And behind it all is Malcolm

The inanity revealed in the Coalition is something to behold: Liberal deserter Julia Banks fuels chaos in Coalition ranks. What Ms Banks thinks the major issue of our day is remains unrevealed, other than that Peter Dutton should have his eligibility to sit in Parliament tested by the courts. My only wish is that she was right to say that the Coalition had been taken over by “right-wing” forces. Meanwhile, Ms Bishop is seeking to have the National Energy Guarantee restored. Does she really believe global warming is a problem?

The only other bit of news in the story is that the election will likely be in mid-May.

And behind it all is Malcolm, whose empty and shallow policy formation remains possibly the single most destructive force in Australian political history.

Will also refer you to Andrew Bolt who writes Left Trashes Liberals, Right Blamed. Sometimes a big tent is too big if it lets all kinds of lefty loons enter a party of the conservative right.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to And behind it all is Malcolm

  1. Will Malfunction Trumble and Jezebel Bishop get their come-uppance?
    Whose side were they on in 2016? Who was running Downer?
    It seems we shall find out on December 5, US Easter Standard Time.
    This is a recent Q drop:
    “Does UK stand w/ the US or only select divisions within the US?
    Does AUS stand w/ the US or only select divisions within the US?
    Will immediate action(s) be ‘publicly’ taken within each country to REUNIFY THE BOND that was once held PRIOR TO…….[CLAS 9]?

  2. Confused Old Misfit

    “Conservatives” no longer understand conservatism.

  3. H B Bear

    The Turnbull Coalition Team is in disarray. Where is the Potential Greatness?

  4. H B Bear

    Can Chrissy Pyne and the Black Hand save the day?

    My friends.

  5. DaveR

    With the Liberal party having lurched to the left under Turnbull and disenfranchised many conservatives, I wondered at the time whether Abbott needed to quit and form a truly Conservative party forcing Turnbull into a new coalition to survive. That way the conservatives would have been guaranteed a voice in coalition policy, rather than being ignored in the Liberal party room.

    The answer is now plain to see: it should have happened 12 months ago.

    Now that he is gone, the Lib-Nats under Morrison-Frydenberg, both Turnbull supporters, refuse to move back to the policy center to regain the lost conservative votes. The impetus has been lost, and now Labor has the upper hand.

    Abbott must now think long and hard about saving the furniture, and either seize the Liberal party back or move to a new conservative structure. Either way, the next Liberal coalition government will be much more representative of the coalition base than the current pretenders of the party center-left.

    But maybe its a sign of the times, in the UK as well, where conservative voices are not being heard by the political elites of their own party, who are mistakenly convinced electoral success lies in the center.

  6. DaveR

    When Turnbull defeated Abbott he said:

    Malcolm Turnbull has promised to lead a “thoroughly Liberal government” committed to core values of freedom, the individual and the market.

    “It’ll be focussed on ensuring that in the years ahead as the world becomes more and more competitive and greater opportunities arise, we are able to take advantage of that,” the incoming prime minister told reporters in Canberra.

    “The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile, that is innovative, that is creative. We can’t be defensive; we can’t future-proof ourselves. It’s not a question of leadership style. There are few things more important in any organisation than its culture.

    “The culture of our leadership is going to be one that is thoroughly consultative, a traditional thoroughly traditional cabinet government that ensures that we make decisions in a collaborative manner. The Prime Minister of Australia is not a president.”

    Now we know the whole statement was no more than a charade, especially anything to do with the Liberal tradition or his leadership style. Where in the Liberal tradition does it say that as PM you only implement policies favouring the left of the party, and conservatives policies are all ditched and conservative MPs are systematically removed from senior office and influence?

    The 54 MPs who voted Tunbull in must now wear the blame for this monumental failure. A number of them must be removed straight away starting with Pyne and Bishop.

  7. Mark M

    Does she really believe global warming is a problem?

    A quick ‘google at “julie bishop ghost flights” unsurprisingly reveals the actions of someone who doesn’t believe in the apocalypse they preach …

    Julie Bishop spends $30k on VIP flight after dinner

  8. billie

    in the words of Abbott Arnaud Amalric who feared if any were spared during the seige of Beziers might later return to heresy, “kill them all, god will know his own”

    hard to disagree with the sentiment, if not the act

    back then, your decisions had consequences

  9. Roger

    I experienced a minor earthquake whilst in New Zealand, not unexpected.

    Then again upon return here, strangely.

    Then I realised:

    It was Robert Menzies turning in his grave.

  10. This is why she defected:

    O’Dwyer told her colleagues that Liberals are regarded as “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers” during a crisis meeting of federal Victorian MPs.

