In which Tony Abbott once again demonstrates why he was never fit to hold office

"Cautionary note concerning the publication of this report

Aspects of this research were only made possible by the involvement and cooperation of community leaders and stakeholders in West Cairns and Aurukun. Their co-operation was based on an understanding that the information provided by local people would be used to find effective solutions to the problems as described in this report. The project team in turn gave a commitment that we would do our best to work with these communities to make them safer, especially for their children. For our part, the present research was always seen as the first phase of a longer-term project that would involve the implementation and evaluation of interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and impacts of sexual violence and abuse in these communities.

Because the focus of this work is on specific communities, it has not been possible to present the report without identifying the communities. While we have done our best to avoid presenting information that could identify individuals within these communities, we are mindful that identifying the communities themselves nevertheless presents significant risks. Publicly naming these communities, particularly in the context of the present findings concerning sexual violence and abuse, risks damaging the relationships and community commitment upon which the success of future prevention efforts so fundamentally relies. Community tensions are very real in both communities, and especially in Aurukun. Insensitive media reporting, for example, even if well intentioned, could inflame these tensions. We fear that such attention would focus on the problems alone, and yet again the voices of those working toward a better future in these communities would not be properly heard.

We understand and support the Queensland Government’s commitment to openness and public accountability, and we are mindful that the present research was conducted with public funding. We understand that in the normal course of events the present report would and should be made available to the public. However we strongly urge caution with respect to the timing and circumstances of making this report public. We believe some delay may be warranted to allow a properly-considered government response to this report to be formulated, and perhaps for some positive outcomes to be presented. We believe we owe that to the members and leaders of these communities." [Smallbone, S. et al, (2013), Preventing Youth Sexual Violence and Abuse in West Cairns and Aurukun: Establishing the scope, dimensions and dynamics of the problem, p. vii, report released 12 March 2016]

Sacked former prime minister Tony Abbott and the mainstream media obviously paid no heed to Page vii of this report, when an opportunistic Abbott rushed to journalists with a simplistic, punitive and appallingly ignorant response.

Stop treating indigenous abuse differently: Abbott TONY Abbott has called for law and order to be enforced in indigenous communities as it is elsewhere.

Responding to an alarming government finding that sexual abuse of and by kids was "normalised" in some of the state's indigenous communities, the former prime minister said there needed to be consequences for any law-breaker - regardless of their background or age.

"Part of the problem often (are those who say) there should be different standards in different places," Mr Abbott (pictured) said. "That is not something that is acceptable. We need to have the same reasonable expectation of people - whether they are male or female, black or white." Mr Abbott said the response was required in the wake of the "utterly scandalous" government findings, in a secret report that was revealed by The Courier-Mail

AAP Bulletin News, 21 March 2016:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has urged authorities in north Queensland to arrest and charge alleged sex offenders as young as 10.

A Queensland report has revealed children are both victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse.

Asked what to do about 10-year-old sex offenders in Aurukun, Mr Abbott told the Courier Mail: "They should be arrested, they should be charged, there are juvenile justice systems."

He said it was not acceptable to have different standards in different places.

"We need to have the same reasonable expectation of people, whether they are male or female, black or white, Christian or Muslim," said Mr Abbott.

The Cairns Post, 21 March 2016:

TONY Abbott (right) has controversially declared that Far North Queensland's 10-year-old sex offenders should be arrested, charged and forced through the juvenile justice system.

Commenting on an "utterly scandalous" report outlining distressing rates of child sexual assault, the former prime minister has demanded Australia end its different expectations for black and white communities, and law and order be enforced.

Many politicians remained floored by Professor Stephen Small-bone's The Preventing Youth Sexual Violence and Abuse in West Cairns and Aurukun report. But Mr Abbott, who has a strong record of engaging with indigenous Australians, including volunteering in Aurukun, said there needed to be consequences for any law breaker.

"The conditions are utterly scandalous and there needs to be a very strong response," he said.

Mr Abbott was asked what to do about 10-year-old sex offenders in Aurukun."They should be arrested. They should be charged. There are juvenile justice systems," he said.

The more reasoned response of the report:

BACKGROUND

The Courier Mail, 19 March 2016:

AURUKUN is again in the news and though the news is not new, it is not good. A report by researchers from Griffith University, led by Professor Stephen Smallbone, on youth sexual violence in Aurukun sat idle through three years of the Newman government before being released by Treasurer Curtis Pitt last weekend.

Ostensibly, then-premier Campbell Newman did not release the report because Aurukun Mayor Derek Walpo objected on the basis it would compromise the confidentiality of the children and families involved in the research. This may have been understandable but the failure to respond to the report is appalling. It was provided to the state more than two years ago.

How did things come to this tragic state? Many readers will think this is just the way things are in Aurukun. But it has not always been this way. In fact, things were once very different and how and why things deteriorated so badly is an important backstory.

We can talk about the many proximate causes of the crisis in Aurukun (grog, welfare dependency, unemployment) but its ultimate explanation lies in government violence starting with the Aurukun Takeover in 1978 by the Queensland government under then-premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The takeover resulted in the Presbyterian Church being kicked out of Aurukun and replaced by the Queensland government. The Smallbone report is the bitter harvest of this original violence at the hands of the state.

