the lies supporting your political position. “Adapt and mitigate” is actually code for “pretend to do something but actually do nothing”. At some point you will twig. Maybe.

  148. calli

    Confucius Say – the wise chicken clucks after it lays the egg

    I think we have a case of Premature Triumphalism here.

  149. areff

    Jane Marwick, the best thing to happen to 3AW in an age (and therefore coming off air at the end of the week) took a call last night from someone called Ralph — more or less lifelong Liberal voter, has handed out HTVs, donated and referred to Labor as “habitual ratbags”.

    Anyway, he mentioned David Little-to-be-Proud-of’s recent “betrayal” of Craig Kelly and the Science Ministerette’s desire to get along with climate fabulists by agreeing with every ridiculous claim they make.

    Well Ralphie said he won’t be voting Liberal, won’t donate and won’t man the polling booth. Instead, he’ll vote for Hanson, of whom he said she can’t run an economy but can at least recognise a hoax when she sees one and has the integrity to say as much.

    With Morrison now confirmed as the Turnbull you have when you don’t want a Turnbull, I suspect a lot of others will follow Ralphie’s lead — enough, in any case, to make life very complicated for a government with a one-seat majority

    If so, good.

  150. Confused Old Misfit

    Two total idiots. Neither has the wit to comprehend the subject matter nor do they have the capacity to present a position coherently.
    Their rejoinders do not rise above year three schoolyard puffery.
    They deserve to be ignored.
    If this is impossible then they should become targets of whatever verbal ejaculations will assuage some of the frustration felt at having to scroll past such pusillanimous, puerile, putrid barnyard effluent.

  151. Iampeter

    This is the point you are not getting. There is no debate. The country has moved on. You have to modify your talking points, because no one is listening to denial any more in the wake of this summer.

    Yea…no. The green bureaucracy was first built by the conservatives in this country. In most Western Countries in fact. The EPA, the Climate Office, RET, etc, are all conservative led initiatives.
    That’s what makes these debates so hilarious.
    You’re a lefty arguing with people who are actually more left wing than you but who think they are right wing. Hard to know who looks worse, but your side is definitely winning, just not for any of the reasons you think.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Two total idiots. Neither has the wit to comprehend the subject matter nor do they have the capacity to present a position coherently.

    There’s a lot more than two of you.

  152. Bronson

    Munty you just dont get it what is it that you are trying achieve? Adapt and mitigate what to what? What action are you proposing what are the costs and benefits what are the risks and disbenefits? Platitudes from you and peteriam are pointless unless you describe what it is you are seeking to produce? At this point neither of have any idea what you are propsing unless you can outline those targets any conversation from you is pointless. What is that you are propsing to adapt and mitigate from and to?

  153. You’re a lefty arguing with people who are actually more left wing than you but who think they are right wing. Hard to know who looks worse, but your side is definitely winning, just not for any of the reasons you think.

    As I keep saying, I am the most conservative commenter on this site. Conservatism these days is a leftist trait. The right wing are all bomb-throwing anarchists.

  154. Porter

    That certainly is good news, areff. Why reward bad behaviour?

  155. struth

    Yea…no. The green bureaucracy was first built by the conservatives in this country. In most Western Countries in fact. The EPA, the Climate Office, RET, etc, are all conservative led initiatives.
    That’s what makes these debates so hilarious.

    What has the Liberal party got to do with conservatives?
    You are such a moronic collectivist, it’s a joke.

  156. Tim Neilson

    Um…what should a government do and why.

    Yep, no one here has any idea what a government should do and why.

    Come on Iamashiteater, tell us what a government should do about climate change, and why.

  157. candy

    Monty
    At some point your lot need to exactly outline their emission reduction policies. The nuts and bolts, immediate disadvantages, long term benefits.
    Not that LNP are much better, in fact are caught between two worlds and have no idea what to do, or even what their policies are, apart from a jumble of fancy words from the PM.

  158. Iampeter

    Come on Iamashiteater, tell us what a government should do about climate change, and why.

    LOL, even the question demonstrates you have no clue. What a government should do about climate change? SMH.
    But the point is YOU have no clue. Disproving that requires YOU to answer the questions.

  159. Rafe Champion

    2. Even if you accept anthropogenic global warming you have to demonstrate what impact Australia can have by reducing its carbon emissions.

    What is your answer to that question Monty? Or has the debate moved on so nobody cares?

    The Chief Scientist answered the question at at the Parliamentary Inquiry some time.

  160. Mak Siccar

    Answer the questions please.

    Mak Siccar
    #3293665, posted on January 16, 2020 at 12:41 am
    For Monty, Iampeter et al.
    Please answer the following:
    (a) what is the ideal level of atmospheric CO2 and what proof is there that this is the ideal?
    (b) what is the ideal average temperature of the earth and what proof is there that this is the ideal?
    (BTW. The concept of an average temperature for the earth is a total nonsense.)

  161. Tim Neilson

    The green bureaucracy was first built by the conservatives in this country.

    Obviously it’s very important that anyone involved in politics should remain ignorant of the reality behind the matters about which they’re making political decisions.
    You KNOW it makes sense because Iamashiteater said so!!!

    Just think about Iamashiteater’s comment above – obviously if the “conservatives” had followed the proper scientific method in relation to “climate science” before acting, they wouldn’t have…
    hmm, hang on – let’s try again…
    obviously it’s good that the “conservatives” didn’t encumber themselves with scientific facts before acting, otherwise they might have…

    Hmm, this doesn’t seem to work!

    But I’m sure Iamashiteater will be along any second to tell us why the establishment of a green bureaucracy by “conservatives” proves that people involved in politics should remain ignorant about science before making political decisions on scientific matters.*

    * I said Because political issues exist in a vacuum, totally divorced from the actual reality in which political measures will be implemented.

    Iamashiteater said No, they just don’t depend on any answer to any scientific question.

  162. Iampeter

    2. Even if you accept anthropogenic global warming you have to demonstrate what impact Australia can have by reducing its carbon emissions.

    What is your answer to that question Monty? Or has the debate moved on so nobody cares?

    Why are you asking Monty? Pretty sure he wasn’t a Howard or Abbott voter or even supporter.

    You’re the one who should be answering this question.

  163. Iampeter

    Tim, as already said: you’ve already conceded you don’t even know what the political issue is, let alone what the argument might be, so as usual it’s not clear what you’re even arguing about anymore in the thread…

    You don’t need to keep doubling down. It’s just spam.

  164. Tim Neilson

    What a government should do about climate change?

    Yes! Each decision by a government concerns certain specifics and has certain real world consequences.
    Real decision making isn’t just sucking yourself off in self adulation because you know how to parrot tired stale facile Ayn Rand dogmatism.
    What do you think the RET, AEMO, blowing up South Australian power stations etc. are? Aren’t they implementation of government decisions? And what are they about?

    Come on, tell me that they aren’t government decisions about climate change.

    Disproving that requires YOU to answer the questions.

    The correct answer is that the Australian government should do nothing about “climate change”.
    The basis for that answer is that proper application of the scientific method shows that climate sensitivity to CO2 is so small that it’s highly improbable that even substantial world wide CO2 reduction would have noticeable effect on the climate, and very certainly action by Australia alone would be utterly pointless.

  165. Tim Neilson

    Tim, as already said: you’ve already conceded you don’t even know what the political issue is,

    No I haven’t.
    I’m just helping you keep it a secret.

  166. Tim Neilson

    Everyone involved in politics should stay as ignorant as possible about everything except Ayn Rand dogmatism.
    Iamashiteater says so.
    And he certainly leads by example.

  167. Tim Neilson

    Oops sorry Iamashiteater, I almost gave away the arcane mysteries of the “political issue”, but I think we’ll get away with it.

  168. Iampeter

    Yes! Each decision by a government concerns certain specifics and has certain real world consequences.

    I’m not arguing what decisions of government concern, just that you don’t know how a government should make decisions.

    The correct answer is that the Australian government should do nothing about “climate change”.

    That is the correct answer.
    But how did you arrive at it?
    Because of carbon dioxide emissions, something, something?

    Also, if you really believe this, why aren’t you on Rafe’s case, just like me?
    Someone who supports Howard and Abbott has a lot to answer for. Conservatives in general have a lot to answer for.

    So, as with all things, you can say the right sounding words, but when we dig even a little you don’t really believe it.

    Like most conservatives today you may manage to mouth superficial support sounding for limited government, but then turn around and support out of control government, either directly or through cowardly abstaining from calling out the conservatives on this.

  169. calli

    Tim! 🤣

    What a government should do about climate change crappy Australian weather?

    – Build more dams
    – Ensure reliable and reasonably priced electricity supply
    – Undertake effective bushfire mitigation activities through mechanical and chemical means
    – Investigate and implement water harvesting from high rainfall areas
    – Ensure that, should a natural disaster occur, stocks of supplies, fuel, fodder and temporary housing are in reserve

    That’s just off the top of my head.

