Hypocrisy of the "anti-greed" protests

16 October, 2011 by

UPDATE 2: A number of commenters have drawn a distinction between capitalism and “corporatism” – I agree that this distinction has some merit. However, the socialist Left is attempting to blur that distinction in order to tar capitalism as an economic model with the brush of corporate malfeasance. Hence the predictable hijacking of the OWS demonstrations (which, had they been confined to a more legitimate protest at unacceptable corporate behaviour, would have a point) by the hard Left in order to use corporate excesses to justify an abandoning of capitalism as a “broken model”.

UPDATE: This post has generated a fair amount of criticism, so further explanation is required. Governments cannot create wealth. Corporations operating in a free market are the ONLY way of sustaining wealthy, vibrant economies – history has shown this many times over. The protesters comprising OWS aren’t simply complaining about the wage divide between CEOs and employees, they are primarily anti-capitalists – they wish to see the winding back of Western free-market capitalism and a return to the failed socialist, state-controlled industries of the past, where individual achievement and success is ignored and equality for all is the key.

And as for CEO salaries, no-one seems to complain when a star entertainer or footballer is paid millions of dollars a year (despite the fact that they too are generating many times that wealth, usually for a corporation – the movie studio or the football club), but take offence at a CEO of a finance corporation in a similar position. It’s all about what kind of money you earn, clearly.

This double standard exposes the true agenda behind OWS. “Corporate greed” is just code for envy.

If you need further proof that these protests are primarily organised by far Left groups, look no further than this article at Green Left Weekly, where spokespeople were interviewed from socialist groups “Solidarity”, “Socialist Alternative” and “Socialist Alliance”:

From the Sydney demonstration

Amusing how the great unwashed, protesting at corporate “greed”, rely so heavily on Facebook, Twitter, Apple and a bunch of other “corporates” to co-ordinate their activities. The protesters are comprised of all the usual suspects of course, Marxists, communists, socialists, extreme environmentalists (naturally), the hard Left, all using the demonstrations to advocate for “social change” – i.e. wholesale wealth redistribution, smashing the corporates that drive the economic benefits that make their lives so comfortable, global government, support for Palestine and hatred for the Jews (natch). If they get their way, we’ll all be back to knitting yoghurt in mud huts.

Emails uncovered by Big Government reveal a carefully constructed conspiracy to destabilise governments and global markets. As always, those protesting represent a tiny, tiny minority of the general population, and claims of majority (99%) support are delusional.

The eco-wackos have all but given up on climate change as an agent of social change, so they’re back to old fashioned protests. Good luck with that.

This image perfectly sums up the blatant hypocrisy, which they obviously haven’t worked out for themselves:

Busted. (click to enlarge)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

ACM's "Alarmism Machine" map ruffles warmist feathers

15 October, 2011 by

Click for PDF

ACM’s Alarmism Machine map has been making waves in the warmosphere.

You will recall Andrew Revkin’s blog displayed a rather nasty map of “organised climate change denial”  – I was so amused by this diagram that I prepared a response (see here).

Revkin then updated his post to include a link to my response, originally with the comment:

“I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are spot on.” [No link available – sadly]

This was hastily toned down [why? – Ed] to read:

“I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are not bad. But, as with so much of the climate debate, it is an overdrawn, overblown caricature of reality.”

Apparently a storm of protest ensued from the hardcore warmists, who were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Revkin dared publish a link to such heresy. The former editor of Scientific American, John Rennie, firstly weighed in:

Follow the link and take a look at that diagram. It apes the design of what Dunlap and McCright drew but whereas they only listed examples of the organizations that fit into each of the categories they named, the blogger insults them in keeping with his own biases.

Andy, just which aspects of this do you see as “not bad”?

Thank goodness he didn’t see the version of Revkin’s comment that said “spot on”!

ACM even scored a mention on Joe Romm’s blog, with this typical outburst:

Rennie was particularly critical of Revkin’s equating the climate denial machine with a laughable “climate alarmism machine” (whipped up by an Australian disinformer), which equates those who spread outright anti-scientific disinformation (often funded by fossil-fuel interests) with the serious work of climate scientists and governments (and others) who make use of that genuine, scientific work.

