Comment: Abbott's uncomfortable climate policy

Abbott v Rudd

Well, the Coalition have finally revealed their climate policy, and it looks as uneasy as one would expect. At least it’s not a massive new tax a la ETS, but the gestures towards cutting carbon dioxide (well done to TA for making this small but important point) are really just that. TA looked uncomfortable on The 7.30 Report last night, defending a policy that you know he doesn’t really believe in, and Kerry O’Brien succeeded in exposing that conflict.

The problem is that, deep down, TA is a true sceptic [Bravo for that – Ed]. He knows that the climate science is corrupted and that the projections for dangerous global warming are mostly hype. However, he doesn’t believe he can say this in the current political climate – which is probably right. Not doing anything would give Labor and the Greens a field day – branding the Opposition “deniers”, “flat earthers” and every other warmist ad hominem known to man. It would also go down very badly with the public at the moment, who have been so utterly brainwashed by the government and a media in its pocket that they still believe global warming needs action. This is despite everything that has happened since Climategate in November, and the disaster of Copenhagen in December.

This, however, is starting to change. The Australian continues to print sceptical articles, and even the Fairfax press have begun doing the same. The barrage of stories exposing incompetence and manipulation or suppression of data in the IPCC reports continues unabated. The IPCC has been exposed, not as a body of scientific impartiality, but of extremist environmental advocacy.

In time, the weight of evidence against the “consensus” will eventually percolate through to the public, despite the media’s increasingly unsuccessful attempts at its suppression. Eventually (and I hope it happens before the election), the collective public penny will drop, and there will be a unanimous cry of “We’ve been conned.”

So TA should bide his time and continue with his “interim” policy, until the political climate and public opinion can accept what should be the proper Coalition position: that climate change is a non-problem.


  1. OT but important – Al Gore is looking at getting his hands on your super!

  2. Fantastic article. Totally agree it would be too hard to bring the non problem to a conclusion without an interim policy. So Abott is suggesting $3.5b versus Rudds $40B get rich banker carbon scheme.

    At least Abott proposes planting trees, some jobs will come there, but at less than 1/10th the budget some good is done and eventually the public will see that while the tree planting is good, there is not a global warming problem.

    Australia has natural weather patterns, severe as they seem sometimes, the public have to learn it has nothing to do with a catastrophic time frame for the end of the planet. In the last 100 years population growth has put a demand on water resources mainly, in cities and for agriculture. The main issue for Australia is maintaining a cheap energy suppy and relative cheap water supplies. Innovation and science is the way forward.

  3. John Lown says:

    Perhaps Tony should bite the bullet sooner rather than later and start a REAL debate by promoting the case for no action on CO2. It should be easier to mount a cohesive and sensible argument for no action based on the REAL science than trying to fudge a meaningless funding alternative and consequently digging holes for himself.
    He only needs three sets of facts: 1) Only 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2. 2) Industrial activity accounts for only about 3% of CO2 emissions ( most is from the oceans, and animals & humans breathing).3) Only about 3% of the earth’s surface is occupied by humans ( oceans, deserts, mountains etc. makes up most of the surface area). Together these facts make a nonsense out of any claim that CO2 is a problem.

  4. I agree with John. Abbott trying to have his cake and eat it, too. It is dumb to waste this opportunity to expose the fraud. Instead, he continues to lend credence to it, and he will be lucky, or should I say, WE will be lucky, if Labor and the Greens do not impose on us a carbon tax, only to be expanded later in to a fully-fledged ETS, as they are determined to do. And once a tax is introduced, which political party will be able to wean itself off it, once in government? The GST provides a good example, and a carbon tax will be the GST from hell, as it has already been labeled by many people. It will see our jobs being shipped overseas at an ever greater rate. How long will our domestic economy be able to survive this relentless assault?

  5. Andrew McRae says:

    Industrial activity accounts for only about 3% of CO2 emissions (most is from the oceans, and animals & humans breathing)

    I’d like to know which set of measurements supports that statement.
    Regardless of how much it warms the planet, nearly all atmospheric CO2 increase since 1750 has been from industry, simply on the basis of countries’ estimates of total consumption of coal/oil/gas, most of which got burned, and knowing only 47% is absorbed by the ocean.
    See here….

    The warmists reckon the CO2 concentration in the ocean has increased since 1750, not decreased, which would prove there cannot be a net outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. I haven’t found the observational evidence for this yet, but I’m still looking on the off-chance it may turn out to actually be true. FYI, my analysis of the WAVES data from NOAA is somewhat inconclusive on the matter.

    Rising CO2 also causes ocean acidification This unfortunately disproves something we skeptics have been saying for many years: that CO2 is not a pollutant. The poison, as they say, is in the dose.

%d bloggers like this: