Genuinely Grassroots Fury Over ETS, As opposed To Phony Alarmist Lobbying
o n z o b
November 28 2009
IT'S a matter of grave concern for stalwart rank-and-file Liberal Party
members that Malcolm Turnbull's number one supporter for his global-warming
stance is now no less a figure than Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard,
while his number two supporter is the former union leader, Greg Combet.
That the embattled Opposition leader enjoys such support underscores the
anger of those Liberals who feel Turnbull has taken liberties with his
leadership in supporting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's totally flawed
emissions trading legislation.
The backing of a duo last united so publicly in their bid to prop up the
historically corrupt Maritime Union of Australia's stranglehold on the
nation's docks, has not gone unnoticed; and nor has Turnbull's use of
stalling tactics more usually applied in the spivvy world of corporate
takeovers than party politics.
His decision to delay until Tuesday what seems an inevitable loss of the
leadership seems primarily designed to allow the Rudd government to get its
economically disastrous ETS legislation through the Senate, enabling Rudd to
boast that he has achieved what others, Canada and the US particularly,
failed to complete - the successful passage of a nation-destroying Bill
before the UN Copenhagen meeting next month.
Far from the conservatives threatening the future of the Liberal Party, the
party has in fact been white-anted by those who lost touch with its core
membership on the whole global-warming issue.
It's important to note, though, the Canberra press gallery has chosen to
overlook the fact that there are just as many ALP members uncomfortable
about Rudd's ETS as there on the Opposition benches.
ALP MPs holding marginal electorates are keenly aware of the unpopularity of
the ETS beyond the party's inner-urban branches.
For a so-called progressive party, the ALP has shown itself to be anything
but - in its reliance on sub-standard science, its resorting to censorship
of scientific critics and its engagement in an extraordinary smear-and-fear
campaign spearheaded by Rudd himself.
This lack of scientific rigour was best revealed by Rudd's own ridiculously
pathetic attempts to portray a run of hot Adelaide days as portents of
catastrophe and calamity in an Armageddon-like scenario hitherto unrevealed
beyond the Book of Revelation.
As a paper produced by the decidedly non-partisan parliamentary library
stated last week, the biggest heatwave in recorded Australian history did
not occur last week, nor last century.
As Senator Eric Abetz told the Senate, it was in fact in December 1895, when
437 people were killed and 5000 people were injured. At the time, Australia's
population was just over 3 million.
If such a tragedy was exacted on today's population, the toll would be in
the order of 2100 with 35,000 injured. No doubt energy-consuming
airconditioning would save many, to the chagrin of fear-mongering Greens and
ETS spruikers.
The report quoted by Senator Abetz also noted the second most devastating
heatwave was recorded in 1938, with 438 killed and 5000 injured at a time
when the population had doubled to some 6 million.
And as for extreme weather events - none of which has yet been successfully
linked to human-induced global warming - the most damaging cyclone in
Australian history occurred on March 4, 1899, with 400 lost at Cooktown.
Turnbull has tried to cloak himself in the trappings of modernity, claiming
to argue that young people want action on global warming and that he
represents the way forward for conservatism in Australia.
But in reality, Turnbull's views are more in accord with the noisy
inner-city minorities found in his Wentworth electorate. The modern face of
conservatism is represented by Tony Abbott, 52, and others who oppose the
ETS and seek to maintain faith with mainstream Liberals and conservative
Australians include Sophie Mirabella, 41, Tony Smith, 42, Scott Ryan, 36,
Michaelia Cash, 39, Matthias Cormann, 39, Cory Bernardi, 40, Mitch Fifield,
42, David Bushby, 44, Brett Mason, 47, and Connie Fierravanti-Wells, 49 - or
most of the parliamentary party's new generation. And falling back on the
argument that John Howard backed an ETS almost a decade ago has whiskers
now.
Those in the electorate who have bothered to inform themselves and not be
influenced by the emotive arguments issuing from the self-confessed
scientific ignoramuses of the blogosphere know more about the charlatans
involved in promoting global warming than they did when Kyoto was first
mooted.
Al Gore has since been revealed as a con man, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's scientific backing shown to be criminally distorted and
emissions trading outed as another financial derivative to be run by the
same traders who saw opportunities in no-document loans.
All politicians are feeling the heat from those who are genuinely concerned
that the ETS is being ram-rodded through Parliament to give Rudd an
international profile and all politicians are being deluged by phone calls,
emails and letters from constituents in what is truly a grassroots campaign
rather than a phony display of the type mounted by professional lobbying
organisations such as GetUp!
Turnbull did not have party support to make a deal with Rudd: The party room
gave him authority to negotiate but retained the right to ratify or reject
any deal.
He is not acting in the best interests of the nation or his party if he
persists in attempting to allow Labor to pass its disastrous ETS tomorrow in
the face of such disquiet across the country.
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Here's Johnny
> November 28 2009
>
> IT'S a matter of grave concern for stalwart rank-and-file Liberal
> Party members that Malcolm Turnbull's number one supporter for his
> global-warming stance is now no less a figure than Deputy Prime
> Minister Julia Gillard, while his number two supporter is the former
> union leader, Greg Combet.
Ad hom.
The environment is out of the scope of traditional left vs right politics.
We're not talking about middle-class welfare, rights of unions, minimum
wages, or any of the usual stuff. This is purely scientific and economic -
and the economics of Rudd's plan is very similar to what Howard took to the
polls in '07.
> That the embattled Opposition leader enjoys such support underscores
> the anger of those Liberals who feel Turnbull has taken liberties
> with his leadership in supporting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's totally
> flawed emissions trading legislation.
Oh really? Are these the same Liberal supporters who have him equal
favourite with Hockey to win the spill?
> The backing of a duo last united so publicly in their bid to prop up
> the historically corrupt Maritime Union of Australia's stranglehold
> on the nation's docks, has not gone unnoticed; and nor has Turnbull's
> use of stalling tactics more usually applied in the spivvy world of
> corporate takeovers than party politics.
The MUA episode has nothing whatever to do with this issue. It was Gillard's
and Combet's job to take up the fight on behalf of their members. Whatever
other appalling politics this pair previously or currently support is
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
As for Turnbull stalling - what would you do, in his position? And on what
planet is politics less tactical than business?
> His decision to delay until Tuesday what seems an inevitable loss of
> the leadership seems primarily designed to allow the Rudd government
> to get its economically disastrous ETS legislation through the
> Senate, enabling Rudd to boast that he has achieved what others,
> Canada and the US particularly, failed to complete - the successful
> passage of a nation-destroying Bill before the UN Copenhagen meeting
> next month.
It "seems designed", does it? Any quote from anyone actually connected to
the issues would be handy support for such a semi-claim.
> Far from the conservatives threatening the future of the Liberal
> Party, the party has in fact been white-anted by those who lost touch
> with its core membership on the whole global-warming issue.
What a laugh. Howard reigned as long as he did precisely because he was able
to reach beyond the core membership. Both sides of politics battle for the
middle ground these days. Core membership being disillusioned with the
particulars of any policy stopped being relevant a decade ago.
> It's important to note, though, the Canberra press gallery has chosen
> to overlook the fact that there are just as many ALP members
> uncomfortable about Rudd's ETS as there on the Opposition benches.
That is indeed interesting, and that's a first for your post.
> ALP MPs holding marginal electorates are keenly aware of the
> unpopularity of the ETS beyond the party's inner-urban branches.
C'mon, quotes. Which ALP members, which seats, who said what, or are you
full of shit?
> For a so-called progressive party, the ALP has shown itself to be
> anything but - in its reliance on sub-standard science, its resorting
> to censorship of scientific critics and its engagement in an
> extraordinary smear-and-fear campaign spearheaded by Rudd himself.
Sounds like a bunch of politicians to me.
> This lack of scientific rigour was best revealed by Rudd's own
> ridiculously pathetic attempts to portray a run of hot Adelaide days
> as portents of catastrophe and calamity in an Armageddon-like
> scenario hitherto unrevealed beyond the Book of Revelation.
> As a paper produced by the decidedly non-partisan parliamentary
> library stated last week, the biggest heatwave in recorded Australian
> history did not occur last week, nor last century.
> As Senator Eric Abetz told the Senate, it was in fact in December
> 1895, when 437 people were killed and 5000 people were injured. At
> the time, Australia's population was just over 3 million.
> If such a tragedy was exacted on today's population, the toll would
> be in the order of 2100 with 35,000 injured. No doubt energy-consuming
> airconditioning would save many, to the chagrin of fear-mongering
> Greens and ETS spruikers.
> The report quoted by Senator Abetz also noted the second most
> devastating heatwave was recorded in 1938, with 438 killed and 5000
> injured at a time when the population had doubled to some 6 million.