Before the takeover respectful kinship relationships meant everything to the Wik people of Western Cape York. A hybrid of traditional and missionary authority and paternalism gave an order to the Aurukun mission that was shattered, and not replaced. Child neglect, homicides, suicides, violence and abuse were virtually unknown before 1985 when then local government minister Russ Hinze finally forced a canteen to open up against the objections of elders.

The first instalment of the state's takeover was the imposition of the local government structure. The second was the imposition of the canteen. This story of state violence began when Bjelke-Petersen's government seized control of the Aurukun's extensive bauxite reserves in 1975 and gave it to a French multinational, Pechiney. The Church supported legal and political campaigns by the Wik people against the state's actions. This is why Bjelke-Petersen and Hinze removed the Church and took over Aurukun.

Aurukun was no longer a mission. It was now a shire. But what was a shire? A shire needed revenue. The only viable source of revenue was to convert unemployment benefits received from the Commonwealth Government into canteen revenues for the shire council. The bodies of the Wik people would be the means through which this conversion of Commonwealth funding into state revenue, would take place. The young bodies and brains of infants would be victims of this money laundering.

Minus the paternalistic protection of the church, the Aurukun people were powerless to resist the shire council's introduction of a wet canteen. This was opposed by many in Aurukun, particular by a strong group of Wik women, but the battle was lost.

The rivers of grog started to flow and they flowed for two decades. The painful story of the collapse of family and clan relationships was now set in train. Serious assaults became commonplace. There were nine homicides in the five years after the opening of the local canteen. The Four Corners report by David Marr in 1990 declared the crime rate at Aurukun far worse than notorious American cities.

The actions of Bjelke-Peterson and Hinze were a form of state violence. The cycle of abuse and neglect that followed the grog chaos from 1985 was imprinted on the young children who were born in its wake……

It’s important to not let the scale of the problem obscure the fact that there are many upstanding individuals and families in Aurukun. The parents who send their kids to school every day, families that nurture and support their children, people who are seeking out a better life for their families, the very parents and grandparents that now stand proud as their children graduate from high school and university. Among them are strong natural leaders in Aurukun. And female leaders are the key.

This active leadership should buoy us and this ground-up movement must not be squashed by bureaucracy and service delivery jargon. These women, with the right support, are Aurukun’s last best hope.

The history that I name as state violence should stand as a reminder of what happens when governments take over and smother local leadership and structures. The colonisation of service delivery has not worked to date and will not work in the future.

Fiona Jose is executive general manager, Cape Operations, at Cape York Partnership

Australian Federal Election 2016: these tired old tricks no longer work, Tones

This was the Member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, in the Australian Financial Times on 9 March 2016:

On Friday, Tony Abbott said one of Labor's "five new taxes" included a housing tax (negative gearing), a wealth tax (capital gains), a seniors tax (superannuation), a workers tax (smokers), and the carbon tax.

"Five new taxes is what Bill Shorten has in store should Labor win the next election”…..

There it is, another three-word slogan – “five new taxes”.

So where are these five new taxes?

Negative gearing is a tax concession not a tax charge and Labor does not intend to eliminate this concession for all existing negatively geared investments or future new housing stock – the concession will be removed only on any future investment purchases of old housing stock after 30 June 2017.

Capital gains tax already exists so it is not new. The existing discount subsidy on this tax will be halved under a Labor Government on 1 July 2017. However, all investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered and this policy change will also not affect investments made by superannuation funds. The CGT discount will not change for small business assets. This will ensure that no small businesses are worse off under these changes.

Superannuation is already taxed at certain points of accumulation. Labor is proposing to make this tax fairer by discouraging its use for estate planning/tax avoidance by people with very large incomes by realigning super tax concessions i.e. lowering the High Income Superannuation Contribution (HISC) threshold to $250,000. Around 110,000 people will be affected by the new arrangements.  It will  also reduce the tax-free concession available to people with annual superannuation incomes from earnings of more than $75,000. From 1 July 2017, future earnings on assets supporting income streams will be tax‑free up to $75,000 a year for each individual. Earnings above the $75,000 threshold will attract the same concessional rate of 15 per cent that applies to earnings in the accumulation phase. This measure will affect approximately 60,000 superannuation account holders with superannuation balances in excess of $1.5 million......To ensure that similar concessions are reduced for defined benefit superannuation schemes, Labor will also remove the 10% tax offset for defined benefit income above $75,000, estimated to effect approximately 9,500 account holders.

Tobacco taxation already exists so it also is not new, but the tax percentage will change if Labor wins government. Resulting in a price increase on a packet of cigarettes of an est. $10 spread over four years.

Carbon tax does not exist currently – in fact the previous Labor government's carbon levy was scheduled to end in 2014-15 as it moved towards the then legislated change to a market-driven carbon pricing mechanism. In 2014 a newly elected Abbott Government abolished this national emissions trading scheme. To date Labor has not announced details of its new climate change policy except to point out that it intends to implement an emissions trading scheme which will not be a tax.

Five new taxes planned under Labor? Er..... more like no new taxes in these five instances identified by Tony Abbott in full election campaign-mode.

Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott on the subject of 'what a great man I am'

This was former prime minister and MP for Warringah Tony Abbott donning his ‘journalist’ hat in The Australian on 27 February 2016 in order to trot out an increasingly tired old defence of his failed leadership.

We have courageous Tony, strong Tony, honest Tony, reforming Tony, fiscally responsible Tony, union busting Tony, tax killing Tony, boat stopping Tony, free trade Tony, war leader Tony, I'm better than Mal Tony,  et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…..

“The first law of governing is that you can’t spend what you can’t raise through taxes and borrowings; and the second law is that today’s borrowings have to be paid for — with interest — by tomorrow’s taxes. Governments, like households and businesses, have to live within their means.

With more than $250 billion of cumulative deficits under the former Labor government, the need for budget repair was the constant refrain of the Abbott opposition and the task of budget repair was the most important work of the Abbott government. We were far from fully successful but made a determined effort. 

Certainly, no fair-minded judge could accuse us of shirking the challenge.

In 2014, launching Paul Kelly’s book on the Rudd-Gillard era, I said that the mission of the Abbott government was to prove that the age of reform had been interrupted, not ended; and that the Rudd-Gillard years were an aberration, not the new normal. To then lose the prime ministership in a partyroom coup was to repeat recent history, not to change it. Still, for two years, the Abbott government squarely faced up to our nation’s challenges and did much that will stand the test of time.

We met new national security challenges at home and abroad with a strength and sureness that was noticed internationally. And we began the critical task of budget repair. This was achieved despite a hysterical opposition, a populist Senate crossbench, a poisonous media — and, as shown by the very well-organised September 2015 spill, some senior members who didn’t want the Abbott government to succeed.

As a citizen paying a mortgage, let alone as a senior minister working to a budget, I had always understood very well that everything has to be paid for. Every single thing that government does — maintaining the police and armed forces, administering justice, paying for social security and facilitating schools and hospitals — all has to be funded by taxpayers. So ensuring that government spends no more than it really must is not just an economic imperative, it’s also a moral one. It’s the respect that government owes to taxpayers for whom every dollar is hard-earned.

The key to a strong and prosperous economy was getting government spending down so that tax cuts could responsibly be delivered. This, in fact, is the constant challenge of government: keeping its own spending under control so that tax can be low and private sector confidence can be high.

Early on, the Abbott government showed its economic mettle.

Refusing to offer further subsidies to chronically unprofitable carmakers when Holden and Toyota announced, around Christmas 2013, the end of production in Australia; declining to extend a loan guarantee to Qantas when it claimed its future was in jeopardy; and telling SPC Ardmona to look to its parent company, rather than to government, for a bailout when its closure was a risk to regional Victoria meant that “the age of entitlement was over”, at least for business welfare.

These were not easy decisions. They were very vigorously debated inside the cabinet.

The Abbott government’s car industry decision will ultimately save taxpayers upwards of half a billion dollars a year. As its latest results show, our Qantas decision forced the unions to accept that their members’ jobs required their employer’s profitability. And our SPC decision forced the company to innovate rather than to continue products that had gone out of fashion.

In workplace relations, the Abbott government swiftly moved to reform the union movement in a pragmatic, two-step process that would lead to reform of workplaces.

At the 2013 election, we’d sought a mandate for a registered organisations commission to subject union officials to the same standards of governance as company directors, and for a re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission to be a tough cop on the beat for large projects regularly subject to union blackmail. We’d also promised a judicial inquiry into union corruption.

Now that the Heydon royal commission has provided an abundance of evidence to justify these policies, it’s hard to see the legislation once more being blocked in the Senate. The crossbenchers have the justification they need; and even a CFMEU-­influenced opposition is unlikely to risk a double-dissolution election defending union thugs.

These aren’t the workplace changes that the most committed reformers typically seek but they were the ones most likely to pass this Senate. Higher-calibre union officials would be more likely to enter into constructive negotiations with vulnerable employers. Further, an intimidation-free building industry, on past evidence, would likely be at least 10 per cent more efficient, saving consumers upwards of $5bn a year.

Wherever the Abbott government had comparative freedom of action — for instance, in national security or foreign policy — it was largely successful. Even in economic policy, which often required the passage of legislation through a difficult Senate, much was achieved. Indeed, one of the strongest endorsements of the Abbott government’s economic policy has been Malcolm Turnbull’s pledge to maintain it.

The abolition of the carbon tax removed a $9bn a year economic handbrake. The abolition of the confidence-killing mining tax was the clearest possible indicator that, under the Abbott government, Australia really was “open for business”. With the scrapping of its predecessor’s tax hits on educational expenses, on vehicle leasing and on bank account deposits, and with its reductions in tax for small business and the small business tax writeoff for assets under $20,000, the Abbott government demonstrated its tax-cutting credentials…….”

If anyone can bear to read further, the full newspaper article is here and an even wordier version is in the March issue of Quadrant here.

Tony Abbott's propaganda machine running at full throttle

Federal Member for Warringah Tony Abbott’s personal website is up and running again – with its entire history before 15 September 2015 conveniently wiped from memory and, at the timing of writing, there is only limited pre-prime ministership access to this site via the Wayback Machine.

The former prime minister has also rewritten his biography page on the current version of the website. 

Here is a transcript of that page with my annotations in red for your enjoyment:

Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister by the Australian people on 7 September 2013 and served for two years. Prime ministers and parliamentary party leaders are not elected by the people but by government MPs & senators. His time as prime minister commenced on 18 September 2013 and he was sacked as party leader and prime minister by Liberal Party MPs & senators on 15 September 2015 so he was not prime minister for a full two years.