“Australian disinformer” – I like it! Actually British ex-pat, Joe, but I won’t press the point. And now Revkin has been forced to defend his publication of a link to my map (my emphasis). Revkin, however, firstly distances himself from the original map still further by stating that he was “insufficiently critical” of it in the original post (despite it having already been toned down), but does include some very interesting comments:

I disagree with Rennie and Joe Romm, who followed up on his criticism, on some broader points.

Here’s the prime question Rennie posed about my original post:

Was Andy implying that those on the climate activism side were an equivalent kind of propaganda machine, even though the case for the reality and gravity of climate change is much better validated by the scientific literature? It seemed unlikely, but he seemed to let his readers think so.

Setting aside the word propaganda, I will readily assert that there has been a longstanding and well-financed effort to raise public concern by downplaying substantial, persistent and legitimate uncertainty about the worst-case outcomes from greenhouse-driven warming and over-attributing the link between such warming and climate-related disasters and other events. Much of this is organized.

But it should be pointed out that there is a climate-style amplifying feedback process, in which a funding agency, a university and researchers highlight the most newsworthy aspect of a new study — even if it’s tentative — and that baton is passed to journalists eagerly sifting for “the front-page thought.” Kind of looks like a hype machine, in some ways.

At least Revkin concedes that there is some organised scaremongering at work in the warmist camp – it is impossibly to deny. But what I find more astonishing is that Romm and Rennie were so eager to criticise Revkin for even publishing a link – you would have thought Revkin’s readers should be able to make up their own minds.

And the funniest part of all of this? The fact that so many people have taken the map so seriously! Geez – it was knocked together in about 20 minutes as a satirical response to an offensive diagram about “deniers”. It was a joke! Yes, it was overblown and a caricature – that was the intention. Exaggeration to make a point. Whist my choice of words was intentionally over the top, the underlying points have more than a grain of truth.

UPDATE: Check out Jo Nova’s version here – much prettier!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Australia goes it alone… as EU back-pedals

14 October, 2011 by

Reality bites

The timing couldn’t be better (or should I say worse). Just as plucky little Australia, with 1.5% of global emissions, decides to unilaterally “save the planet” by possibly reducing global temperatures by a few thousandths of a degree Celsius, other, more sensible countries are realising that without a global agreement, punishing emissions reduction targets are pointless – and dangerous.

Just a few days ago, UK Chancellor George Osborne said “we are not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business”, yet that is exactly what Australia has decided to do! Well done, Julia and Greg!

And even the EU’s moonbattish Connie Hedegaard (pictured) is sounding decidedly dejected, as reality finally dawns:

European Union environment ministers — responsible for only 11 percent of global carbon emissions [still nearly ten times more than Australia – Ed] — said they would commit to a new phase of the Kyoto climate change pact, on the condition that nations blamed for the rest join up too.

The environment council conclusions, agreed in Luxembourg on Monday, outline the bloc’s negotiating position ahead of the next global climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which starts at the end of November. [Well I can tell you that there is not a snowball’s chance of China and India signing up to such a restriction on their economic growth – Ed]

“What’s the point of keeping something alive if you’re alone there? There must be more from the 89 percent,” EU Environment Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told Reuters. (source)

There won’t be an agreement in Durban, and there is little possibility of a global agreement in the foreseeable future. Surely these thoughts must occur even to boneheaded politicians like Julia and Greg? Of course they do – privately, when they are alone – but then they suddenly remember, with a cold sweat, that they are being blackmailed by the Greens to take this pointless climate action, and as we have discussed before, desperately clinging to power is more important to Labor that doing what is right for Australia. Otherwise, they would have called another election to let the people decide.

The only consolation is that the longer Labor shows such contempt for the Australian people, the more savagely they will be punished at the next election – and that thought keeps me going.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Round-up

14 October, 2011 by

Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Delingpole on the carbon tax

13 October, 2011 by

"What's that you say, Skip? They've all topped themselves?"

James kindly linked to my post on Ian Chubb’s nonsensical utterances (see here), and his piece is well worth a read, as always:

Australia commits suicide

One of the worst aspects of living in these apocalyptic times is that whenever you look around the world, wondering where you might escape to, you begin to realise that everywhere else is just as bad if not worse.

Take Australia, an island built on fossil fuel with an economy dependent on fossil fuel. What would be the maddest economic policy a place like that could pursue as the world tips deeper into recession? Why, to introduce a carbon tax, of course. Which, for reasons just explained above, means a tax on absobloodylutely everything. Which is exactly what Julia Gillard’s Coalition (why is it that word always makes me want to reach for my Browning?) has just gone and done, obviously.

Read it all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Joint Select Committee: dissenting submissions excluded because they were not "relevant"

12 October, 2011 by

Submissions ignored (image from Andrew Bolt)

The Dissenting Report of the Joint Select Committee into the Clean Energy Bills makes very interesting reading, and shows evidence of a concerted attempt to suppress or exclude dissent from the debate, based on a subjective test of “relevance”.

It appears that many submissions were intentionally classified as “mere correspondence” in order to avoid their publication, and obviate the need for the Committee to have regard to their content.

In this report of Coalition Members and Senators we have included the comments of hundreds of Australians – not just those few who appeared before the committee in its select few days of hearings in south-eastern Australia, or those professional organisations who made detailed submissions, but also many comments from the more than 4,500 people who made submissions to this inquiry, which the Labor-Greens-Independent majority refused to have published.

To the thousands of people who feel like Noel Bowman, who stated in his submission that ‘I suppose no one will ever read this submission and in consequence I am wasting my time’, the Coalition members say we have tried to give you a voice. We could not quote or reference everybody, but in contrast to Labor’s determination to shut people out of this process we were even more determined to ensure that as many voices as possible from across Australia were heard. (page 129)

…This Joint Select Committee – dominated by the Labor and Greens proponents of the legislation into which it is inquiring – allowed just a week for the committee to receive submissions, determining at its first meeting on Thursday 15 September that it would advertise for the first time on Saturday 17 September 2011 but with a closing date for submissions of Thursday 22 September 2011.

Hearings for this inquiry were scheduled in the week following the closing date of submissions, which did not allow the committee to properly consider the more than 4,500 submissions it received. In fact, the Labor-Greens dominated committee opted not to accept the vast majority of submissions and merely received them as ‘correspondence’, despite unsuccessful Coalition attempts to extend both the deadline for making submissions and the time allowed for the committee to report.

This volume of correspondence demonstrates the level of engagement and the depth of feeling Australians have in relation to the Government’s policy approach on this issue, but which Labor and the Greens have effectively sought to silence as far as this inquiry is concerned. (page 253)

On what grounds, therefore, did the committee exclude such a vast amount of correspondence? Let’s look at the requirements for submissions, from the Committees web site:

  • There is no prescribed form for a submission to a parliamentary committee. Submissions may be in the form of a letter, a short document or a substantial paper. They may include appendices and other supporting documents.
  • Submissions should be prepared solely for the inquiry and should be relevant to the terms of reference. They may address all or a selection of the points outlined in the terms of reference. Submissions may contain facts, opinions, arguments and recommendations for action.
  • It is helpful if submissions are prefaced by a brief summary of the main points.
  • Supplementary submissions may be lodged during the course of an inquiry to provide additional information or comments on other evidence.

Nothing particularly challenging there. The Clean Energy Committee had no specific terms of reference (see here), so that removes one hurdle. Let’s have a look at the checklist:

Before lodging your submission you may find it helpful to consider the following checklist:

  •  Have I commented on some or all of the terms of reference? [There were none for this inquiry – Ed]
  • Have I provided a summary of the submission at the front (for lengthy submissions)?
  • Have I provided my return address and contact details with the submission?
  • If the submission contains confidential information, have I made this clear at the front?
  • Have I provided an electronic version of the submission (if possible)?

There is nothing there which would permit the Committee to exclude 4,500 submissions as mere correspondence. An email with a return address should be sufficient for it to be accepted as a submission.

