“Abbott & Monckton & bears, oh my!”

This is hilarious! Mr Abbott still wants us to take him seriously on climate change? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Mr Abbott has branded the Government’s ETS as a “great big tax” while Mr Rudd counter-attacked by describing Mr Abbott’s plan as a “con job” from a man who thinks climate change is “absolute crap.”

Lord Monckton, a former journalist and political adviser to Margaret Thatcher, disputes the UN Climate Panel’s findings that the planet is warming.

He has also said that global efforts to combat climate change are actually a cover to create a world government.

Abbott pencils in date with Monckton – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

The sad thing is I’m not convinced Kevin Rudd’s ETS is going to do a whole lot either.

If either of them vowed to adopt the Beyond Zero Emissions plans, then I’d be impressed… and Australia might actually have a chance of surviving peak oil without a Greater Depression. But at this stage… nothing’s going to happen about preparing for either Global Warming or Peak Oil until Peak Oil slaps our economy around. Only then will governments and corporations start to take this stuff seriously… but then we’ll have a Greater Depression to deal with as well. Fun hey?

This entry was posted in Denial. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “Abbott & Monckton & bears, oh my!”

  1. deeliberate says:

    You don’t think that an ETS is a “great big tax”? Whilst I doubt the true motives behind Abbott and Monckton at least they have brought about an awareness that the science needs questioning and that Copenhagen was a real attempt to formulate a real structure for World Government by taxing and controlling us to no end. Have you attended any of Lord Monckton’s talks?? Part of the Copenhagen Treaty was to put an end to Free Trade, Tax all financial transactions, a 2% of GDP tax for all ‘wealthy’ nations and unlimited fines. We do not need to ‘prepare’ for a warming as the planet has been cooling for the past 9 years! Thats why the media are banding around “Climate Change” and not “Global Warming” anymore as the initial IPCC science has been proven wrong. Anyway, at the end of the day, I believe it IS a “great big tax” that threatens to destroy the economies of the western world and cripple the Third World.

    • eclipsenow says:

      Wow, you’ve just mirrored the last 20 Denialists I’ve met online. All assertion but no peer reviewed evidence. Don’t you guys know how to link to credible source material?

      Also, the “cooling since 1998” myth is so sad… even some of your denialist heroes are warning not to use that one.

      A/ It was the hottest decade on record (see all the studies linked to in this wiki)

      B/ Even Denialists are admitting that 1998 was ‘super-spiked’ above the normal warming trend because of a super-El Nino, and so to claim it has been ‘cooling’ since 1998 is like saying Chilli in the eyes doesn’t hurt, well, that is compared to Mustard Gas!

      C/ What are you going to do if, as some predict, 2010 is the hottest year on record? Wait a few years and then say, “Look, it’s been cooling since 2010!”

      D/ Lord Monckton Lies… I saw his performance on “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and his lies have been documented.

      James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has “no training whatsoever in science”, and criticise his asserted credentials as “unfounded self-promotion.”[14] The Daily Telegraph has described him as “a former economic adviser”.[8]

      There are dozens of climatologists that could tear strips off him, but he’s so pompous and arrogant and vindictive in his debating style that they just won’t go near him because it would give him the attention he desires, and the sheer complexity of the science takes longer to explain than a debating format. Basically, even an activist group like Beyond Zero Emissions believe he’d win. How? Through calm and careful explanation of the science? No, but through charlatan show business and groundless conspiracy theory accusations. He knows how to work a crowd and please the Denialists. The majority of the time he might just be preaching to the choir, but so many Australians are uninformed about the basic science that according to BZE, many scientists are reluctant to risk debating him because he’s so good at spraying out the lies. (Like the “cooling since 1998 myth”, when NASA says 2005 equalled 1998). So the scientists continue doing science, and Lord Monckton continues being a buffoon.

      E/ I’m all for World government anyway, so that’s hardly a threat! The European Union emerged out of an agreement on coal and steel production. Maybe when the globe begins to understand how serious the situation is, we could see the beginnings of a global agreement that gradually creates a World Federal government.

      F/ Climatologists are powerless, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’d be really interested to see the details of the Copenhagen treaty. But did you notice something? It didn’t pass. So much for an all powerful global warming conspiracy! According to the “Climategate” emails, they can’t even prevent a paper being published that they knew was full of anti-warming, anti-science propaganda rubbish. It got published anyway, and the peer review process revealed the paper was rubbish anyway.

      Tax destroys hey? Do you know about peak oil? Europe has traditionally had much higher taxes on oil. Consequently, the European Union uses about half the oil of America. As a result, America is the most oil dependent, oil addicted, and most exposed country in the world to peak oil. While I happen to agree with you that an ETS might not be the most prudent way forward (as it is not URGENT enough!), the purpose is to mimic something like the European Union’s slower uptake of oil and exponential uptake of renewable energy. The ETS is a way of ‘creating a market’ for renewables.

      I’d rather the iron fist of a World Government ban on any new coal power station, ever again, and let peak oil and gas and the aging of coal power stations take over the depletion, and watch the renewables (and maybe even Gen3 nuclear?) industries soar! But that’s me.

      IF you one day decided to accept the science behind global warming, what would you propose as the solution?

  2. deeliberate says:

    The fact that you are “all for a World Government anyway” is shocking. How would a centralised World Order run by a few governing self-interested elitists “solve” this [non-existant] warming?! Your high opinion of those in charge is pretty naive if you think they actually care about our planet [or us for that matter]. You have raised a few interesting points but in my opinion you fail, like most with your anti-sceptism into the science fail to understand the key ambitions and mechanisms behind this agenda. For example, the tax system/creation of money itself? Dig beneath the surface of the ETS scheme slightly…
    Do you believe that there is no debate on the matter? That the general public should not be privy to the ‘science’ put forward. Should we simply assume that anthropogenic factors have had an effect on our climate enough to justify bankrupting the Western World [ like, “let’s call it “Climate Change” people and then we have all probabilities covered” mentality?]
    I do not profess to knowing all the science. Like most people, I guess we are trying to piece together a rather complicated mess of government funded research and conspiracy theory, politics and common sense.

    The question I think remains- should we properly examine the science on this one before we go ahead and cripple the Western World, begin a major global restructuring of trade, taxation, place devastating limits to growth in the Third World and line the pockets of Al Gore [Google ‘CCX’- A company whos main shareholder is Mr Gore] and the like?

    I do not have a solution. None at all. I would just like it if we could live in a transparent democracy where public opinion is heard. Sceptism is encouraged [aren’t all scientists “skeptics”?!].

    Truth on, buddy.

  3. eclipsenow says:

    The idea of world government is precisely so that corporate conspiracies by multinationals, many of them more wealthy and powerful than the bottom 100 nations COMBINED, can’t just do as they please on the world stage.

    The world parliament that the political philosophers I read would construct a democratically accountable, open, transparent, multi-media system where every vote and every speech by every politician would be available to the public, on demand. It would prevent the ‘dirty deals done behind closed doors’ method of the IMF, UN, World Bank, etc. Your ‘argument’s against world government are no different to those Australian’s 100 years ago that were paranoid that a Federation would only serve the interests of the ruling elite.

    As to climate science needing to be sceptical? Yep, that’s very true. Scientists are trained in scepticism, that’s science 101. But when the repeatable, testable, empirical physics of how Carbon dioxide reacts to various wavelengths of energy is run again and again in the lab, then they accept Co2 refracts heat energy back to the earth by XYZ amounts. When they run the math on 280ppm verses 385ppm, they can repeatedly demonstrate that Co2 does so MORE than it did prior to the Industrial Revolution. When they measure the ebb and flow of solar forcings, the constancy and feedbacks of water vapour, the changing albedo’s of ice cover, black soot, etc… they can get an idea of the relative adjustments to the OVERALL atmospheric climate energy balance that Co2 and other gases makes. When they measure the Earth’s ‘wobble’ over a 100 thousand year period and check these Milankovitch cycles, and test for Co2’s impact, then they find that in *these* situations yes the sun was the trigger for climate change in *this* situation, but that Co2 acted as a feedback amplifying the natural variability over the 30 thousand year cycle, 60 thousand year cycle, and 100 thousand year mega-cycle.

    And now that we are dumping Co2, methane, and nitrous oxides (that are 300 times more powerful than Co2!) into the atmosphere, the best of the PEER REVIEWED, SCEPTICAL, QUESTIONING science has concluded that while there still might be a few grey areas, there is more than enough evidence to justify action.

    Ignoring 100 years of climate science and trying to write it off as a “Conspiracy” seems to me to be fantastical thinking out there with a Dan Brown novel. “It’s all a CONSPIRACY!” is a convenient, unanswerable cliché, designed to subject the opponent to such an overwhelmingly emotive and powerful *belief system* that it effectively ends the conversation.

    It’s a cheap shot, propagated by big oil. Now *THERE’s* the conspiracy, as documented by CBC’s “Denial Machine” and many other credible, mainstreet journalist sources. You don’t have to take the word of ‘some blogger’ here, go to the sources, including the American House Committee!

    Also, you haven’t answered the issue of peak fossil fuels. We have to leave oil before it leaves us, or have you seen the Mad Max movies? We have to invent the alternative energy sources DECADES before fossil fuels peak, or else there simply won’t be time to deploy them.

    In other words, if global warming was some sort of myth, I’d be grateful that at least that very nasty threat had gone, because the threat of fossil fuel extraction peaking and then going into decline hasn’t stimulated quite as much alternative energy research as global warming.

    THE HARSH REALITY? EVEN COAL MIGHT PEAK BETWEEN NOW AND 2048 SOMETIME…. and after peak production, we’d face a world where coal permanently rose in price because it could never again meet demand. Because of the nature of mining profiles and the ‘peaking’ of a resource, we basically have to start to prepare for a world without coal by the time we’ve used only *half of it*, at roughly which point production peaks.

    Do you want to live in a world where your electricity costs triple overnight, and then double again the year after, and maybe continue to do so the year after that?

    By just sitting sweet and pretty and saying “All is well”, aren’t you DENIALISTS the ones condemning us to poverty and wrecking the world economy by ignoring both the REALITY of climate change AND peak fossil fuels?

  4. eclipsenow says:

    PS: I forgot to add, the PEER REVIEW process is where the sceptical, questioning science is done… not some nutter like Lord Monckton or Ian Plimer publishing a book full of scientific errors and climate myths and fallacies. The Denialists sulk about conspiracies because they simply can’t get their silly ideas published! Bad science remains bad science even when published in a glossy Denialist best seller. And if you track the money behind some of these writers, you’ll find that they’re the ones involved in a conspiracy of misinformation!

  5. eclipsenow says:

    I didn’t really expect a reply, but this does illustrate some of the themes I’ve noticed when engaging Denialists.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s