Tony Abbott was a one stop ride when asked about the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme on ABC Lateline last Friday.
However, you just have to admire Tone's dogged persistence at getting across his 'message' and managing a gratuitous mention of Evans' dodgy opinion [See WaterDragon's post].
According to Tone the Moan, Penny Wong all but stole the emissions trading scheme, lock, stock and barrel, from the former Coalition government.
Somehow I think Abbott's words may come back to haunt him during the next parliamentary sitting period.
TONY ABBOTT: Well, no. Well, no, I'm not. I mean, these are the guys - it's the Rudd Government that wants to take a Howard Government program and rush it into practice and no doubt maladminister it, even though the science is evolving. These are the guys that are going to muck things up and I think it's only right and proper that they should be held to account and put on the spot....
TONY ABBOTT: Well, I mean, the now Government says that the Coalition doesn't take this issue seriously and yet they've actually taken up the Howard Government's plan, except they want to rush it in too early, even though the situation is evolving. Now ...
TONY ABBOTT: Because the emissions trading system that Labor is proposing is essentially a carbon copy of what the Howard Government proposed only we wanted to wait and see what happened until 2012. We didn't want to rush it in as an act of theology in just a couple of years' time, when the expert advice that we got was that it was impossible to bring in an emissions trading system safely and fairly in the time frame that Labor is now pursuing...
TONY ABBOTT: So did you read the article by David Evans in the paper today? ...
VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Tony Abbott, you're ducking and weaving here, I mean...
TONY ABBOTT: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, I...
VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Yeah, but there's enough out there at least for you to say, "No, that won't work, this will?"
TONY ABBOTT: Well, as I said, it's not for us - I mean, the Howard Government put forward a policy. Essentially it's been adopted by the Government.
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Who should we believe on climate change?
It didn't take long after the Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water announced the green paper on a national emissions trading scheme for a section of the media to find it's anti-anthropomorphic climate change position.
The Australian lead the charge yesterday with this from Dr. David Evans.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.----
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Now Dr. Evans has a perfect right to his own opinion. However, there is one question that comes to mind; is this opinion worth considerable weight?
I honestly don't know, but I suspect that a man whose biography shows that his Phd was in electrical engineering, whose forte is mathematics and computer programming, whose first love appears to be his investment portfolio and the stock exchange and who has a company to promote, may not be the person with the last reliable word on climate change theory.
Dr. Evans also appears to be a fan (perhaps also a member) of The Lavoisier Group which was founded in 2000 as a group of people who were concerned about the drift at that time towards ratification of Kyoto and the decarbonisation of Australia.
So, in the end, perhaps David Evans is not "the rocket scientist".
The Australian lead the charge yesterday with this from Dr. David Evans.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.----
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Now Dr. Evans has a perfect right to his own opinion. However, there is one question that comes to mind; is this opinion worth considerable weight?
I honestly don't know, but I suspect that a man whose biography shows that his Phd was in electrical engineering, whose forte is mathematics and computer programming, whose first love appears to be his investment portfolio and the stock exchange and who has a company to promote, may not be the person with the last reliable word on climate change theory.
Dr. Evans also appears to be a fan (perhaps also a member) of The Lavoisier Group which was founded in 2000 as a group of people who were concerned about the drift at that time towards ratification of Kyoto and the decarbonisation of Australia.
So, in the end, perhaps David Evans is not "the rocket scientist".
Friday, 18 July 2008
Best World Youth Day photo of the week
Darth Vader gets into the act in this photo posted at Larvatus Prodeo during Catholic World Youth Day 2008.Hats off to ProjectEye for the original.
Worst World Youth Day quote of the week
Original picture found at Google Images
Bishop Anthony Fisher making a mockery of the pain and suffering experienced by sexual abuse victims and their families.
A thought to ponder as the politicians argue about climate change
In the Herald Sun yesterday.
"NATURAL disasters killed at least 150,000 people in the first half of this year, more than in the whole of 2004 when south-east Asia was struck by a tsunami, a top insurer said today.
The figures came from German re-insurance group Munich Re which warned that the pattern this year fitted a trend of worsening weather-driven catastrophes, and the company called for increased efforts to fight climate change.
Specialists at the German group recorded about 400 natural catastrophes in the first half of 2008, with overall losses so far estimated at $US50 billion ($52.48 billion).
In 2007, a total of 960 disasters caused about $US82 billion in damage, of which $US30 billion was covered by insurance."
Perhaps Nelson, Turnbull and Co. might like to think on this, as they baulk at beginning to implement solutions.
With most of the Australian population living within seven kilometres of the coastline and therefore in some of the most vulnerable areas of the country, there is no more time for these politicians to play petty games.
The poor will always be with us and poorly compensated for social and economic change
There is a lot of nonsense being talked about people living on or below the poverty line being adequately compensated by government, for rising costs due to the introduction of a mandatory national Emissions Trading Scheme.
This will not happen.
Any individual or family compensation will follow an historic pattern of an increase in benefit, allowance or tax rebate, which will have its real worth whittled away over time because the frequency of cost of living rises either markedly outstrip government expectations or government does not attempt to fully match post-ETS CPI rises.
Renters will be even worse off because it is highly unlikely that landlords will install water and energy saving devices in existing housing.
Any pensioner can tell you that the lag, between real cost increases and increases in pensions or allowances, mean that bills are often being met from dwindling resources.
So I have little sympathy for business or industry bitching over the 'sweet' deal they are getting from the Rudd Government.
Their own company bottom lines are unlikely to suffer - they will all make sure that the poor cough up to pay their increased fees and charges.
This will not happen.
Any individual or family compensation will follow an historic pattern of an increase in benefit, allowance or tax rebate, which will have its real worth whittled away over time because the frequency of cost of living rises either markedly outstrip government expectations or government does not attempt to fully match post-ETS CPI rises.
Renters will be even worse off because it is highly unlikely that landlords will install water and energy saving devices in existing housing.
Any pensioner can tell you that the lag, between real cost increases and increases in pensions or allowances, mean that bills are often being met from dwindling resources.
So I have little sympathy for business or industry bitching over the 'sweet' deal they are getting from the Rudd Government.
Their own company bottom lines are unlikely to suffer - they will all make sure that the poor cough up to pay their increased fees and charges.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Free to a good home. One red-neck editor
If anyone in the Clarence Valley was surprised at either the increasingly strident editorials coming from the pen of new The Daily Examiner editor, Peter Chapman, his tabloid-style of journalism or the fact that he attacked one letter to the editor writer (critical of his fear mongering) by name in an editorial - be surprised no more.
It seems that the ABC's Media Watch 1999 archives may give a measure of the man that APN News & Media Ltd has foisted on our unsuspecting valley communities.
Richard Ackland: The flack asking the questions was the public relations manager of the Canberra Raiders, Peter Chapman.
Chapman and Pearson nutted out the questions and answers in advance of it being recorded, and released it to the over-excited news services.
No journalist got within cooee of a question.
But that wasn't the only deception.
Much of the video "press release" centred on the leak, and who had leaked:
Chapman: "Who had a copy of that statement?
Pearson: "Ah two people initially had a copy of that statement. "(Channel 10 News, 4/8/99)
Richard Ackland: Well, that was three.... And there was more probing:
Chapman: "Have you asked who released it?
Pearson: "Um, I've queried and I can only put two and two together."(Channel 10 News, 4/8/99)
Richard Ackland: I hope he got four. Then there was the immortal:
"How do you feel about the leaking of this confidential document?"(Channel 10 News, 4/8/99)
Richard Ackland: We know of at least two sources, and neither is the NRL's lawyer. One was Kennedy's manager, John Fordham.
But the other was much closer to home.
Peter Chapman was the confidential Raiders' source who had selectively leaked to the 'Canberra Times'.
The same Peter Chapman who asked all those "wide-eyed" questions which suggested the leak was a terrible betrayal.
It's all smoke and mirrors in the fabulous world of public relations.
Until next week, goodnight.
APN's current share price listed on its website last night was:
Australia 3.28 (0.01% change)
New Zealand 3.90 (0.00% change)
Some in the Valley are betting that, with editors like this, APN Australia is about to take a bath.
It seems that the ABC's Media Watch 1999 archives may give a measure of the man that APN News & Media Ltd has foisted on our unsuspecting valley communities.
Richard Ackland: The flack asking the questions was the public relations manager of the Canberra Raiders, Peter Chapman.
Chapman and Pearson nutted out the questions and answers in advance of it being recorded, and released it to the over-excited news services.
No journalist got within cooee of a question.
But that wasn't the only deception.
Much of the video "press release" centred on the leak, and who had leaked:
Chapman: "Who had a copy of that statement?
Pearson: "Ah two people initially had a copy of that statement. "(Channel 10 News, 4/8/99)
Richard Ackland: Well, that was three.... And there was more probing:
Chapman: "Have you asked who released it?
Pearson: "Um, I've queried and I can only put two and two together."(Channel 10 News, 4/8/99)
Richard Ackland: I hope he got four. Then there was the immortal:
"How do you feel about the leaking of this confidential document?"(Channel 10 News, 4/8/99)
Richard Ackland: We know of at least two sources, and neither is the NRL's lawyer. One was Kennedy's manager, John Fordham.
But the other was much closer to home.
Peter Chapman was the confidential Raiders' source who had selectively leaked to the 'Canberra Times'.
The same Peter Chapman who asked all those "wide-eyed" questions which suggested the leak was a terrible betrayal.
It's all smoke and mirrors in the fabulous world of public relations.
Until next week, goodnight.
APN's current share price listed on its website last night was:
Australia 3.28 (0.01% change)
New Zealand 3.90 (0.00% change)
Some in the Valley are betting that, with editors like this, APN Australia is about to take a bath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