In his time as Prime Minister, the carbon tax and the mining tax were repealed; free trade agreements were finalised with China, Japan and Korea; and the people smuggling trade from Indonesia to Australia was halted. Australia became the second largest military contributor to the US-led campaign against ISIL in Iraq and hosted the G20 meeting of global leaders in Brisbane in November 2014. Australia is not the second largest contributor to the US-led campaign against ISIL which commenced in August 2014. Australia entered the campaign in October 2014 with approximately 200 defence personnel, building up to around 780 personnel & 8 aircraft by September 2015. However by February 2015 France had in excess of 2,000 defence personnel deployed on the ground & aboard an aircraft carrier and frigate, plus over forty aircraft on active duty by September 2015.

In 2014 and again in 2015, he spent a week running the government from a remote indigenous community. In 2014 Abbott spent barely 4 days in Arnhem Land arriving on 14 September & leaving on 18 September. In 2015 he managed almost 5 full days, arriving in the morning on 23 August & leaving around midday on 28 August.

As Opposition Leader at the 2010 election, he reduced a first term Labor government to minority status before comprehensively winning the 2013 election.

Between 1996 and 2007, he was successively parliamentary secretary, minister, cabinet minister and Leader of the House of Representatives in the Howard government.

As Minister for Health, he expanded Medicare to include dentists, psychologists and other health professionals and resolved the medical indemnity crisis. Abbott did not become Health Minister until 7 November 2003. The Howard Government began to provide financial assistance to United Medical Protection in May 2002 & the Medical Indemnity Act received assent on 19 December 2002. When he became Minister for Health & Ageing he merely continued this financial assistance. Medical insurance premiums rose quickly in 2003 and then continued to trend upwards during his tenure in the health portfolio.

As Minister for Workplace Relations, he boosted construction industry productivity through the establishment of a royal commission against union lawlessness. Abbott held this ministry from January 2001 until October 2003. The 2001-2003 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry also looked at construction companies, employers & workplace safety. Construction industry productivity levels actually began to fall in the 2002-03 financial year.

As Minister for Employment Services, he developed private-sector job placement services and Work for the Dole for long-term unemployed people.

Tony Abbott has been Member for Warringah in the Australian Parliament since 1994.

Prior to entering parliament, he was a journalist with The Australian, a senior adviser to Opposition Leader John Hewson, and director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. Abbott forgot to mention his 1987 stint as a full-time journalist at The Bulletin newspaper and then his brief career as manager of a Pioneer Concrete plant.

He has degrees in economics and law from Sydney University and an MA in politics and philosophy from Oxford which he attended as a Rhodes Scholar.

He is the author of three books.

Since 1998, he has convened the Pollie Pedal annual charity bike ride which has raised more than $4 million for medical research, indigenous health scholarships and Carers Australia.

Tony Abbott does surf patrols with the Queenscliff Surf Life Saving Club and is a former deputy captain in the Davidson Rural Fire Brigade.

He is married to Margaret and they are the proud parents of three daughters – Louise, Frances and Bridget.

Can a photograph be any more contrived than this one?

Photo: Andrew Meares

Prime Minister Tony Abbott appearing to 'console' treasurer Joe Hockey during a prearranged and very posed photo shoot promoting 2015-16 budget papers preparation.

Tony Abbott's latest budget pork pie

Tens of thousands of wealthier retirees will lose access to the age pension under changes targeting what Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described as "liquid assets millionaires".

Excuse me?

Every single one of these people receiving a part aged pension will continue to do so – it will just not be in the form of cash into their bank accounts.

Under Abbott’s sleight-of-hand the announced changes will lose them the small fortnightly cash transfers some currently receive, but they will all retain the highly financially lucrative seniors health card – a benefit worth thousands of dollars a year to the average retiree.

If you want proof of this just look at the paltry savings the Abbott Government is supposedly garnering from the this measure – a total of est. $177.7 million each year over the next four years.

An estimated 91,000 of those independent retirees (some of them millionaires) who structured their post-retirement assets, tax-free superannuation lump sums and income streams to allow themselves a regular federal government welfare payment and/or benefit, will lose their Centrelink cash transfer, but retain the right to bulk-billed medical services, heavily subsidised pharmaceuticals, subsidised public transport travel, telephone account concessions and, energy supplements etc via retention of the seniors health card.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and the rest of their far-fight rabble must think Australian voters are fools if they expect them to swallow this politically convenient stop-gap measure aimed at neatly sidestepping the need for superannuation tax status reform.

Is Abbott living in a perpetual political phantasy land unable any longer to distinguish truth from lies?

This was Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott altering political history on a whim on 28 March 2015:

Mitch Fifield, the architect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, who will deliver a genuinely insurance-based scheme which will benefit a half a million Australians with disabilities and everyone who cares for them and which will have its head office in Geelong.

Perhaps someone should remind Abbott that the Australian Parliamentary Library clearly identifies who set the National Disability Insurance Scheme in motion and laid out its basic structure:

On 30 April 2012, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that the Government would fund its ‘share’ of the cost of the first stage of the NDIS in the 2012–13 Budget.[10] The Government’s NDIS media release accompanying the Budget states that its share includes ‘the total administration and running costs for the first stage of an NDIS’.[11] In addition the media release says that ‘states and territories that host the initial locations will also be required to contribute to the cost of personal care and support for people with disability’. At this stage, it is not clear what the Government has in mind as ‘locations’ for the first stage of the NDIS but the Commission’s proposal was for ‘regions that each contained a modest number of people who were likely to be eligible for the scheme (say, around 10 000 per region)’.[12] Commencement of the NDIS in 2013 is one year ahead of the timetable proposed by the Commission.

The $1.0 billion to be provided by the Australian Government includes:

* $342.5 million over three years from July next year for individually funded packages for people with significant and permanent disability

* $154.8 million over three years from July next year to employ Local Area Coordinators to provide an individualised approach to delivering care and support to people with a disability

* $58.6 million over three years from July next year to assess the needs of people with a disability in the launch locations

* $122.6 million over four years to start preparing the disability sector for the new way of delivering disability services

* $240.3 million over four years to build and operate an NDIS information technology system and

* $53.0 million over four years to establish a new National Disability Transition Agency to coordinate implementation and manage the delivery of care and support to people with a disability and their carers in the initial launch locations from 2013–14.[13]

During the final days of the Gillard Labor Government ABC News reported on 3 June 2013:

...the regional Victorian city has been chosen as the headquarters of the new DisabilityCare agency.

All states and territories - except Western Australia - have signed up to be part of the scheme, formerly known as the NDIS.

Once DisabilityCare is fully rolled out, the national headquarters in Geelong will employ 300 people, in addition to 150 people in the regional office......

The Barwon region of south-west Victoria, which includes Geelong, was chosen last year as one of the sites where DisabilityCare would be trialled. The trial will start on July 1 and involve 5,000 people.

Tony Abbott and his attempts to degrade scientific research in Australia

It is well known that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott believes that climate change science is absolute crap, but even he has exceeded expectations of what his passive-aggressive brand of climate change denialism will bring forth when he appointed self-described climate policy sceptic, Bjørn Lomborg*, as an adviser to federal government on foreign aid delivery and arranged for the Australian taxpayer to fund Lomborg to the tune of $4 million now that the Danish Government has defunded his pseudo-scientific approach to research and American donors are not enthusiastically supporting this 'homeless' think tank the Copenhagen Consensus Center Inc.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Excerpt from one of the Lomborg Errors documents:

3. The Working Party's reproduction of the professional published critique of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" prior to the complaints to DCSD

"The Skeptical Environmentalist" has given rise to extensive public discussion and debate, both in Denmark and internationally. There have been enthusiastic reviews in some of the world's top newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, and in The Economist.

The magazine Scientific American asked four leading experts to assess Bjørn Lomborg's treatment of their own fields: global warming, energy, population and biodiversity, devoting 11 pages to this in January 2002.

Stephen Schneider: "Global Warming, Neglecting the Complexities"

Schneider is a particularly respected researcher who has been discussing these problems for 30 years with thousands of fellow scientists and policy analysts in myriad articles and formal meetings.

Most of Bjørn Lomborg's quotes allude to secondary literature and media articles. Bjørn Lomborg uses peer-reviewed articles only when they support his rose-coloured point of view. By contrast, the authors on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were subjected to three rounds of audits by hundreds of external experts.

Bjørn Lomborg employs no clear and discrete distinction between various forms of probabilities. He makes frequent use of the word "plausible" but, strangely for a statistician, he never attaches any probability to what is "plausible". IPCC gives a large "range" for the majority of projections, but Bjørn Lomborg selects the least serious outcomes.

Stephen Schneider then provides a specific criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's four main arguments:

1. Climate Science: Bjørn Lomborg quotes an article in Nature (from the Hadley Center, 1989), uncritically and without the authors' caveats. BL quotes Lindzen's controversial "iris effect" as evidence that IPCC's climate range needs to be reduced by a factor of almost three. BL either fails to understand this mechanism or else omits to state that the data stem from only a few years' data in a small part of a single ocean. Extrapolating this sample to the entire globe is wrong. Similarly, he quotes a controversial Danish paper claiming that solar magnetic events can modulate cosmic radiation and produce a clear connection between global low-level cloud cover and incoming cosmic rays as an alternative to CO2 in order to explain climate change. The reason IPCC discounts this theory is "that its advocates have not demonstrated any radiative forcing sufficient to match that of much more parsimonious theories, such as anthropogenic forcing."

2. Emissions scenarios: Bjørn Lomborg assumes that over the next several decades, improved solar machines and other new technologies will crowd fossil fuels off the market, which will be done so efficiently that the IPCC scenarios vastly overestimate the chance of major increases in CO2. This is not so much analysis as wishful thinking contingent on policies capable of reinforcing the incentives for such development, and BL is opposed to such policies. No credible analyst can just assert that a fossil-fuel-intensive scenario is not "plausible" and, typically, BL gives no probability that this might occur.

3. Cost-benefit calculations: Bjørn Lomborg's most egregious distortions and feeblest analyses are his citations of cost-benefit calculations. First, he chides the governments that modified the penultimate draft of the IPCC report. But there was a reason for that modification, which downgraded aggregate cost-benefit studies: these studies fail to consider so many categories of damage held to be important by political leaders, and it is therefore not the "total cost-benefit" analysis that Bjørn Lomborg wants. Again, BL cites only a single value for climate damage - 5 trillion dollars - although the same articles indicate that climate change can vary from benefits to catastrophic losses. It is precisely because the responsible scientific community cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes at a high level of confidence that climate mitigation policies are seriously proposed. For some inexplicable reasons, BL fails to provide a range of climate damage avoided, only a range for climate policy costs. This estimate is based solely on the economics literature but ignores the findings of engineers and does not take into account pre-existing market imperfections such as energy-inefficient machinery, houses and processes. Thus, five US Dept. of Energy laboratories have suggested that such a substitution can actually reduce some emissions at below-zero costs.

4. The Kyoto Protocol: Bjørn Lomborg's invention of a 100-year regime for the Kyoto Protocol is a distortion of the climate policy process. Most analysts know that "an extended" Kyoto Protocol cannot deliver the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions needed to prevent large increases at the end of the 21st century and during the 22nd century, and that developed and developing countries alike will have to cooperate to fashion cost-effective solutions over time. Kyoto is a starting point, and yet with his 100-year projection BL would squash even this first stage.

Bjørn Lomborg's book is published by the social sciences side of Cambridge University Press. It is no wonder, then, that the reviewers failed to spot BL's unbalanced presentation of the natural science. It is a serious omission on the part of an otherwise respected publishing house that natural-science researchers were not taken on board. "Lomborg admits, 'I am not myself an expert as regards ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS' - truer words are not found in the rest of the book".

John P. Holdren: "Energy: Asking the Wrong Questions"

Bjørn Lomborg's chapter on energy covers a scant 19 pages and is devoted almost entirely to attacking the belief that the world is running out of energy, a belief that BL appears to regard as part of the "environmental litany". But only a handful of environmental researchers, if any at all, believe this today. Conversely, what they do say about this topic is that we are not running out of energy, but out of environment, i.e. the capacity of air, water, soil and biota to absorb, without intolerable consequences for human well-being, the effects of energy extraction, transport, energy transformation and energy use. They also say that we are running out of the ability to manage other risks of the energy supply, such as overdependence on Middle East oil and the risk of nuclear energy systems leaking weapons materials and expertise into the hands of proliferation-prone nations or terrorists. This has been the position of the environmental researchers for decades (e.g. from 1971, 74, 76 and 77).

So whom is BL so resoundingly refuting with his treatise on the abundance of world energy resources? The professional analysts have not been arguing that the world is running out of energy, only that the world could run out of cheap oil. BL's dismissive rhetoric notwithstanding, this is not a silly question, nor one with an easy answer.

Oil is currently the most valuable of the conventional fossil fuels that have long provided the bulk of the world's energy, including almost all energy for transport. The quantity of recoverable oil resources is thought to be far less than coal and natural gas, and those reserves are located in the politically volatile Middle East. Much of the rest is located offshore and in other difficult and environmentally fragile areas. There is, accordingly, a serious technical literature, produced mainly by geologists and economists, exploring the questions of when world oil production will peak and begin to decline, and what the price might be in 2010, 2030 or 2050 - with considerable disagreement among informed professionals.

BL seems not to recognize that the transition from oil to other sources will not necessarily be a smooth one or occur at prices as low as the price of oil today. BL shows no sign of understanding why there is real debate about this among serious-minded people.

BL offers no explanation of the distinction between "proved reserves" and "remaining ultimately recoverable resources", nor of the fact that the majority of the latter category is located in the Middle East, but placidly informs us that it is "imperative for our future energy supply that this region remains reasonably peaceful" - as if that observation does not undermine any basis for complacency.

BL is right in his basic proposition that the resources of oil, oil shale, nuclear fuels and renewable energy are immense. But that is disputed by only few environmental researchers-and no well-informed ones. But his handling of the technical, economic and environmental factors that will govern the circumstances and quantities in which these resources might actually be used is superficial, muddled and often plain wrong. His mistakes include apparent misreadings and misunderstandings of statistical data, the very kinds of errors he claims are pervasive in the writings of environmentalists. By the same token, there are other elementary blunders of a type that should not be committed by any self-respecting statistician. Thus, it is wrong that measures in the developed countries have eliminated the vast majority of SO2 and NO2 from smoke from coal-burning facilities: it is only a minor proportion. Other examples are given, and when it comes to nuclear energy, plutonium is such a great security problem as regards the potential production of nuclear weapons that it may preclude use of the "breeding" approach unless a new technology is invented that is just as cheap.

BL uses precise figures, where there is no basis for such, and he produces assertions based on single citations and without detailed elaborations, which is far from representative of the literature.

Most of what is problematic about the global energy picture is not covered by BL in the chapter on energy but in the chapters dealing with air pollution, acid rain, water pollution and global warming. The latter has been devastatingly critiqued by Schneider.

There is no space to deal with the other energy-related chapters, but their level of superficiality, selectivity and misunderstandings is roughly consistent with what has been reviewed here.

"Lomborg is giving skepticism - and statisticians - a bad name."

John Bongaarts: "Population: Ignoring Its Impact"

Bjørn Lomborg's view that the number of people is not the problem is simply wrong. The global population growth rate has declined slowly, but absolute growth remains close to the very high levels observed in past decades. Any discussion of global trends is misleading without taking account of the enormous contrasts between world regions, where the poorest nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America have rapidly growing and young populations, whereas Europe, North America and Japan have virtually zero, and in some cases even negative, growth. As a consequence, all future growth will be concentrated in the developing countries, where four-fifths of the world's population lives: from 4.87 to 6.72 billion between 2000 and 2025, or just as large as the record-breaking increase in the past quarter of the (21st) century. This growth in the poorest parts of the world continues virtually unabated. The growth has led to high population density in many countries, but BL dismisses concerns about this issue, based on a simplistic and misleading calculation of density as the ratio of people to land. In Egypt this would make 88/km2, but deducting the uncultivated and unirrigated part of Egypt, it makes 2,000/km2 - no wonder Egypt has to import foodstuffs! Measured correctly, population densities have reached extremely high levels, particularly in large countries in Asia and the Middle East. This makes demands in terms of agricultural expansion on more difficult, hitherto untilled terrain, increased water consumption and a struggle for the scarce water resources between households, industry and farming. The upshot will be to make growth in food production more expensive to achieve. BL's view that increased food production is a non-issue rests heavily on the fact that foodstuffs are cheap; but BL overlooks the fact that it is large-scale subsidies to farmers, particularly in the developed countries, that keep prices artificially low.

Appreciably expanding farming will result in a reduction of woodland areas, loss of species, soil erosion, and pesticide and fertilizer run-offs. Reducing this impact is possible but costly, and would be easier if the growth in population were slower.

BL overlooks the fact that population growth contributes to poverty. First, children have to be fed, housed, clothed and educated - while economically non-productive - then jobs have to be created once they reach adulthood. Unemployment lowers wages to subsistence level. Counteracting population growth has fuelled "economic miracles" in a number of East Asian countries.

BL overlooks the fact that the favourable trend in life expectancy is due to intensive efforts on the part of governments and the international community, but despite this, 800 million are still malnourished and 1.2 billion are living in abject poverty. Population is not the main cause of the world's social, economic and environmental problems, but it is a substantial contributory factor. If future growth can be slowed down, future generations would be better off.

Thomas Lovejoy: "Biodiversity: Dismissing Scientific Progress"

In less than a page, Bjørn Lomborg discounts the value of biodiversity both as a library for the life sciences and as a provider of ecosystem services (partly due to the general absence of markets for these services). When he does get round to extinction, he confounds the process by which a species is judged to have been made extinct with estimates and projections of extinction rates. In contrast to BL's claim, the loss of species from habitat remnants is a widely documented phenomenon. A number of factual errors are highlighted. BL takes particular exception to Norman Myer's 1979 estimate that 40,000 species are being lost every year, failing to acknowledge that Myer deserves credit for being the first to point out that the number was large and at a time when it was difficult to do so accurately. Current estimates are given in terms of the increases over normal extinction rates. BL cynically spurns this method, because such estimates sound more ominous. Instead, he ought to acknowledge that this method is an improvement in the science. These rates are currently 100 to 1,000 times' the normal, and are certain to rise as natural habitats continue to dwindle.

The chapter on acid rain is equally poorly researched and presented. BL establishes that acid rain has nothing to do with urban pollution, though it is a fact that nitrogen compounds (NOx) from traffic are a major source. Errors are pointed out in BL's view of acid rain on forests.

The chapter on forests suffers from BL not knowing that FAO's data are marred by the weight of so many different definitions and methods that any statistician should know they are not valid in terms of a time series. There are errors in the figures from Indonesia in 1997. BL confuses forests with tree plantations, and asserts that the only value of forests is harvestable trees. That is analogous to valuing computer chips for their silicon content only.

It is important to know that while deforestation and acid rain are reversible, extinction of species is not.

BL entirely overlooks the fact that environmental scientists identify a problem, posit hypotheses, test them and, having reached their conclusions, suggest remedial policies. By focusing on the first and last stages in this process, BL implies incorrectly that all environmentalists do is exaggerate.

Source Watch:

Dr Peter Raven, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2002 said of Lomborg: "...he's not an environmental scientist and he doesn't understand the fields that he's talking about so in that case, if you have a point to make and you want to get to that point, which is: everything's fine, everybody's wrong, there is no environmental problem, you just keep making that point. It's like a school exercise or a debating society, which really doesn't take into account the facts". 

"Raven said that the success of Lomborg's book 'demonstrates the vulnerability of the scientific process -- which is deliberative and hypothesis driven -- to outright misrepresentation and distortion.'"

Newsweek 21 February 2010:

Lomborg opens Cool It with a long discussion on polar bears, arguing that no more than two (of 20) groups are declining in population, that their numbers are not falling overall, and, in places where they are, that it is not a result of global (or Arctic) warming. In fact, polar-bear populations in warming regions are rising, he argues, suggesting that a warmer world will be beneficial to the bears. As Friel shows, Lomborg sourced that to a blog post and to a study that never mentioned polar bears. But he ignored the clear message of the most authoritative assessment of the bears' population trends, namely, research by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming. In fact, concluded the IUCN, polar-bear populations "have declined significantly" where spring temperatures have risen dramatically. It also offered an explanation for Lomborg's claim that numbers are falling most where temps are getting colder: that area happens to be where there is unregulated hunting.

For his claim that the polar-bear population "has soared," Lomborg cited a 1999 study (scroll down to the paper by Ian Stirling). But that study described declining birthrates and other threats to the bears, blaming warmer spring temperatures that cause the sea ice to break up. Overall, since the mid-1980s polar-bear numbers have fallen, which experts attribute to global warming. The source is thus not exactly the solid endorsement of Lomborg's claim about thriving polar bears that one might assume.

Climate Council 14 April 2015:

The Australian Government today announced they would contribute $4m for Danish climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg to establish a new “consensus centre” at the University of Western Australia.

In the face of deep cuts to the CSIRO and other scientific research organisations, it's an insult to Australia’s scientific community.

As the Climate Commission, we were abolished by the Abbott Government in 2013 on the basis that our $1.5 million annual operating costs were too expensive. We relaunched as the Climate Council after thousands of Australians chipped in to the nation’s biggest crowd-funding campaign…

It seems extraordinary that the Climate Commission, which was composed of Australia’s best climate scientists, economists and energy experts, was abolished on the basis of a lack of funding and yet here we are three years later and the money has become available to import a politically-motivated think tank to work in the same space.

This is why the work of the Climate Council is so important - to counter this continuing ideological attempt at deceiving the Australian public.

Mr Lomborg’s views have no credibility in the scientific community. His message hasn’t varied at all in the last decade and he still believes we shouldn't take any steps to mitigate climate change. When someone is unwilling to adapt their view on the basis of new science or information, it's usually a sign those views are politically motivated. 

 * Bjørn Lomborg states he is a director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, adjunct professor at University of Western Australia, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School.

He further states that he has an M.A. in political science (University of Aarhus) and a Ph.D. in political science (University of Copenhagen).

His degrees are in social science and not in any of the scientific disciplines which inform credible climate research.

It took some time for Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki to understand that the 2015 Intergenerational Report was always a politically partisan document created by the Abbott Government

Screen shot from www.challengeofchange.gov.au

On 5 March 2015 Abbott Government released its 2015 Intergenerational Report

“Dr. Karl” begins to voice doubts about the report in The Canberra Times on 14 April 2015:

The man appearing on television screens across the country promoting the Abbott government's Intergenerational Report - science broadcaster Karl Kruszelnicki - has hardened his stance against the document, describing it as "flawed" and admitting to concerns that it was "fiddled with" by the government.

Dr Kruszelnicki, widely known as Dr Karl, has previously revealed that he had not read the full report before he agreed to front the taxpayer-funded campaign, which is expected to cost millions.

The Intergenerational Report - a snapshot of Australia's economy and society in 40 years - was criticised by Labor as a "highly political document" for, among other things, downgrading climate change from its own chapter in 2010 to three-and-a-half pages in 2015.

"As far as I can see, it's a flawed report," Dr Kruszelnicki told Fairfax Media.

He singled out the reduced focus on climate change in this year's report for criticism. "In no way am I endorsing the government's stance on climate change. I think it is incredibly short-sighted," he said. 

Dr Kruszelnicki - who has appeared in advertisements for the report running prominently on commercial television, news websites and social media - has also tweeted comments criticising the government for cutting funding to the CSIRO. The report emphasises the value of scientific research and innovation. 

Dr Kruszelnicki said: "The only reason I agreed to do it [promote the report] is because I was told that it would be independent, bipartisan and non-political.

"If it turns out to have been fiddled with or subject to political interference from one side of politics I would deeply regret playing any part in it whatsoever."

Dr Kruszelnicki said he agreed to front the campaign after reading extracts on the ageing of the population and the changing nature of work.

He said the independence of the document is now unclear.

Unfortunately at that stage he still appears to believe that the report was created by the Australian Treasury and public servants. Hence, the idea that it may have been “fiddled with” once it left their hands.

The Abbott Government did not have to fiddle with the report – the entire document was assembled at the direction of government ministers.

Thirteen days after the report’s release the Deputy Secretary, Fiscal Group, from the Dept. of Treasury made it clear to the Senate Select Committee Into The Abbott Government’s Budget Cuts that it was not a treasury document:

Mr Ray : The document is the government's document. We work with the government to prepare it. Generally, this is the government's document, not ours.

By 15 April Dr. Karl had become blunter in his assessment of the situation when quoted by ABC News:

Dr Kruszelnicki blames himself for trusting the Government. He turned to Aesop's Fables to explain himself.

"The scorpion says to the frog, 'can you take me across the flooded river?' And the frog says, 'No, you'll stab me and kill me.'," he said.

"And the scorpion says, 'No, I won't do that because I'll drown myself." And the frog says, 'Yes, you'll drown.' So the frog says, 'hop on my back', takes him half way across the river and then the scorpion stabs him.

"And the frog says, 'Hey, you stabbed me, I'm going to die! And so are you! Why'd you do that? Are you crazy?' And the scorpion said, 'I can't help it. It's my nature.'

"It was my fault for not realising the nature of the beast that I was involved with.

"I really thought that it would be an independent, bipartisan, non-political document."

However, Dr Kruszelnicki said he had not asked for the ad campaign to stop.

Finally that night, Dr. Karl must have realised that his participation in government advertising was an issue with the potential to damage his own reputation and, this was the result:

Unlike the good doctor, The Guardian had the measure of this intergenerational report early and on 9 March 2015 pointed out its glaringly obvious partisan nature:

Every intergenerational report is only as good as the assumptions on which the predictions are based – especially those pertaining to demographics. And while some of the predictions about the ageing population and the implications that will have on employment participation and economic growth are worth considering, the assumptions about government spending over the next 40 years are pretty much a farrago of idiocy.

For no good reason whatsoever, Hockey has decided for the first time to include in the report projection based on policies of the former government. But he takes as the ALP’s “previous policy” that represented in the 2013-14 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (Myefo) – a document produced by the Abbott government and which saw the 2013-14 deficit increase by $10.26bn due to “policy decisions” taken by the Abbott government.

The 2013-14 Myefo was itself designed to make it appear the ALP had blown the budget, and thus using that as the starting point to predict budget deficits over the next 40 years is a fairly dodgy exercise.