> And as for extreme weather events - none of which has yet been
> successfully linked to human-induced global warming - the most
> damaging cyclone in Australian history occurred on March 4, 1899,
> with 400 lost at Cooktown.
> Turnbull has tried to cloak himself in the trappings of modernity,
> claiming to argue that young people want action on global warming and
> that he represents the way forward for conservatism in Australia.
OK, you've jumped from debunking Rudd (without actually quoting what he
said) to jumping back to Turnbull. Can't help but think you're trying to pin
criticism of Rudd on Malcolm here.
> But in reality, Turnbull's views are more in accord with the noisy
> inner-city minorities found in his Wentworth electorate.
What, so he ought to align himself with his core party membership, but not
his electorate???
> The modern
> face of conservatism is represented by Tony Abbott, 52, and others
> who oppose the ETS and seek to maintain faith with mainstream
> Liberals and conservative Australians
"Maintain faith" is right, if you're talking about Abbott. He is a
dangerous, religious prick and I will vote Labor to keep him out of the
Lodge, should he lead the Libs at the next election. Then again, I won't
have to - 90% of the country will.
None of this addresses the really salient point - who gives a shit what
particular people think, when you're talking about a scientific debate?
You're banging on about keeeping faith with conservatives - as if their
opinions change the science!
The issue is whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real, or is
significant, or is something an unrequited Australian ETS will address. It's
a complex route to the answer, but the answer is nonetheless objectively
demonstrable, or will be. Whether or not any particular group agrees is
utterly irrelevant.
include Sophie Mirabella, 41,
> Tony Smith, 42, Scott Ryan, 36, Michaelia Cash, 39, Matthias Cormann,
> 39, Cory Bernardi, 40, Mitch Fifield, 42, David Bushby, 44, Brett
> Mason, 47, and Connie Fierravanti-Wells, 49 - or most of the
> parliamentary party's new generation. And falling back on the
> argument that John Howard backed an ETS almost a decade ago has
> whiskers now.
Your list of folks and their ages is not relevant. Howard backing an ETS is
relevant, if you're arguing that it should be opposed on philosophical
grounds.
> Those in the electorate who have bothered to inform themselves and
> not be influenced by the emotive arguments issuing from the
> self-confessed scientific ignoramuses of the blogosphere know more
> about the charlatans involved in promoting global warming than they
> did when Kyoto was first mooted.
The blogosphere? Do you really think the average person regularly reads
blogs?
> Al Gore has since been revealed as a con man, the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change's scientific backing shown to be criminally
> distorted and emissions trading outed as another financial derivative
> to be run by the same traders who saw opportunities in no-document
> loans.
Ad hom attack on Al Gore - irrelevant. There are holes in his argument, but
point to which one is fatal.
IPCC "criminal"? Can you back this up?
And the coup de grace - equating cap 'n' trade with the sub-prime crisis.
Classy stuff.
> All politicians are feeling the heat from those who are genuinely
> concerned that the ETS is being ram-rodded through Parliament to give
> Rudd an international profile and all politicians are being deluged
> by phone calls, emails and letters from constituents in what is truly
> a grassroots campaign rather than a phony display of the type mounted
> by professional lobbying organisations such as GetUp!
You might have noticed Rudd giving speeches and appearing all diplomatic
over the past year or so, in a variety of fora around the world. The fact
that he's the Prime Minister, while that fact certainly sucks balls, has
already given him an international profile.
If you or anyone else thinks any other country gives a flying rat's arse
about what we put together - and it will certainly be nothing far from what
others around the world are themselves considering - you're mistaken, in my
opinion. Our economy has different fundamental characteristics than those of
other countries, and our ETS will be accordingly different. The
castratory/compensatory measures will more or less make it a useless
paper-pushing exercise until such time as the compensations are reduced.
Other countries will not fail to notice this. Nothing is going to be
achieved in Copenhagen anyway, so there's no point "waiting to see what
happens". Nothing will happen - just an agreement to have another junket
somewhere else.
> Turnbull did not have party support to make a deal with Rudd: The
> party room gave him authority to negotiate but retained the right to
> ratify or reject any deal.
Yes, and they ratified it, right?
> He is not acting in the best interests of the nation or his party if
> he persists in attempting to allow Labor to pass its disastrous ETS
> tomorrow in the face of such disquiet across the country.
Reminds me of the other side arguing that the GST was going to be a
disaster. C'mon Henny Penny, chin up.
Ah... good old Piers Akerman.