But here is the Committee’s explanation – and it is based on the wholly subjective test of “relevance”:

A large amount of correspondence was received by the committee. These items were not received as submissions to the inquiry because they did not address the actual legislation being considered. The correspondence was read and noted. The majority of the correspondence questioned the following issues:

  • The legitimacy of the science behind climate change and whether it is due to human action;
  • The legitimacy of the government to introduce the legislation;
  • The impact of the carbon ‘tax’ on individuals and the economy; and
  • Why should Australia go it alone on introducing measures to reduce carbon pollution putting us at a claimed competitive disadvantage? (Introduction, p12, here – PDF)

The next paragraph quotes the Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, at the Inquiry hearings (see here for more of Chubb’s nonsense at that hearing) as if this somehow justifies their relevance test:

The latest information I have seen shows that the CO2 levels are high and that the rate of accumulation is accelerating. The scientists who study this would argue that it is getting to the point where something has to be done quickly in order to cap them at least and start to have them decrease over a sensible period of time. You could easily argue that it is urgent and that something needs to be done because of the high level presently and the accelerating accumulation presently (sic). We do need to do something.

Well that clinches it for me…!

It is almost beyond comprehension that the Committee felt that those four issues “did not address the actual legislation being considered.” They may not be relevant for considering individual sections of the Bills, but those four key issues go straight to the heart of whether the legislation is prudent, or even necessary at all! Is the Committee expecting us to believe that questions of prudence or necessity are outside its scope? Laughable.

Remember, there were NO terms of reference for this Inquiry, so the Committee should not have been able to exclude correspondence on the grounds of relevance. Even if there were terms of reference, issues raised in correspondence are clearly relevant to the matter being considered.

I have to keep reminding myself that this is Australia and not the former Soviet Union. Is this where we are at, in 2011, where the genuine concerns of the public, in a formal parliamentary committee, are simply ignored?

The Dissenting Report is here (PDF).

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Quote of the Day: Tony Abbott

12 October, 2011 by

Australia's only hope

Something to make you smile. Go TA!

“We will repeal this tax, we will dismantle the bureaucracy associated with it.

“I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go. This is a pledge in blood this tax will go.

“If the bills pass today this will be an act of betrayal on the Australian public. We will repeal the tax, we can repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax.” (source)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Labor's great betrayal

12 October, 2011 by

So the carbon tax bills are expected to pass through the Lower House today [UPDATE: The Bills passed the lower house at around 9.30am AEST]. In a strange kind of way, I am glad, because it demonstrates to the electorate clearly what principles Labor stands for. None – apart from its own survival.

If any Labor MPs had shown even a trace of any backbone and stood up for the democratic rights of the Australian people by voting against the Bills, it may have lifted Labor’s support in the polls, and made people reconsider Labor’s principles and values. As it is, however, they act true to form, like a bunch of gutless lemmings, more concerned with keeping their own jobs than respecting the wishes of the electorate.

Julia Gillard’s pre-election promise not to introduce a carbon tax was swiftly forgotten when it became clear that the Greens’ support would have to be bought with a commitment to rapid action on climate change. And clearly, in the minds of Labor, buying support was more important than an explicit pre-election promise. Over the next few months, there was much talk of “consultation” with the public about the carbon tax, but in reality it was all a sham. All the inquiries and meetings were simply a pretence, because if they had genuinely listened to public opinion, they would have abandoned the tax.

And Labor have deluded themselves by believing that global action is just around the corner. Only blind Freddy (and Labor) think that – the evidence is clear that the chance of any global deal is retreating faster than an IPCC-fudged Himalayan glacier.

But nothing was going to stop Labor passing these bills and therefore, with the Green’s continuing support, staying in power.

Because that is all that matters to Labor – power. Forget the wishes of the Australian people or the “national interest” (funny isn’t it how Labor uses this term so frequently), what drives Labor is staying in power.

And as a final insult, demonstrating Labor’s contempt for the people it is supposed to represent, they hope that the electorate are stupid enough to “forget” this betrayal, and “get used” to the pointless carbon tax.

Well this voter will neither forget the betrayal, nor get used to the tax. It will be at the front of my mind when I enter the polling booth at the next election, and I hope it will be in yours as well.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Fair play at the Joint Select Committee?

11 October, 2011 by

Level playing field?

A number of commentators have reported that the number of submissions sent to the Joint Select Committee (JSC)  far exceeds the number published. Figures of 4,500 public submissions have been floating around the blogosphere for a while, but it is clear from the JSC’s web site that only 73 have been published. What happened to the other 4,427?

Some confusion has arisen because there were in fact two submission processes taking place almost simultaneously, one organised by the Department of Climate Change (DCC), and another by the JSC. The DCC was very happy to allow multiple standard form letters supporting the tax (see here), probably spoon-fed by GetUp! and Say Yes, but it is very possible that less strict rules were in place for that process.

However, the DCC states that only 326 submissions were “received”, so at this stage we must assume the majority were communicated to the JSC.

An article in Quadrant shows evidence of bias against those opposing the bills, taking examples from both the JSC and the DCC:

The Department of Climate Change published this:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my support for the Government to legislate to put a price on Carbon. I urge the government to continue to move ahead with the Carbon tax.

Rob Feith

The Department of Climate Change published this:

To Whom It May Concern

Even with all the confusion surrounding the Carbon Tax, I would like to support the move the Government is making. In order to reduce our Carbon Pollution you have to place a monetary value on the air we breathe. I hope this is a step in the right direction and, I hope the Government sets a model and digs their heels in to become a world leader in this arena.

My support is with the Government at present.

 Kerrie Chandler

The Select Committee did not publish this:

Submission on theClean Energy Bill 2011

To the: Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future

By: Peter Smith

Opening Comment and Summary View

My submission is as a private citizen of Australia. I am basing my submission on the “Explanatory Memorandum” (“EM”) to the Clean Energy Bill (“the Bill”) and on media reports of the contents and implication of various parts of the Bill. I have neither the time nor resources to study and consider all of the constituent parts of the Bill in detail.

I note that the time given for considering the Bill and providing a submission is extremely short given its complexity and import. It is not clear why the Government has allowed so little time for the public to consider a piece of legislation which is described as a “major reform” and which is designed to have far-reaching effects.

Though it does not reflect on the Bill per se, the political process surrounding its introduction is disquieting. The Government went to the election only a little over 12 months ago with an explicit undertaking by the Prime Minister “to develop a Citizens’ Assembly to examine climate change over 12 months, the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions”. She went on to link any action with the views of the group comprising the Assembly: “if I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change”.

Making a transformational change – one so hard to unpick – contrary to the PM’s undertaking, brings our political processes into disrepute and calls into question the trust we should have in our democratic processes. To be clear, election promises are not always kept; that is not the issue. The issue arises from the circumstances of the about-face and its dimensions. The Bill is making changes of great moment and effective permanency under no pressure of circumstances, contrary to a clear and explicit commitment which may have been instrumental in winning a very narrow election. I doubt whether a similar instance could be found in Australia’s past.

My conclusion is that whatever its merits, the Bill should be withdrawn because of the process surrounding its introduction. My quite separate conclusion, based on my comments set out below, is that the Bill will damage Australia, for no measurable gain, and should be withdrawn also on that account.

[Editors note: this particular submission elaborates further, and is cogently argued – see original post here]

If these allegations of suppression of dissent are correct, it is a disgraceful affront to open democracy, of which Labor (as the sponsors of the Clean Energy bills) should be thoroughly ashamed. Therefore, in order to try to get to the bottom of this important story, I have today filed a request with the Clerk Assistant (Committees) at Parliament House in the following terms, to establish the proportion of submissions received that were rejected:

Please would you provide, by return of email, the following information regarding the communications received by the above Committee:
  1. Total number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise).
  2. Number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise) SUPPORTIVE of the Government’s Clean Energy legislation.
  3. Number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise) OPPOSING the Government’s Clean Energy legislation.
  4. Number of communications from question (2) above rejected for publication by the Committee (for whatever reason).
  5. Number of communications from question (3) above rejected for publication by the Committee (for whatever reason).

I will report any response I receive, although I won’t be holding my breath.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

The Mutant Radish of climate change

11 October, 2011 by

Who on earth designed the logo for COP17 in Durban?

Nightmare vegetables

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»