  11. Hay Stockard

    Harken Now,
    Foad troll.
    (Not a death threat)

  12. .

    Harken Now
    #2874072, posted on November 28, 2018 at 10:35 am

    Hark! Ideological “conservatives” (and most libertarians, for that matter) think they can continue denying overwhelming evidence of climate change for 20 years

    Shut up you scientifically illiterate arseclown.

    Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”

    Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is “Dead Wrong”. This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.

  13. Carpe Jugulum

    Harken Now
    #2874072, posted on November 28, 2018 at 10:35 am

    It’s Ok to Be White

  14. Leo G

    “Conservatives” no longer understand conservatism.

    After deconstruction, what’s to understand?

  15. Roger

    O’Dwyer told her colleagues that Liberals are regarded as “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers” during a crisis meeting of federal Victorian MPs.

    Memo to Kelly O’Dwyer: The next election will neither be won nor lost in Victoria.

  16. C.L.

    Ms Banks

    You mean Mrs Banks.

  17. JC

    Harken Now, you sanctimonious arseclown, what’s overwhelming is your imbecility. Call the Hotline.

  18. duncanm

    Harken Now
    #2874072, posted on November 28, 2018 at 10:35 am


  19. Roger

    Sometimes a big tent is too big if it lets all kinds of lefty loons enter a party of the conservative right.

    Yes; John Howard has a lot to answer for.

  20. duncanm

    The tent has collapsed.. its just a bunch of arseclowns fumbling about under a sheet.

    Just split already….. it’ll hurt, but needs to be done.

    A secondary benefit is that the left can eat away at the Labor/Greens vote while the true conservatives prosecute their arguments.

  21. Infidel Tiger

    “the Big tent” has become a circus featuring mostly freaks and clowns.

  22. Speedbox

    In anticipation of a smashing at the next election, what remains of the LNP is tearing itself apart.

    Not that I care – it deserves to be smashed – but I seriously doubt whether anything worthwhile will emerge from the ashes. There can be no denying that the Left has played a stunningly successful and strategic long game in gaining infiltrating access and often control of Australian (and global) politics and institutions. The only significant global exception is the USA where Trump is in a bitter fight with the Left and their compliant media. But sooner or later, Trump will be gone from global politics and who will carry the torch then?

    Locally, we conservatives will be relegated to a footnote in the political history of this country. If, as seems likely, Shorten and Labor will be elected with a landslide majority, then we can look forward to at least 6-7 years of a Shorten Government and everything that entails. Any hope of a conservative ‘resurrection’ will be lost in Australia. Groups such as AC, ALA, Shooters etc will continue to squabble over the scraps leading a chorus of ragtag journeymen proclaiming themselves as ‘independent’.

    Those still interested may blame the demise on Abbott (good start but went to water), followed by Turnbull (pronounced shifting to the Left) that was cemented by Morrison who didn’t know who he was or what he stood for. (Cats will debate the origins of the collapse for years into the future).

    Regardless, the Left will be firmly and irrevocably entrenched. No “Trump like” figure will emerge in Australia and even if that does happen, he/she will be unable to undo most of the Labor damage.

    And how did we get to the point where Australia, with all its natural wealth and bounty, is now merely a shallow facsimile with a shattered economy and deep social upheaval? We did it through low information and apathetic people who are addicted to ‘free stuff’. The Left recognised this years ago and shamelessly leverage the greed.

    The media are profoundly negligent in their responsibility to report unbiased news. The ABC has long-since morphed into the media arm of the Left although they are not alone – news and current affairs programs on the commercial networks are willfully biased or focus of superfluous subjects. Bubblegum for the eyes.

    Individual business leaders are mostly silent and industry groups are, at best, timid.

    Minorities hold sway with support and funding from powerful (often global) Left lobby groups. Grudgingly, I can’t help but admire the left’s ability to issue media releases, get their talking heads on the TV/radio, deluge social media and monopolize the conversation within minutes of a pro-Left issue being identified. The Right have never had this ability.

    And finally, our lazy, self-centred and shallow politicians who are more interested in their personal financial outcomes through their survival on the gravy-train than the best interests of the country. Happily drawing significant salaries with wide perks that sometimes follow them into private life, they are entirely insulated from the tribulations of the populace.

    Anybody not making plans for the protection of their family and their wealth from the cold dark hand of an all pervading Leftist government in Australia is, IMO, either naive or irresponsible.

  23. JC

    Non-ideologically driven people are capable of reading broadly, not just their circle of fellow travellers, and be able to judge why the contrarians are wrong.

    Oh yea, post the last articles and books that you’ve read and explain the argument.


  24. Infidel Tiger

    Going to be a very interesting next Parliament.

    Shorten is going to have a 100 seat majority and control of the Senate.

    It’ll be worth it to see the back of Turnbull, Banks, O’Dwyer, Pyne, Wilson… Loyal Deputy Skeletor will be rather lonesome.

  25. Dave R
    All of this garbage talk about extreme right centre etc – “Conservative” is centre well balanced. The message through social media is been successfully used by the lunatic left, uni student union who used to stand on the street corners on Friday and Saturday nights handing out their leaflets and papers – usually full of hate and nightmare fiction.

    Dutton and Abbot are centrists and it the labour party which is off the rails. I would be interested to know what Jim McLlend, John Button would be thinking.

  26. .

    Non-ideologically driven people are capable of reading broadly, not just their circle of fellow travellers, and be able to judge why the contrarians are wrong. The rebuttals of “climate change is fraud” arguments have always been there, just they are always ignored.

    No, they’re ignored because environmentalism and global warming are religions.

    Go out and “debunk” Polder, Beenstock and Reigenwertz.


  27. .

    How much evidence do the globalist left and green shamans want to ignore?


    Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet.

    According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.

    Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.

    But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list.
    The 22 Inconvenient Truths

    1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

    2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

    [Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

    3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

    4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

    5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

    6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

    7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

    8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

    9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

    10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

    11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

    12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

    13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

    14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

    15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

    16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

    17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

    18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

    19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

    20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

    21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

    22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

    The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)

  28. JC

    Models aren’t just a hoax, they’re a fraud. In fact, the models resemble the old bucket shop stock frauds. You have to believe that every single climate scientist is not induced by money, there is no such thing as group think and confirmation bias does not exist.

    You are a very stupid person, Harken, with no imagination whatsoever. Fuck off.

  29. stevem

    There can be very little doubt that there is a move from within the Liberal Party aimed at its destruction.
    Turnbull spat the dummy and forced a bi-election, knowing full well it could cost the Liberal Party its Federal majority. He then went out of his way to avoid offering any support to his party. Turnbull jr actively supported the Labor party and denigrated the Liberals. All three Turnbulls followed an anti Abbott campaign with a day or two of it forming.
    Now Julia Banks, by all accounts, discussed her resignation with the cross benches weeks before resigning but kept it from her party. She then timed her resignation the most vindictive way possible by announcing it to the parliament at the very moment the prime minister was holding a press conference. Now Banks has stated her first order of business is to attack Dutton.
    The Black Hand and Photios have wrested control from long term members and stacked branches and Senate tickets with their “Green-light” candidates (Labor-light is still too far to the right for them).
    With a Shorten/Andrews/Daley triumvirate waiting to destroy everything, this is the worst time possible for the destruction of the Liberals – yet Turnbull et al. appear to be on track to achieve their greatest victory.

  30. DaveR

    J Stank
    The left and the toadying press have decided that anybody with a political view to the right of Turnbull is Alt-Right. Its absolute nonsense as it includes the vast majority of the Liberal and National party members, and Alt-Right is truly way out beyond most coalition MPs. But its an effective catch cry for the under 25s. To defeat it, it needs to be called out wherever it arises. They will really be shocked if a significant Alt-Right group arises in this country to tackle the likes of the militant Marxist Alt-left such as AntiFa, Occupy, Anonymous and Socialist Alternative.

  31. Bruce of Newcastle

    Does she really believe global warming is a problem?

    When you see how politics is progressing this decade more and more it appears that belief of global warming is driving it all.

    The Left believes global warming is an existential calamity, which justifies all totalitarian controls imaginable.

    The Right by and large thinks global warming is a load of bollocks, a position supported by the real world data.

    The problem is the Left are so hysterical about it that they are increasingly willing to do anything, anything to make the voters kowtow to the emergency, even though it isn’t happening.

    So in the Liberal Party we have the split between the climate bedwetters led by Turnbull, and the realists led by Abbott.

    Turnbull has been on a crusade, nay, a jihad, to force the Liberal Party to save the world. Everything he’s done has been in this direction. When he was spilled from the leadership as Opposition Leader by Abbott he just went underground and agitated against the Gaia-enemy from that day forward.

    Unfortunately for Turnbull, if fortunate for the rest of us, global warming isn’t actually happening.

    Which hasn’t stop him, and his fellow travellers like Julia Banks, from Believing.

    The Liberal Party is a dead parrot, unless and until it ditches the false global warming religion and its cult members.

  32. Bruce of Newcastle

    We in Heaven wonder if it has something, anything, to do with the fact that thermometers keep showing the temperature going up? And in broad agreement with models.

    If the temperature is going up Hark, why isn’t the snow melting?

    Perhaps it has something to do with the vast tsunami of money available to those who wish to save the world, even if in reality it doesn’t need saving.

  33. Leo G

    There are always going to be contrarians in all fields, especially when they start speculating on matters outside of their field. They are rarely proved right.

    A scientific theory which can be proved right is merely a tautology.
    A person who deserves to be ignored is the one who claims to be “non-ideologically driven” but also to be on the “winning side” of an ideological argument.

  34. Real Deal

    Why is Julia Banks such an expert on the Liberal Party? How long was she a member before she was elected. My understanding is that she joined a matter of weeks before being preselected.

  35. max

    For Harken Now:

    18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
    1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
    2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
    3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
    4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
    6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
    7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
    8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
    9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
    10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
    11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
    12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
    13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
    14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
    15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
    16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
    17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
    18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

  36. .

    Harken Now
    #2874164, posted on November 28, 2018 at 12:15 pm

    Hark! The rabbits of denialism have been pursued down too many holes too many times to count.

    This is what a false preacher would say. Why bother about evidence! Faith is all the proof you need, brothers!

  37. candy

    Malcolm Turnbull and perhaps Mrs Turnbull and their son are working from the outside of the party to destroy the LNP, via Banks, Bishop, Wilson, O’Dwyer, probably some others. You get a sense of his tentacles spreading through.

    It is extraordinary though, the things they are saying and yet PM Morrison does not come down hard on them. Where’s his strength, his leadership? You can only assume he believes the party if full of homophobes, sexual abusers, racists and he believes we are all going to sizzle up and die due to global warming. Otherwise he would use his authority to sort matters.

  38. mh

    And behind it all is Malcolm, whose empty and shallow policy formation remains possibly the single most destructive force in Australian political history.

    Thanks to Little Johnny.

  39. mh

    On social issues, Kates watches homosexuals derided as “fags” and other school yard taunts on this site almost daily, and well as men routinely and non-ironically speculating that giving the women the vote was the start of the downfall of Western civilisation, and he thinks that this “brand” of conservatism is the “winning” side??

    Are you a fag?

  40. Perplexed of Brisbane

    Bernie Sanders was lamenting that Romania has faster internet than the USA. When he asked why, a Romanian replied, ” Because on Christmas Day 1989, we executed our Communist dictator and opened up the markets.”

    While there may have to be a lot of pain and we have the dreaded Australian apathy to deal with, eventually we will wake up to and overthrow (probably at the ballot box) any Socialist government, because even the true believers will realise it was all smoke and mirrors.

    I’m not overly familiar with the statutes but is Treason still an offence? Just asking on behalf of quite few pollies on both sides of the house.

  41. A Lurker

    Meanwhile, the sun is doing its own thing…

  42. Rob

    That Turnbull was a terrible fit in the Liberal Party, was always blindingly obvious.
    So were various other recent Liberal MPs, many of whom rode in on Abbott’s coat tails.
    They have done the damage and their defeat, should Labor win the coming election, will do much to return the party to its roots and core values.

  43. .

    The contrarians have “I don’t believe it! Conspiracy to fake up temperatures! Models are crap! Scientists have made wrong predictions before!”

    That’s all true. You, on the other hand, have refuted nothing, just spat from the bully pulpit.

    Do you make money from renewables, BTW?

  44. H B Bear

    And behind it all is Malcolm, whose empty and shallow policy formation remains possibly the single most destructive force in Australian political history.

    Thanks to Little Johnny.

    Don’t forget Artie. He even got off his deathbed to try and get Lord Waffleworth over the line.

  45. H B Bear

    The longer it goes the worse The Father of Middle Class Welfare looks.

  46. candy

    Consensus and evidence matters.

    Of course it does. But it seems extremely over-rated and personally I don’t care what the weather does.
    One can be kind to the environment in all sorts of small personal ways, such as limiting water use, mulching, not littering, walking more rather than driving, conserving, re-using – lots and lots of ways, that more likely than not the wealthy elite inner city residents don’t bother about but insist on higher power bills for the rest of us.

    Conservatives tend to do things the old fashioned way, I guess.

  47. .

    Consensus and evidence matters.

    Only evidence matters.

    The consensus has the theory and the evidence.

    No it doesn’t. You haven’t refuted a single argument posed to you. You’re just a friggin’ hype man for solar panels.

  48. Leo G

    The consensus has the theory and the evidence.

    CAGW in a can.

  49. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hark – Why is it that scientists in 1934 apparently couldn’t read thermometers correctly, but “scientists” these days can?

    Could it be that “scientists” these days are paid a lot more by the government to read thermometers in more appropriate ways?

  50. Luke

    You gotta spare 70 years up your sleeve to wait for that?

    The reason the left dominates is not the free stuff of recent decades it is the 70 years they spent ensuring the government and, their opponents, fund them through all the taxes they receive via various institutions, groups, and education.

  51. Dr Fred Leniin

    I sympathise with comrade banks she joined the liberals in. Good faith prepared to give her all ( well a little bit of her all) ,thinking it was a progressive globalist left party,after all she helped turnbull to subvert the elected leadership , suddenly its a game change ,extreme right wing conservatives conspire to overthrow the beloved comrade leadder and force him to resign and go into exile in New York . Where australian leftist exiles hang about hoping to get a bludgers job with the u.n. Communist fascist u elected world government . Whats a girl to do? The party you nearly loved has veered right to Trumpism . So I will resign and leave this extreme right government too its well deserved defeat by the forces of progressivism,So There !stuff thhe lot of yiz !

  52. .

    You are calling peer-reviewed literature that has been printed in Nature and so on as “denialism”.

    Global warming is a religion to some, but for you Harkwit, it is a cult and you are balls deep.

    Being published in Nature is “dismissed with good reason”.

    What a grand champion of bullshit artists you are. Piss off. We’re not going to buy solar panels off you.

  53. .

    You are calling peer-reviewed literature that has been printed in Nature and so on as “denialism”.

    Global warming is a religion to some, but for you Harkwit, it is a cult and you are [email protected] deep.

    Being published in Nature is “dismissed with good reason”.

    What a grand champion of bullshit artists you are. Piss off. We’re not going to buy solar panels off you.

  54. Bruce of Newcastle

    or someone who thinks a temperature adjustment made in good faith and in accordance with well established and valid protocols is in fact a deliberate fraud.

    No, no. Just wrong, and a lie. A lie is still a lie even if you believe it.

    How can the people on the ground record temperatures that are 3 F higher in 1934 than is recorded in the database today?

    Of course that conveniently makes the temperature “record” rise, which it wouldn’t do if they didn’t make that adjustment.

    It amazes me that in those days they couldn’t properly read a thermometer, but could somehow build an atomic bomb. Incidentally my grandad worked on the Manhattan project as a chemical engineering consultant. Isn’t that fun?

  55. duncanm

    Shall we return to Bolt’s statement of 2016?

    “I don’t think voters know quite how vindictive Turnbull is”

  56. Perplexed of Brisbane


    Unfortunately, there is that small detail of time!
    I would hope that the Australian voter would have more sense. Oh, who am I kidding?

    And no, I don’t have that long.

  57. manalive

    Apropos Mr Harken, the models and observations and adjustments to observations to conform with theory rather than the opposite: to reinforce the many excellent posts above here is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations compared to the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmospheric temperature dataset together with the massive adjustment in 2015.
    As well as an upward ‘adjustment’ the 5% – 95% uncertainty (blue band) has been dropped and the hard black line shown to follow the upper limit of uncertainty.
    Adjustments to the surface record are as spectacular.

  58. Deplorable

    Do you make money from renewables, BTW?

    Harken is your name Alex???

  59. Boambee John

    Barken Mad

    Consensus and evidence matters. The consensus has the theory and the evidence.

    Evidence matters. Consensus is just the refuge of weak minds.

  60. Boambee John

    Dot at 1333

    Belated snap, hadn’t scrolled down.

  61. DaveR

    Bruce of Newcastle nailed it.

    Why does the BOM now start their Australian temperature series around 1905-1910? To avoid the “poorly measured” temperatures of the period before that? No, its really to leave out the accurately-read temperatures of the Federation Drought of 1896-1903.

    Trouble with those accurately read temperatures is that they are all much higher than they should be! And they show that the downwardly adjusted temperatures of 1905-1910 just cant be right.

  62. JC

    We’re not going to buy solar panels off you.

    Lol. Sounds awfully like Insider Alex peddling for plastic panels. Fuck I wish I had inside scoops allowing me to buy distressed assets at a penny in the dollar when you get a whisper that something big is about to occur in government policy. It would make you look like a genius.

  63. JC

    Denialist arguments are not ignored: rather they are bad arguments that have been considered and dismissed for good reason. It is conspiracy think to believe that the consensus happens in spite of convincing denialist arguments. They don’t exist.

    Lets take your point, Insider Al and assume the last assessment that came out of the US government over the past few days is correct. The assessment suggests 10% of the US economy would be lost due to gerbiling by 2100.

    How the fuck does that even come within a bull’s ear of suggesting we should mitigate for gerbiling?

    Stick to Insider whispers, Al. 🙂 You’re pathetic. In fact the entire family is malfunctioning … get it 🙂

  64. Rafe Champion

    The degree or so of warming sine the Thames used to freeze over has done great good and I cant see why another degree or so over the next century will do any bad.

    Mitigation is costing one to two trillion per annum worldwide and it is making no difference to the CO2 level (not that I think the CO2 level matters).

    Meanwhile there are signs of a cooling turn.

  65. cohenite

    Consensus and evidence matters. The consensus has the theory and the evidence.

    I don’t want to discourage a genuine troll unlike the usual shits we get around but you are a fucking moron. The consensus, like every aspect of alarmism is complete bullshit and I’ll go to some length to explain why not that logic and evidence will convince fuckwits like you.

    The 97% consensus is a product of one of the worse peer reviewed papers ever written. The authors of this farrago are all 3rd rate academics, some with valid climate science credentials. The lead author is one John Cook, a psychologist.

    In Cook’s paper Cook defines the consensus position as being:

    “That humans are causing global warming.”

    That consensus position is defined in Cook’s categories by category 1 of Table 2. The rest of Cook’s categories reflect varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW.

    However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate Cook selected Cook discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position.

    Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for Cook’s definition of the consensus that:

    “Humans are causing global warming.”

    That’s 1% not 97%.

    Cook then had the authors of the papers rate their papers according to Cook’s criteria; about this Cook says:

    “1200 scientists rated their own papers, resulting in over 2000 papers being categorised by the papers’ own authors. Among papers that were self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”

    The author’s self-rating is shown by Table 4 from Cook’s paper. In fact 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. Cook’s paper says of those 2142 self-ratings 1342 are described as Endorsing AGW. That is confirming the consensus position or category 1 of Cook’s 7 categories. The caption to Table 4 says:

    “Self-rated papers that endorse AGW have an average endorsement rating less than 4.”

    But that would include categories 2 and 3 which are LESS than
    the consensus position. So the question remains exactly how many self-rated Abstracts actually conform to Cook’s own definition of the consensus as defined only in category 1.

    In addition, the self-referencing shows that 761 scientists have no position on AGW which as the caption to Table 4 says conforms to categories 4a and 4b of Cook’s categories which is 761/2142 X 100 = 35.52%. That is much less than Cook’s paper’s initial selection and discard of 67.4% of the 11,944 papers because the Abstract had no position on AGW.

    Maybe the only scientists who responded to Cook’s invitation to self-rate were those who initially had a position on AGW. If so 35.52% of them changed their minds from being in categories 1-3 to being in
    categories 4a and 4b!

    Any way you look at this the % actually supporting the consensus, as defined in Cook’s paper, is less than the claimed 97%.

  66. cohenite

    Why does the BOM now start their Australian temperature series around 1905-1910? To avoid the “poorly measured” temperatures of the period before that? No, its really to leave out the accurately-read temperatures of the Federation Drought of 1896-1903.

    They hide behind the claim that the old temp records are no good because the initial temperature measuring screens, the Glaisher, were warmer than the Stevenson screens; but many sites had Stevenson screens well before 1910, and the BOM’s own admission is that the Glaisher produced a warming effect of only 0.2C would, even if true, allow for the early records to be included with that adjustment. Even with a 0.2C adjustment the Federation drought still produces warmer temps than the modern ones.

    The trouble is the BOM has been taken over by alarmists and is the BOM through green advisors who control the pollies.

  67. Rayvic

    Given the disloyalty of Kelly O’Dwyer ( told her colleagues that Liberals are regarded as “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers” during a crisis meeting of federal Victorian MPs) , Julie Bishop ( ” Australia should meet its commitment to the Paris accord” regardless of whether it will result in substantial self harm) and Julia Banks (mesmerised by Malcolm Turnbull’s Leftist credentials), it is baffling that some Liberals (they must be masochists or naive) are calling for an increase in the number of Liberal women MPs .

    And even more baffling is the Liberal Party’s failure to expel the unpatriotic, egocentric Malcolm Turnbull for his traitorous acts.

  68. JohnA

    Harken Now #2874164, posted on November 28, 2018, at 12:15 pm

    This Angel’s job is to invite you to be more “meta”: people without the ideological scales on their eyes might start to wonder, after 30 years of climate denial arguments, why the vast, vast majority of scientists have failed to be convinced by the scrambling for an argument, any argument, that shows that the convincing consensus is wrong.

    The Angel of darkness masquerading as light (2 Cor 11:14) is merely arguing from the unsubstantiated authority of unproven numbers.

    One could ask
    “After 30 years of debate, why have the predictions of those foreseeing gloom and doom within that 30 year timespan, not come to pass?”

    There is a severe punishment awaiting false prophets: Deut 18:20-22

  69. .

    This cock (Harkwit) will not shut up, he just ignores peer-reviewed science and blabs on.

    I think JC was right. It is Al Trumble.

  70. .

    My sources are Polder, Beenstock & Reigenwertz and Svensmark et al at CERN (published in Nature).

    There is no need to bring in a smug, middle-class argument from authority and ad hominem about slack-jawed heretics.

    You actually think the Pope speaks infallibly on science.

    You sir, are a jackass.

  71. .

    But you are wrong, Hark – fire up that laptop and write a paper for Nature.

    No, you don’t have the ability or know how.

    Hendry’s paper is dishonest and mealy-mouthed. What a sad way to top off a career.

    This is how the conclusion to Hendry’s sad little paper starts off:

    4 Conclusions

    A complete analysis of this data would require separate models of, or controlling for, the pre and post ice-core measurements, taking account of the myriad influences impinging on the climate, temperature, and different greenhouse gases. The system nature of cointegration needs to be taken into account when the analysis (such as Beenstock et al.’s, 2012) relies solely on the time-series properties of different series.

    Which the warmies don’t give a shit about and will never willingly model. Each time a sceptic has modelled it, the results have been either no warming, or insignificant warming from CO2 being a driver of climate.

    Hendry is dishonest. PBR showed that there was a regression of unrelated variables. He knows this. He is just arse covering.

    As are you.

  72. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hark – On the basis of AR4 (I’ve not bothered to look at a later one yet) the rise in temperatre last century was 0.74 C, with error bars of about 0.2 C from memory.

    Of that 0.74 C about 0.33 C was due to the Sun (PDF link).

    Another 0.3 C was due to the selection of the century, 1906-2005, because the ~60 year cycle was at bottom in 1906 and top of the subsequent cycle in 2005. You can see the cycle clearly in the detrended HadCRUT 3v graph here.

    That leaves about 0.11 C for CO2 and everything else. That fits well with a low ECS of less than 1 C/doubling. Which is as I found on analysis of 250 years worth of HadCET data.

    That is just looking at the significant variables and working out a value for each one’s magnitude. The IPCC ignore the solar and cyclic components even though they are obvious as dog’s [email protected]

    They ignore them because a 2XCO2 less that 1 C/doubling is harmless. Indeed it’s probably beneficial.

    We don’t need to spend any money on climate change other than ameliorating normal weather variations.

  73. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hark – the 100 or so science bodies with position statements supporting AGW/CC are reliant on large amounts of government money, which would dry up if climate change were determined to be mostly natural and harmless.

    There’s been a long line of consensuses overturned by minority groups of scientists. Continental drift, ulcers and relativity are three of them. Einstein famously had a whole book written trashing his views: “A Hundred Authors Against Einstein” to which he responded “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”.

    The difference this time is unlike the other scientific controversies there are trillions of dollars at stake. Also the cherished aims of the Marxists is furthered by the climate change vehicle, as Naomi Klein acknowledged:

    Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.”

    Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.

    Add in the increasingly religious nature of millenialist global warming hysteria and you have money, ideology and religion all pushing this sucker. Never has there been such huge momentum of obscurantism needing to be overcome by actual science.

    As a scientist I am watching this incredible unprecedented fraud with sadness, since it is destroying the love of my life. Science is dying because of it.

  74. .

    Harken Now
    #2875221, posted on November 29, 2018 at 4:54 pm

    Hark! OK, so the actual response was “He’s lying and he’s not as smart as the people who used esoteric maths to show it wrong”.

    Yes, he is being dishonest; he is probably smarter than the people wrote the paper, which makes it a more egregious sin.

  75. .

    There’s been a long line of consensuses overturned by minority groups of scientists. Continental drift, ulcers and relativity are three of them. Einstein famously had a whole book written trashing his views: “A Hundred Authors Against Einstein” to which he responded “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”.

    Well friggin’ said.

  76. Bruce of Newcastle

    In the US: Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

    Yep. Natural.

    We have hit the low point in the solar cycle again. At this time in the cycle you see severe jet stream blocking occurring regularly.

    Remember the Pakistani Floods of 2010? That was accompanied by the great Moscow heatwave. Moscow was on the hot-dry side of the locked jet stream and Pakistan on the cooler-wet side.

    IPCC lead author Mike Lockwood is a warmie solar scientist. He told the BBC in 2010 about the jet stream solar activity link:

    Low solar activity link to cold UK winters

    That was in connection with the UK 2010 winter, which whited out the whole UK because of jet stream blocking. If you keep an eye on UK news like I do you’ll’ve seen many similar weather patterns in the last year – they’re currently expecting snow for about the next six weeks.

    Add to this we’re in unprecedented low solar activity because the Sun has tipped over on its 207 year cycle. Unprecedented at least since the LIA.

    There are a number of papers linking sinuous Rossby waves with low solar activity. Here’s one:

    The North Atlantic jet stream correlates with Solar output over a millennium

    I’ve bookmarked links to a few others, but I’ve hit my limit of three links for this comment, so I won’t bother putting them up, unless you want them.

    CO2 does not cause sinuous Rossby waves every 11 years or so, even if Al Gore seems to think that.

  77. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Roger at 11:14 am:

    “Sometimes a big tent is too big if it lets all kinds of lefty loons enter a party of the conservative right.

    Yes; John Howard has a lot to answer for.”

    John Howard departed 11 years ago and they have had 5 leaders since, who have much to answer for.

  78. Bruce of Newcastle

    As for increased rainfall correlating with higher global temperature, I have no problem with that. The global temperature did rise nearly a degree Celsius last century. Almost all from natural non-anthropogenic causes.

    Indeed the water cycle is the main reason CO2 greenhouse effect is masked, because water vapour transfers heat to the troposphere in the form of latent heat of vapourization. Then that is emitted as IR at the top of the air column and out to space above most of the CO2 – when the water vapour condenses.

  79. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ah I see I’ve hit a soft spot.
    Hark is going ad hom.
    Warmists always go ad hom when they are losing the argument
    I used to have epic discussions with Dave Appell.
    He was a pretty good opponent.
    But he’d always go ad hom in the end because the science wasn’t on his side.

    Stick to data and logical inference like scientists are supposed to.

  80. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ah I see I’ve hit a soft spot.
    Hark is going ad hom.
    Warmists always go ad hom when they are losing the argument
    I used to have epic discussions with Dave App-ll. (*)
    He was a pretty good opponent.
    But he’d always go ad hom in the end because the science wasn’t on his side.

    Stick to data and logical inference like scientists are supposed to.

    (* Sorry ‘p e l l’ gets moderated on the blog because of legal issues.)

  81. Tel

    The problem for lukewarmism is that the temperatures keep going up, and the models are being shown to be pretty good.

    If by “good” you mean good fit to observations, no the models overestimate significantly, and the discrepancy is getting worse.

    Then I could mention the prediction by Dr David Viner, of the University of East Anglia “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” made in 2000.

    Multiple predictions of an ice free Arctic, every few years another one, still waiting for that to happen.

    Maps showing sea level swamping most of the world’s major cities (let me check outside) … no still no surf in Western Sydney (yeah I know, they treat us like serfs but that doesn’t count).

    Then there’s the “warmlist” of all the crazy things that global warming either has done or is just about to do, which is quite beyond the pale. The other day I heard a very sincere sounding science guy trying to explain about the Scientific Method and how at the heart of it is peer review and consensus. Sadly, I’m not kidding. I won’t embarrass the guy by linking but the climate alarmists have now become essentially indistinguishable from the “End of the world is nigh!” cultists … it doesn’t matter how many times they have been wrong already, they will still believe come what may.

    I blame the schools.

  82. JC

    #2875162, posted on November 29, 2018 at 3:50 pm

    This cock (Harkwit) will not shut up, he just ignores peer-reviewed science and blabs on.

    I think JC was right. It is Al Trumble.

    I reckon it’s the kid. The entire family is malfunctioning. One is worse than the other. Despicable.

  83. Jef

    Malcolm Turnbull..the biggest joke .He stole the job as PM from Tony Abbott by stabbing the latter in the back just because he wanted to be a Prime Minister. But after he got the job he did not know what to do, and started blaming everyone except himself for his failure.And I think he will blame Abbott too for his act of treachery !What a POS !

  84. cohenite

    Fuck, who is this moron troll.

    the models are being shown to be pretty good.

    . That’s complete bullshit; the fucking models can’t even hindcast.

  85. Rayvic

    The government needs to do far more than threaten the big energy rent-seekers to make what are really token retail price reductions.

    It needs to play the trump card — no pun intended.

    It needs to get construction of at least one or two new high-efficiency baseload power stations underway in 2019, cancel construction of the grossly inadequate Snowy 2 scheme, and abolition of subsidies for mickey-mouse renewables. Otherwise, there will be ongoing power blackouts with consequent plant closures and job losses — irreversible deindustrialisation will set in.

Comments are closed.