Quote [Lie] of the Day: Julia Gillard


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:

  1. had promised the electorate just days before that there would be “no carbon tax under the government I lead”, knowing full well that government with the Greens would mean bowing to their demand for urgent climate action (as revealed by Adam Bandt yesterday);
  2. had opposed Kevin Rudd’s introduction of the ETS in 2009;
  3. could have formed government with Bob Katter and Tony Crook (allegedly); and
  4. is on record as having described the Greens as “extreme” and “not a party of government”,

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.

Quotes of the Day: Will Steffen


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: Julia Gillard


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


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: Julia Gillard


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: Richard Lindzen


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.

Quotes of the Day: Stephen Conroy on Lateline


Quote of the Day

I woke up this morning to hear Stephen Conroy’s lamentable, blustering performance on Lateline last night, repeated on News Radio. Now there’s a fine way to start the day … There was all the usual spin and hot air, but the funniest bit came when Tony Jones (who is one of the ABC’s most vocal climate change alarmists) held up his hands in horror at Maurice Newman’s accusation that the ABC was less than balanced on the issue of climate change. It was a classic “What, me?” moment. And then he successfully bullied Conroy into saying “No, no, it’s all fine you’re doing a great job”, and Conroy didn’t have the balls to resist:

TONY JONES: Alright, a final question. You’ve refused to comment in any detail on the claims by the ABC’s chairman Morris Newman that coverage of the global warming climate change issue is an example of “group think” where contrary views have not been tolerated.

Do you see any evidence of that?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, look, the chairman… The ABC is an independent statutory authority. The chairman is entitled to his views and I understand from discussions that I’ve had over the last 24 hours it was a very robust discussion that followed that, uh, that speech and I think that is a healthy thing for all involved.

TONY JONES: Do you see any evidence? I am asking for your opinion. Whether you see- because it is a serious accusation he’s making: “Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny or failing to question the consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined”.

That is the suggestion. Do you see any evidence that that has been happening?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, I do remember that the ABC screened the documentary the Global Warming Scandal, I think last year.

TONY JONES: Swindle.

STEPHEN CONROY: Swindle, sorry, yes. So I think the ABC can point to a whole range of areas where it has given all sides of the debate a fair run.

TONY JONES: So you don’t see any examples or signs of “group think” in the ABC?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, I am not sure that Mr Newman pointed his finger at any particular area. I don’t think he was speaking in a general sense but on an issue that you’ve mentioned like climate change, I think you’ve got a proud record where you can point to the screening of that documentary and there’s been plenty of debate over the last 12 months on this topic on the ABC. (source)

Ah, so showing the Great Global Warming Swindle is balance is it? Let’s remember what happened there, shall we? Firstly, Tony Jones himself, who was presenting the film, proclaimed before it was shown:

I am bound to say The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC.

Which means that the public service broadcaster has “views” on climate change – and I don’t need to tell you what they are. Hardly balance there. And following the screening, there was a round table debate in which TGGWS was thoroughly ripped to shreds by a typical ABC left-leaning audience. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Why did the ABC take TGGWS apart, and yet never raise a finger to the partisan, innaccurate propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth? Where were the round table discussions picking that apart, Tony? No, wait. You’ve already explained. TGGWS doesn’t represent the views of the ABC, because AIT does, right?

If you want to see ABC bias at work for yourself, just go to the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindle pages here and especially the nauseating article by Bernie Hobbs (ABC science broadcaster) here – it’s all there in black and white.

ABC balance on climate change? Don’t make me laugh.

%d bloggers like this: