A great read, as always!

Tom Switzer, former advisor to ex-Liberal leader Brendan Nelson, writes a timely and perceptive article in The Spectator about the position of the Coalition in the climate change debate. I encourage you to read it all. Here are a few key quotes:

Amid economic uncertainty, the new Liberal leader insists that ‘whatever Australia does will be ineffective unless it is part of a global solution’; and yet he also remains committed to a 2011 or 2012 start date for the implementation of an ETS regardless of the outcome of the Copenhagen global conference in December 2009.

Which raises the obvious point: why even make plans to implement an ETS now? If the world’s major emitters such as China, India and the US — which together will account for more than 50 per cent of global emissions by 2030 — won’t participate in any serious carbon reduction plans, why should Australia — which will account for only 1 per cent of global emissions — slash emissions to 60 per cent of 2000 levels in the next 40 years?

Absolutely – why are politicians incapable of grasping this blindingly obvious point?

In the midst of a global financial crisis, moreover, it is surely Pollyanna-ish to think the world will somehow reach a consensus on climate change. The Chinese government is not only refusing to cut its emissions; it is building a new coal-fired plant nearly every week. The Indian government is not only rejecting Rudd-style cuts; it is unashamedly saying poverty poses a greater threat to its people than climate change.

Spot on again.

In any case, conservatives won’t be able to attack effectively the government’s global warming scheme if they remain carbon copies of Labor. When all is said and done, Turnbull and his shadow environment minister Greg Hunt agree with virtually everything that Rudd and his climate change minister Penny Wong say about taxing industry and redistributing the proceeds at potentially huge cost to the economy.

The only point of difference is the start date: the government supports a deadline of 2010; the opposition says no later than 2012 — no matter what the rest of the world does. But by putting forward a simple, sharp critique of this costly and risky scheme at a time of global economic turmoil and when no global consensus exists, the Coalition would be better able to feel the pain of battlers who will suffer most from higher energy prices as companies pass on costs.

It is nothing short of brilliant. READ IT ALL!

Why would she do that, unless she had no idea whatsoever of the role she has accepted? She’s the Queen’s representative in Australia, and therefore above politics, but here she is, helping none other than Ross Garnaut, launch the book version of his report – a highly political document prepared for the Labor Government.

Recently appointed governor-general Quentin Bryce, who introduced Professor Garnaut at the launch, called on all Australians to get involved in the issue.

“I invite all Australians to be a part of the most important conversation we will ever have,” the governor-general said.

We’re always happy to have a conversation, it’s the alarmists that say the debate is over.

“We have an obligation as a public officer to endeavour to understand the human face of hardship and suffering, the private dimension to widespread crisis.”

“We have an obligation as a public officer” – is that the royal “we” in use there? I think she’s getting a bit above herself… Read the rule book again, please Ms Bryce.

Read it here.

Gardeners beware, climate change will mean your backyards overrun with creepers, runners, triffid-like vegetation… well, maybe not, but a conference in Launceston has heard that the Tasmanian State Government needs to spend more on preventing the spread of weeds “as temperature increases.”

“If you think of national parks, the edges are often really disturbed now if you have climate change disturbing vegetation over a broad scale a lot of plants like gorse they’re just going to move straight in to national parks and your weed problems are going to explode.“

Don’t forget, you heard it here first. Source.

From Jennifer’s blog:

Stewart Franks, Bob Carter and I gave a presentation at Parliament House on Monday evening on Climate Change. Professor Carter focused on global temperatures, I followed with some rainfall graphs for different parts of Australia, and then Associate Professor Franks explained why rainfall along the east coast of Australia is so variable and dominated by either El Nina or La Nina cycles back at least as far as 1660.

Let’s hope the pollies had their ears open and their brains engaged. Read the rest here.

Not great timing for our local scientific and industrial research organisation, CSIRO, to support Ross Garnaut’s barking mad plan to abandon sheep and cattle and farm kangaroo instead, given that “climate change” will wipe out most of our roos anyway (see here). Still, they start the piece with some quality BS:

As Australians become more concerned about climate change, sustainability and loss of social cohesion, many are seeking more environmentally friendly, community-based alternative lifestyles such as those offered by rural and urban ecovillages.

Are you kidding? We’re all worrying whether our savings, or houses, or super funds will be there in the morning. We couldn’t give a kangaroo’s for climate change right now. Read the press release here.

Desperation Alert: I’m really tired of writing posts about Climate Penny, but when she continues to spout such claptrap, I really have no option. The Age (who else) quotes our Pen as saying that Australia has a “moral duty” to tackle climate change. Again, speaking at the LSE:

“There is a moral and personal dimension to this debate,” she said.

“Ultimately, we are not doing this only for ourselves.

“We have a responsibility to future generations to tackle climate change while we can.”

It was now more urgent than ever to act on climate change.

I suppose if the earth is cooling and more and more scientists (and the general public) are questioning whether anthropogenic CO2 has any effect on climate, Wong’s justifications for pushing ahead regardless will have to get more desperate with time. Watch this space for more desperate reasons why we must “tackle climate change”.

Read it here.

Following on from Andrew Bolt’s post yesterday, Watts Up With That? has the full story, and comments:

There is no mention of this on the [US] National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice news webpage, which has been trumpeting every loss and low for the past two years…not a peep. You’d think this would be big news.

Doesn’t surprise me, sadly. Read it here.

Slightly off topic, but it’s so refreshing when a Labor Prime Minister slips back into the old politics of envy, and reveals his true colours (bright red).

“What we have seen is the comprehensive failure of extreme capitalism – extreme capitalism which now turns to government to prevent systemic failure. The [same] institutions of government that extreme capitalism spent decades deriding,” he said.

Let’s remind ourselves – Rudd, like all in his government, are not just watered down Liberals, they are old-fashioned copper-bottomed socialists at heart and cannot resist the temptation to have a go at the market economy when they have a chance. Let’s hope Rudd is a one-term government.

Read it here.

Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun (thanks to Tom Nelson) discusses the recent Canadian election in which Conservative Stephen Harper won on an anti-carbon tax agenda. The Canadian Press:

The Conservatives attacked Liberal Leader Stephane Dion during the election campaign over his proposed carbon tax on fossil fuels, offset by income-tax reductions and special energy tax credits for the poor. So it’s hard to imagine Stephen Harper’s Tories ever adopting a policy he claimed would destroy Canada’s economy.

As Andrew says: Malcolm Turnbull, are you watching?

The Daily Bayonet also has a great post on this topic: “Carbon Taxes Lose Elections” – read it here.

Read Andrew Bolt’s post here.