  170. calli

    We are clever little bipeds. There is usually an engineering solution to these difficulties.

    All it takes is the political will. And the right engineers.

  171. calli

    Oh. And stop wasting public money on sh*t.

  172. Arky

    I offer this thread as exhibit 1 as to why two individuals should have their postings on this site limited.
    A complete inability to offer anything approximating intelligent debate does their side no credit and is obviously intended to inhibit, not further, debate.
    This is the now long established tactic of the regressive side: shut down debate by any means.

  173. Cardimona

    m0nty
    #3293863, posted on January 16, 2020 at 9:43 am
    This is the point you are not getting. There is no debate. The country has moved on. You have to modify your talking points, because no one is listening to denial any more in the wake of this summer.

    mUnter, why are you a truth denier?
    The truth about the Daintree rainforest is that it has not had “constant bush fires.”

    m0nty
    #3282380, posted on January 5, 2020 at 3:13 pm
    This is illogical. Did we see constant bush fires in rainforests like the Daintree before climate change?

    I asked you to link to the reports and you completely failed to do so.
    Instead you waffled and dissembled and denied what you’d written.
    Then you returned to denying the absence of Daintree rainforest fires.
    What claim to credibility have you when you make scare-stories up as you go?
    What motivates you, lad?
    What do you expect to gain from helping tear down the society you rely on?
    Or do you just crave attention, even second-grade attention?

  174. old bloke

    Scott Morrison is useless.

    He should be slamming the Premiers for their failures to conduct the preventative burnings recommended by previous royal commissions, he should be shouting out about the Premiers going on overseas holidays while their states are burning. He should be taking the lead to express, very forcefully, Australian’s disgust at the inaction of various state governments to do their jobs.

    Instead, he meekly goes along with whatever he thinks will ameliorate the MSM which is determined to bring him down. Stand up and fight Scott, or get out of the way.

  175. Arky

    I wanted to read a thread on climate change in a broadly conservative, but nominally libertarian blog.
    I hoped some intelligent folks from the other side would come along and contribute too.
    What I got was this utter shitfest.

  176. Iampeter

    I offer this thread as exhibit 1 as to why two individuals should have their postings on this site limited.
    A complete inability to offer anything approximating intelligent debate does their side no credit and is obviously intended to inhibit, not further, debate.

    But that would describe everyone except those two individuals.

    I wanted to read a thread on climate change in a broadly conservative, but nominally libertarian blog.
    I hoped some intelligent folks from the other side would come along and contribute too.
    What I got was this utter shitfest.

    No, you don’t know anything about politics and wanted the usual, school-yard-level talking points that you agree with to pretend you have business being on a right wing political blog.

    What you don’t want is to ACTUALLY discuss the issue, because you have no business in such a discussion.

  177. Tim Neilson

    That is the correct answer.
    But how did you arrive at it?
    Because of carbon dioxide emissions, something, something?

    Of course!

    If human produced CO2 emissions really were just about to make earth uninhabitable for human beings, the proper actions by government would be very different than what actions (i.e. nothing) a government should take in response to a totally imaginary problem.

  178. Tim Neilson

    Also, if you really believe this, why aren’t you on Rafe’s case, just like me?

    Why should I be? When did Rafe support, e.g., the blowing up of a South Australian power station?

    Someone who supports Howard and Abbott has a lot to answer for.

    This is more evidence of your inability to understand reality.
    Unfortunately most elections in Australia are a choice between two alternatives.
    “Supporting” Howard or Abbott doesn’t mean uncritically worshipping everything they do. It just means recognising that a Howard or Abbott government would be much less bad than a Labor/Greens one. “Supporting” Howard or Abbott doesn’t mean saying that what they did on “climate change” was great for the nation – though it’s fair to recognise that they were (rightly or wrongly) attempting to stave off even more disastrous ideas by placating the wets in their own ranks.

    So, as with all things, you can say the right sounding words, but when we dig even a little you don’t really believe it.

    Quote me some words I’ve said which you claim I don’t believe.

    Like most conservatives today you may manage to mouth superficial support sounding for limited government, but then turn around and support out of control government, either directly or through cowardly abstaining from calling out the conservatives on this.

    Example? What “this” am I meant to be subject to some form of civil conscription on?

  179. calli

    There are some things that, practically, only governments can do.

    It might be possible to privately fund and build dams and other infrastructure, but very difficult across state boundaries. And this stuff is needed and has been for a long time. Think of how much it’s needed every time you flush the loo.

  180. Lee

    One of the nurses I work with (I’m an RN) told the mum of a 9 months old baby to get him sunglasses because the sun is so much hotter now because of climate change!

    Unfortunately there are many morons like her in this country who are allowed (even compelled) to vote, and it’s the rest of us who end up having to pay for this AGW crap.

  181. Tim Neilson

    What you don’t want is to ACTUALLY discuss the issue,

    Churchill said that a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

    Here we have a thread about some specific issues on the “climate change” debate, and Iamashiteater keeps incessantly demanding that we join him in his self-fellation over his own Ayn Rand dogmatism – even going so far as to assert that the science of CO2 has nothing to do with proper government response to “climate change”.

  182. Tim Neilson

    It might be possible to privately fund and build dams and other infrastructure, but very difficult across state boundaries.

    And you’d need about a trillion or so government permits anyway, so under our current regime it’s impossible to act without government.

  183. Tim Neilson

    Perhaps Sinc should have a daily “self fellation about Ayn Rand dogmatism” thread, to keep Iamashiteater occupied so he’d leave specific threads to those who want to comment on reality.

  184. Iampeter

    Of course!

    Right, so you don’t know how a government makes decisions. Like already said, it has nothing to do with the weather, or emissions, or science in any way shape or form.

    Why should I be? When did Rafe support, e.g., the blowing up of a South Australian power station?

    Ofcourse he did. So did anyone who failed to attack Howard when he cooked up the RET and the Climate Office, etc. What did you all think was going to be the result of these policies brought to us by conservatives?
    Needing this explained makes you politically illiterate.

    So, like I said at the very beginning:

    The problem being for the skeptics that they don’t actually have any political arguments.
    That’s why they’re so interested in maintaining an entirely tangential scientific argument instead.

    As usual the left wins by default and those claiming to oppose them are just milking their followers without having any interest or ability to actually win on the issue and reverse course once and for all.

    As usual, it’s not really clear what point you’ve been trying to argue all thread, Tim.

  185. Tim Neilson

    Right, so you don’t know how a government makes decisions. Like already said, it has nothing to do with the weather, or emissions, or science in any way shape or form.

    No doubt that’s an accurate description of what governments do as a matter of fact, but we were talking about what a government should do about climate change*, till you decided to shift the goalposts to what governments actually do.
    So once again you’ve displayed your utter inability to think logically.

    * What a government should do about climate change? SMH.
    But the point is YOU have no clue. Disproving that requires YOU to answer the questions.

    So did anyone who failed to attack Howard when he cooked up the RET and the Climate Office, etc. What did you all think was going to be the result of these policies brought to us by conservatives?
    Needing this explained makes you politically illiterate.

    I have explained all this above. There’s no point reiterating it to you, and those who can think logically won’t need a reiteration.

    As usual, it’s not really clear what point you’ve been trying to argue all thread, Tim.

    More illogical solipsism from Iamashiteater.
    It’s perfectly clear to those who can think logically. Just not to you.

  186. Iampeter

    No doubt that’s an accurate description of what governments do as a matter of fact, but we were talking about what a government should do about climate change*, till you decided to shift the goalposts to what governments actually do.

    I wonder if you don’t see the contradiction, or don’t realize that contradictions are a problem, or both.

    So once again you’ve displayed your utter inability to think logically.

    You really need to stop projecting. This is cringe.

    I have explained all this above. There’s no point reiterating it to you, and those who can think logically won’t need a reiteration.

    If by explained you mean posted the usual evasions, to avoid dealing with the fact that the movement you support has no clue and is often more left wing than the movement you claim to oppose, then you certainly did explain it.
    There is no world in which you can argue you oppose the environmentalist movement then support the people that created it’s bureaucracy in this country.
    Again, do you not see the contradiction, not think it’s a problem, or both?

  187. candy

    Someone who supports Howard and Abbott has a lot to answer for.

    Iampeter, the comparison with Howard years does not work, in my opinion.
    I think in those times environmental movement meant keeping the place free of litter and protecting animal species that may be in danger, some greening. Climate change was an unheard of idea in those times. It was the traditional respected environmental policies, I think.

    That was a long way removed from what now the environmental movement is – all climate change, political, anti anything conservative.

  188. One of the nurses I work with (I’m an RN) told the mum of a 9 months old baby to get him sunglasses because the sun is so much hotter now because of climate change!

    On election day, anyone who takes a Greens HTV card (from the unattended box of them) is a nurse or doctor from the hospital (as opposed to private practice GP)
    To get at the unattended box of Greens HTV they’ll silently & almost rudely elbow their way past the ALP/LNP volunteers, – who spend the day chatting & filling each other’s thermos with tea.

    There’s no communication or cheeriness from those who take the Greens HTV, unlike many of the LNP/ALP voters, who’ll often stop for a chat on the way in/out & give forecasts of the outcome

    They all determinedly take the HTV card – but none of them are ever prepared to hand out info or work the booth, someone drops off the box of HTV cards in the middle of the morning, & never picks them up afterward – that’s always left to default to the LNP or ALP volunteers.

    Despite (or perhaps because of) the town having a strong ALP vote, there ALP don’t put much effort into manning their HTV stand, probably half the day or more there’s nobody from the ALP there.

  189. Kneel

    “…We can put this to the test …”

    No need to wait, we already have plenty of data.
    Compare places with reduced hazard reduction burns (ie, Vic, NSW) with somewhere with more hazard reduction burns (eg WA).

    Well, whaddayaknow? Whodathunkit?

    Vic and NSW have heuuuuge bushfires that destroy houses and thousands of hectares of bushland, while WA – which still has wild fires – has no such issue; their fires are smaller, less intense and tend to burn themselves out instead of burning peoples houses out.
    Just in case you missed it, WA is generally hotter and drier than NSW or Vic.
    QED hazard reduction is key.

    Just like every Royal Commission into bushfires has found since… dot. Just examples, but 1974/5, 1953(?), 1939 etc etc. Vic ones, NSW ones, Federal ones. All say the same thing: “Minimum burn 10% per annum, try to get to 20%.” Actual burn in Vic/NSW: closer to 5% actual, with maximum possible of 10%.
    Why so little? Because once you do the paperwork and finally get an approval after 3 months, if it rains on the day you planned to do the burn, you can’t just put if off for a day or a week, oh no – you have to start the whole 3 month approval process again!

    USE LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND GET CONTROL BACK WHERE IT BELONGS – THE RFS.

    GET GREEN POLICIES OUT OF FIRE AND BUSHLAND MANAGEMENT.

    PROTECTING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLES LIVES IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SOME FROG NO-ONE HAS EVER HEARD OR CARES ABOUT GOING EXTINCT.

  190. Tim Neilson

    I wonder if you don’t see the contradiction, or don’t realize that contradictions are a problem, or both.

    You really should stop throwing around the terminology of logical discussion until you learn how to apply the concepts.

  191. Tim Neilson

    There is no world in which you can argue you oppose the environmentalist movement then support the people that created it’s bureaucracy in this country.
    Again, do you not see the contradiction, not think it’s a problem, or both?

    There would be a contradiction if I said that I opposed “the environmentalist movement” (by which I presume you mean CAGW hysteric activists) and also said that setting up a green bureaucracy was inherently a good thing.

    But I’ve never said the latter – quite the contrary.

    Your problem is that you see politics as inherently tribal, and so you can’t distinguish “Howard and Abbott for all their faults were better than Labor/Greens would have been” from “oh boy I worship everything Howard and Abbott did – so that means I think all their sops to the green wets were utterly brilliant”.

    Do try to understand that not every actual issue in this world has an answer that fits neatly into an absolutist dogmatic theoretical framework.

  192. Win

    I see the climate changing every night as the setting sun gallops up and down its north south trajectory if that’s the right word. And with every passing year its getting faster.

  193. Iampeter

    But I’ve never said the latter – quite the contrary.

    Then we’re back to nothing you’re saying making any sense.
    You can’t both oppose the environmentalist movement and at the same time support the conservative movement.

    Your problem is that you see politics as inherently tribal, and so you can’t distinguish “Howard and Abbott for all their faults were better than Labor/Greens would have been

    Setting aside the fact that it’s not possible to do worse than creating the environmentalist bureaucracy, this is actually a good description of YOU.
    You know nothing about politics and have no idea where to begin.
    This leaves you mindlessly supporting one side and mindlessly opposing another side.
    With no realization that they are effectively the SAME side.
    So it’s you who views politics as nothing more than tribalism. That’s why you can’t criticize conservatives even as they push policies often even more left wing than progressives.
    I’m the one arguing you should actually learn something about political theory and stop being tribal.

    Do try to understand that not every actual issue in this world has an answer that fits neatly into an absolutist dogmatic theoretical framework.

    I don’t know what a “dogmatic theoretical framework” is but then neither do you. It’s just more gibberish.
    What you’re lacking is a coherent world view. Instead all you have is random, often self-contradictory positions, that you have accepted as part of the tribe you randomly belong to, which you desperately try to rationalize in place of any logical arguments. While lecturing me about logical arguments…

    What you need is a coherent world view. But that takes effort, independent thought, actual thinking skills, honesty, self awareness etc…

  194. Iampeter

    Iampeter, the comparison with Howard years does not work, in my opinion.
    I think in those times environmental movement meant keeping the place free of litter and protecting animal species that may be in danger, some greening. Climate change was an unheard of idea in those times. It was the traditional respected environmental policies, I think.

    Yea but Howard was responsible for this change.
    Conservatives are responsible for this mess. Not Labor, not even the Greens.
    That’s why conservatives discussing the issue as if history started with Kevin Rudd, talking about what a “fake conservative” Turnbull is, but failing to hold the likes of Howard and Abbott’s feet to the fire cannot be taken seriously.

    Not to mention that this misses my bigger point in this thread that skeptics don’t have any political arguments because they don’t actually have any understanding of the subject.

  195. Tim Neilson

    You can’t both oppose the environmentalist movement and at the same time support the conservative movement.

    Poor old logic fail. You say this and then accuse me of tribalism. I’ve made it quite clear I don’t think the “conservative movement”‘s pandering to climate activists is a good thing, but you’re too stupid to understand that the “conservative movement” isn’t a single issue group and is, for all its faults, less bad than the only currently practicable alternative.

    And you follow it up by accusing me of “mindlessly supporting one side and mindlessly opposing another side” when I’m the one advocating for NOT supporting everything that the “conservative movement” does.

    Your inability to comprehend facts and logic can’t just be innate. You must really work at it with great willpower.

  196. Tim Neilson

    Instead all you have is random, often self-contradictory positions, that you have accepted as part of the tribe you randomly belong to, which you desperately try to rationalize in place of any logical arguments.

    Give an example from the current thread.

    You’re the one demanding tribal opposition to the people [YOUR words, not mine] who initiated the climate bureaucracy. Not opposition to those policies – opposition to the people. You said it, not me.

    You need to break out of your cartoon like tribal good/evil binary collectivist view and start looking at the actual policy issues at stake.
    Which in the case of demands for “climate action” needs to be based on a proper understanding of the actual science of CO2 and climate.

  197. Iampeter

    Poor old logic fail. You say this and then accuse me of tribalism.

    Yea. That’s why I’m calling you tribal.

    but you’re too stupid to understand that the “conservative movement” isn’t a single issue group and is, for all its faults, less bad than the only currently practicable alternative.

    The conservative movement is a politically illiterate and left wing movement. The environmentalist issue is just one example of this.
    There are no examples of any serious right-wing policies. Nor would you or any conservative even know what that would look like.

    when I’m the one advocating for NOT supporting everything that the “conservative movement” does.

    Then you wouldn’t be arguing with ME about anything.

    Give an example from the current thread.

    The fact that you’re arguing with me all thread.

    You’re the one demanding tribal opposition to the people [YOUR words, not mine] who initiated the climate bureaucracy.

    You don’t know what “tribalism” means do you?
    Even though I clearly explained how I used the term in the very post you’re quoting from.

    You need to break out of your cartoon like tribal good/evil binary collectivist view and start looking at the actual policy issues at stake.

    Except I’m pretty much the only person at the Cat NOT advocating collectivism. There’s no point in discussion when not only are you breathtakingly idiotic but you’re incredibly dishonest too.

    It’s my fault because I keep responding which gives you the wrong impression that you’re worth discussing anything with. The reality is you have no business in a discussion like this.

  198. candy

    Conservatives are responsible for this mess. Not Labor, not even the Greens.

    Iampter, the climate change scare took hold around the very early days of Kevin Rudd as PM and then Gillard and Brown campaigned on it.
    I think very very few people would associate John Howard with emission reduction policies. In fact at that time who knew what “emissions” were?

  199. Tim Neilson

    Give an example from the current thread.

    The fact that you’re arguing with me all thread.

    Poor old logic fail.

    Your example utterly fails as evidence for what you’ve cited it for – in fact it confirms the opposite.

    I’m arguing with you only because you’re 100% wrong.

  200. Iampeter

    Candy, yes the issue did indeed go mainstream around 2008.
    That means the conservatives taking such a lead on this issue in the preceding decade makes even less sense and is a good example of why I consider them to be politically clueless leftists.

    There’s no way forward without first addressing this, but that can’t be done without conceding the failure of conservatism.

  201. Tim Neilson

    candy
    #3294270, posted on January 16, 2020 at 3:49 pm

    candy, you’re right and Iamashiteater is (as always) 100% wrong.

    Yes, in hindsight it was stupid of Howard to do anything to pander to Labor/Greens and the wets in the Coalition’s own ranks.
    Perhaps some people could even see it was stupid at the time. (I think I did express my views against it, but don’t really remember paying a lot of attention to it at that time.)

    But clearly Howard could see that the momentum was building, and that sooner or later the “we’ve got to do something” lobby would gain ascendancy, and he was trying to mitigate the disaster by putting into place something he thought would be fairly anodyne. He was hoping to turn it into a non-issue before it really got traction with the public.

    In the end Labor/Greens won and weaponised the issue, and KRudd, who had campaigned as a slightly more woke Howard Mk2, turbo charged the idiocy, and we’ve never looked back.
    So in hindsight Howard’s tactic failed.

    But it’s utterly stupid to suggest we’d be any better off now if Howard hadn’t tried – Rudd/Gillard/Rudd and Mick Trumble would still have got us to our current point of lunacy no matter what Howard had done 13 years ago.

  202. candy

    That means the conservatives taking such a lead on this issue in the preceding decade makes even less sense and is a good example of why I consider them to be politically clueless leftists.

    Iampeter, I still don’t think climate change was an issue in the preceding decade.
    Environmentalism revolved around more practical issues such as saving species in danger of extinction, the extent of logging trees undertaken, etc. Even then, it was a lower order type of government priority.

    I really don’t think anyone associates John Howard with environmentalism – indeed the Liberal Party at all going back in time.

  203. The BigBlueCat

    The conservative movement is a politically illiterate and left wing movement. The environmentalist issue is just one example of this.

    I think you are confusing “conservationist” with “conservative” …

    The Anthropogenic Climate Change mantra is a pure fallacy, of course, and certainly a left-wing policy since it virtue signals so much “concern”. But the reality is that the left wants centralised control over resources – true conservatives do not. True conservatives want the individuals to have the right to decide, not have the decision made for them by some central elite.

    Of course, I blame KRudd for all of this political climate change nonsense (“the greatest moral issue of our time” … what crap) … he got in only because he was seen to be (at the time) young and energetic. Plus Howard had been in for long enough and should have handed over to Costello. The left are good at telling us what’s wrong and how we need to fix it. We need the left to provide much more “proof” than their pseudo climate science like “97% consensus” (which was BS and proven to be so).

  204. Roger

    It took a little over 6 months for the Liberals to go from ” We are the party of the quiet Australians” to “Shut up, deplorables, the debate is over.”

    The protest vote at the next election is going to be YUUGE.

  205. John A

    “Let’s accept that the climate has changed, the climate is changing and we need to look at what we’re going to do about that.”

    Transplant the speaker to a car yard and this sounds exactly the same refrain as one hears daily about the lemon in front of you – especially when there is money involved.

    “We’d better stop talking, right? This car will be gone this afternoon – I have another buyer lined up ready to sign!”

    Yeah, right!

  206. The BigBlueCat

    Transplant the speaker to a car yard and this sounds exactly the same refrain as one hears daily about the lemon in front of you – especially when there is money involved.

    Exactly. I am reminded by this classic from Andrew Kalavan.

  207. Kneel

    “You can’t both oppose the environmentalist movement and at the same time support the conservative movement.”

    So you are… what?
    a) Supporting environmentalists?
    Or
    b) supporting Labor?
    One presumes you could do both as option c – the only prohibition you applied is “against
    environmentalists” and “support conservative” as mutually exclusive.

    You realise, of course, that in this time and place, political left = Labor/Green blob and political right = LNP. Practically speaking, of course. Yeah, the “centre” is skewed, but they are the realistic choices… I suppose you could go a minor in the senate where it might actually make a difference, but in the reps…

  208. Iampeter

    So you are… what?
    a) Supporting environmentalists?
    Or
    b) supporting Labor?

    Um…no. This shouldn’t require any clarification. You shouldn’t be voting at all.

    You realise, of course, that in this time and place, political left = Labor/Green blob and political right = LNP.

    Only if you’re politically illiterate.

  209. Arky

    You shouldn’t be voting at all.

    ..
    This is illegal.

    Failure to vote in an election is an offence under subsection 245(15) of the Electoral Act unless the elector has a valid and sufficient reason for that failure (see subsection 245(15B) of the Electoral Act.
    Similarly, subsection 45(1) of the Referendum Act provides that: ‘it is the duty of every elector to vote at a referendum’.

    And:

    CRIMES ACT 1958 – SECT 321G
    Incitement
    (1) Subject to this Act, where a person in Victoria or elsewhere incites any other person to pursue a course of conduct which will involve the commission of an offence by—

    (a) the person incited;

    (b) the inciter; or

    (c) both the inciter and the person incited—

    if the inciting is acted on in accordance with the inciter’s intention, the inciter is guilty of the indictable offence of incitement.

    (2) For a person to be guilty under subsection (1) of incitement the person—

    (a) must intend that the offence the subject of the incitement be committed; and

    (b) must intend or believe that any fact or circumstance the existence of which is an element of the offence in question will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place.

    (3) A person may be guilty under subsection (1) of incitement notwithstanding the existence of facts of which the person is unaware which make commission of the offence in question by the course of conduct incited impossible.

    S. 321H inserted by No. 10079 s. 7(2), amended by No. 25/1989 s. 20(g).

  210. Arky

    You should clarify that you are not using this blog as a vehicle to incite an offence re; the electoral act, but were just questioning the poster’s general competency.

  211. Tim Neilson

    Um…no. This shouldn’t require any clarification.

    Looks like Sportsbet has to pay out, once again, on the “Iamashiteater is too intellectually incompetent to understand the logic” option.

  212. Iampeter

    You should clarify that you are not using this blog as a vehicle to incite an offence re; the electoral act, but were just questioning the poster’s general competency.

    Isn’t that obvious? What kind of raving moron would need this clarification?

    Arky, I think it’s time for some real talk.
    I know you thought yourself a bit of an aficionado on politics and then had some random dude on the internet expose you as just another clueless crackpot who has no business on a right wing political blog.
    I understand that would be triggering. I mean if I spent years on a right wing blog and didn’t even know what individual rights are, I’d be pretty embarrassed too.
    But the solution to this is not to become even more of a raving crackpot and try to drive away anyone who might have a clue so you can pretend otherwise.
    The solution is to actually try and learn something.

    That way you might one day actually be somewhere knowledgeable on the subjects instead of just pretending to be.

  213. Arky

    You are a guest on someone else’s blog.
    Don’t use it to incite someone to commit an offence, you moron.

  214. Arky

    You shouldn’t be voting at all.

    ..
    Words have meanings, the meaning of this is clear.
    But is good that you have back pedalled and clarified.
    So to be clear: He should vote, because not to do so is an offence in every Australian State and Territory. Correct?

  215. Arky

    Correct, Mr “political expert” fuckwit?

  216. stackja

    Billion dollar bully ABC resorts to namecalling for the nightly news

    Jo Nova

    The first words of the nightly 7pm news Jan 15th:

    ” The Government tells Climate Change Deniers to stop arguing and accept The Science.”

    ABC Prime Time News in Australia this week stooped to abject petty namecalling — claiming those despised climate change deniers are robbing Australia again. In reality, the people robbing Australia work for the ABC. If they only had evidence they wouldn’t need to stomp all over debate.

    And in the ABC website:

    “Climate change deniers robbing Australia of time to respond to impacts, Science Minister Karen Andrews warns”

    Yet the government said nothing that insulting.

  217. Iampeter

    Words have meanings, the meaning of this is clear.
    But is good that you have back pedalled and clarified.

    No mate, I didn’t backpedal, I pointed out that I didn’t need to clarify my position which only a raving moron would be confused about.
    You need to remember YOU are a guest on this blog and stop trying to create legal problems for it’s owner because you have no knowledge of the subjects discussed and have no business here.
    This is not the first time. Let’s not forget when you threatened me with physical violence and then had to frantically backpedal when that was pointed out to you. This is a pathetic attempt to try and shift your own spastic antics onto me.

    I’m done trying to talk sense to you. You are an insane raving crackpot who would be long banned on any other blog and a legal time bomb to the owner of this blog.

    Bye, bye nutjob.

  218. Tom

    You are an insane raving crackpot

    Excellent work, Arky. IamGoebbels makes me laugh. As a production-line leftard moral supremacist, it’s easy to get under his skin.

Comments are closed.