Penny Wong: defender of Copenhagen, climate science and the IPCC


Penny who? Sorry, it’s been so long since we heard anything from the Wong-bot, that I’d forgotten about her, which was actually quite nice. But now she’s back, the latest version of Windows 7 installed, spouting the same old fearmongering tactics and tired old clichés in a last, desperate effort to get the ETS passed (stifles yawn):

CLIMATE change threatens to reshape the face of Bondi Beach, Bells Beach and the Sunshine Coast unless “large and expensive nourishment programs” are implemented, Penny Wong warned today.

Shortly before the government’s ETS bills are to be considered by the upper house, Ms Wong mounted a vigorous defence of the Copenhagen Summit, the science behind climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [now THAT I would love to have heard – Ed] and suggested the future of some of the nation’s most popular beaches was under threat.

The Climate Change Minister also said the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was the most effective way to take meaningful action, dismissing the Opposition leader’s rival plan.

In the address to the National Coastal Climate Change Forum in Adelaide this morning, Ms Wong said it was “possible that with climate change, and without large and expensive nourishment programs Bondi Beach, Sunshine Coast and Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today.”

Zzzz… Oh, sorry – nodded off there. No one’s listening any more Penny. Save your batteries, spin down the hard drive, throttle back the CPU, clear the cache, and shut down – for good this time.

Read it here.

UPDATE: The whole speech is here in all its robotic tedium, and as predicted recycles all the alarmist BS that we’ve heard before, including the old canard of comparing climate realists with those who question the link between smoking and cancer, which personally I find deeply offensive.


  1. Her speech has more spin than a tumble dryer..

    The references to Bondi and Sunshine Coast are mere emotional spins, since there’s been no studies specific to these locations to show they’re under threat. It’s more likely a reference to the agenda of the Coastal and Climate Change Committee, which is based on a *prediction* of a rise in sea-level of 1.1m; pure alarmism, especially when you consider that sea levels have been dropping the past few years.. they need to play catch-up to match the predictions.

    Her reference to the IPCC’s evaluation of climate change and costs of catastrophes is close enough to a lie.

    Her rhetoric is so full of strawmen and spin, Rumplestiltskin would be envious.

  2. Oh dear, the pain the pain. Please put her out of our misery and pull her power pack. Where is Dr Smith when you need him?

  3. Check out Roger Pielke Jr’ take down of P.Wongs’ Speech…a full duper!

    “The bottom line is that there is no scientific evidence linking rising global temperatures to the increasing catastrophe losses around the world. Ironically enough including the paper cited by Wong to suggest the opposite. Despite this fact, and the obvious IPCC misrepresentations on this subject, Australia’s Penny Wong concludes:
    There may well be dispute about the cost of catastrophes, but the science on the link between these catastrophes and climate change has not been credibly challenged.

    Score that as one fully duped policy maker by the IPCC’s spin and misdirection.”

  4. Andrew Barnham says:

    I read the minister’s speech as published on the age’s website – expecting to see some reasonably compelling arguments that would at least make me stop and think for a second.

    Although she impressed a number of readers who commented on the article who thought her speech was quite nuanced and credible I was quite disappointed. Was that the best she can do?

    Singling out one example – she at one point compared the science of climate change to the science of heath effects of smoking. I guess she was trying to juxtapose smoking lobbies attempt at stonewalling independent smoking research outcomes against the the mythical David and Goliath battle between the ‘petro-industrial complex’ and the ‘peer reviewed scientists’. Penny, this is crude false equivalence. The two issues are not even closely related. If you take 5 minutes and quickly sketch out the relevant stakeholder’s and speculate on their motives (financial, social, political, career advancement etc) it is quite obvious that it is quite impossible and insensible to draw any meaningful comparisons between the two disputes.

    Is this the sort of thing we can expect from our climate change minister? But then I shouldn’t be surprised since this is quite representative of the quality of argument and discussion around the whole AGW issue.

  5. Andrew,

    you have hit the nail right on the head. But why would you ask “Is this the sort of thing we can expect from our climate change minister?” Surely you must know as an Automaton she can only repeatedly voice what she is programmed to say.


    or is she a deceptacon!

  6. Penny Wong, master (or is that mistress) of the highly nuanced and finessed, and totally and miserably timed political tirade. Wong speaks and deBoer “retires”. I think I’m watching a sitcom. This can’t be real politicians deciding the fate of nations. Please tell me this is a sitcom.

    Have a look at Climategate 2.0 :

    Fire away Penny. We can expect your response in three months (judging by the time interval for Climategate 1.0)

%d bloggers like this: