Just don't tell me the debate's over…
More tax! More tax!
Trying desperately to justify a pointless tax that nobody wants, Greg Combet plumbs new depths:
“Tariffs were iconic, and even now they instantly reappear in debate as policy responses to contemporary economic pressures.
“But John Button’s reforms made Australia stronger.”
Mr Combet said carbon pricing was “squarely in the Labor reformist tradition” which Senator Button helped to forge. (source)
Allow me to put it simply:
“Taxing people more is what Labor does best.”
Unsceptical?
Professor Chubb is the Australian Chief Scientist, and has made a few appearances on ACM in his brief time in the job (see here, here and here). Given his comments today, it is apparent that there is little hope of any improvement in the level of debate on climate change in Australia.
Displaying an astonishing lack of proper scientific scepticism and a misplaced faith in the projections of computer models, Prof Chubb has completely bought into the warmist line at a Parliamentary inquiry, recycling the tired old “more respect for scientists” argument (somehow managing to ignore calls for sceptics to be gassed or tattooed, naturally) and raising yet again the non-existent death threats at ANU (FOI request still pending on that one).
So here’s the Quote of the Day:
Professor Chubb was dismissive of arguments that the changes can be attributed to natural events.
“For example, you don’t get the Arctic ice melt just by natural events. You can’t reproduce it through modelling if you just factor in natural events. But if you factor in human activity, then you get what’s happening and you get the reduction,” he said.
So let’s get this straight, because an incomplete and flaky climate model fails to predict the degree of arctic ice melt from natural causes, it has to be all man-made?
How about the alternative? The models suck. Geez.
Read it here.
Quote of the Day
From an email exchange following the Nobel prize-winning physicist’s resignation from the American Physical Society because of its blind embracing of the global warming faith:
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
Read it here.
Quote of the Day
She’s been spinning hopeless Labor policies for so long, she has now started spinning her own failures into achievements:
“I’m not going anywhere, I’m the best person to do this job and I’ll continue to do it and what this job is about leading the nation to a better future.”
Well, if she’s the best, I’d truly hate to see the worst. And as for “not going anywhere”, not your decision, I’m afraid. We may well see the Return of Rudd (cue scary music).
Read it here.
Editor’s Note: Apologies but the link above is to The Australian which as we all know is just a mouthpiece for evil right-wingers and Tea Party creationists intent on destroying Labor, and which should be shut down straight away, especially since there isn’t enough bias in the media favourable towards Labor and the Left (if you just happen to exclude all of the ABC and all of Fairfax, and all of the BBC and all of the majority of news organisations in any country you care to name). See here.
Fake
Explaining why she formed an alliance with the Greens after the election in 2010:
Ms Gillard said she could have become Prime Minister by forming a deal with conservative independents Tony Crook and Bob Katter, but she chose to ally with the Greens and accept their demand for carbon pricing because she believed it was right.
“In the 17 days (after the 2010 election) I had discussions with a lot of people – with the Greens, with (Rob) Oakeshott, (Tony) Windsor, (Bob) Katter, even some discussions with (WA National Tony) Crook. I thought it was always going to be possible for us to structure arrangements so that we would get support in this parliament,” she said. (source)
So despite the fact that Gillard:
she chose to ignore all of those points and, er, form a government with the Greens – “because it was right”???
So, Julia, are you lying now or were you lying then? Lies, lies and yet more lies. It never ends.
Quote of the Day
In a sycophantic piece in the Sydney Morning Herald Will Steffen, the Gillard government’s climate adviser, claims, without any irony, that science knows all there is to know about the earth’s climate:
”What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community about this.”
And another one for luck:
”We don’t debate gravity, we don’t debate the tides.”
Apparently, he’s also “bemused, frustrated and appalled” that the media dares publish anything that criticised the consensus as well.
Odd that just today, an article claims that the IPCC artificially adjusted the results of a peer-reviewed study on climate sensitivity so that they fitted better with the organisation’s political aims. Is that what you mean when you say there’s no debate?
Odd also that there are a thousand or so peer-reviewed papers that challenge the consensus and new ones are published every week – hang on, they would be published in the wrong journals and written by the wrong scientists, I guess.
With people like Steffen advising the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Read it here (and weep).
Quote of the Day
On her popularity improving after announcing a pointless, economy-wrecking carbon tax, in breach of an explicit pre-election promise not to, and which will do nothing for the climate, Julia opts for unintentionally comical understatement:
“We won’t see an instantaneous jump in support.”
Gee, ya think? More like a continuing terminal slide into oblivion… with a bit of luck.
Read it here.
Quote of the Day
Ian Chubb is our Chief Scientist, and once again he indicates his belief that science is about counting heads, ignoring the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that challenge that consensus, ignoring the fact that the IPCC ignores those papers, and looking away when something doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived views:
“After the work of very many scientists over more than 50 years, the views on climate change have converged to the point where the evidence has moved from possible to beyond reasonable doubt. But do we do nothing because of the mockers or because some scientists disagree, or because some others sit on the side and shout but don’t put their ideas into the scientific literature?
The quintessence of the debate about climate science should be based on the scientific evidence at hand. Science is contestable; scientists are natural skeptics and highly trained critics. They constantly evaluate and revise. But sooner or later, prevailing views will converge after scrutiny and challenge. Some call that a consensus; not a contrived view but a majority view. After the work of scientists from multiple disciplinary backgrounds the lines of evidence on climate change have converged to support a high degree of confidence that climate is changing and that human activity is a primary cause.”
But there is no scrutiny or challenge to the cosy little coterie of warmist scientists – sceptics are silenced, excluded and ostracised, and their work (peer-reviewed or otherwise) totally overlooked. You can’t have it both ways. One failed prediction is enough to invalidate a model or a hypothesis, except in climate science, that is.
I repeat, it is not the realists that wish to turn our economy upside down to appease Gaia. For that to be justified, we need more than this.
Read it here.
Quote of the Day
From a speech in Adelaide last night:
Ms Gillard said human-induced climate change was real and opinion polls could not change that. ‘‘I ask, who would I rather have on my side?” she said. ”Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt?
”Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world?” (source)
Bolt responds here.
Quote of the Day
QOTD goes to MIT professor Richard Lindzen, who advises us all to abandon the use of the word “skeptic”:
“As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.”
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Recent Comments