Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
November 29th 2015 print

David Archibald

For Those Who Would Be King

Allowing for the sake of argument that Tony Abbott envisions a return to The Lodge, how might he atone for his disappointments, from placing his usurper in charge of the ABC to doing nothing about Section 18c? Speaking against climate alarmism would be a good start

abbott maskWhen a friend said that she had met Tony Abbott at a small social function for Christian conservatives here in Perth, she was left with the impression, combined with his pronouncements on world affairs, that he might just be angling to be PM once again.  That is within the realms of possibility, though he would be handicapped by his past.  How is he going to convince people that he really means it this time if, at some stage, he says he will repeal Section 18C upon becoming leader?  Or on any other subject?

At some point our current PM might falter, as he did in 2009, and lose the leadership.  And it might even be for the same reason – his infatuation with global warming.  Direct Action was dreamed up as an alternative to Labor’s carbon tax, and the government is proud that it only costs $600 million-odd, rather than the $2.5 billion of the Labor scheme.  There is one big difference, though, in that Direct Action is paying money to people who promise not to do things, such as burning grass, whereas the carbon tax would have had money going the other way, into general revenue.  In terms of rort-to-real-benefit ratio, Direct Action scores well beyond pink batts, student housing and all the rest of them.  Basically, it is paying all that money to main-chancers for nothing.

Mr Turnbull wants to up the rate of waste by signing on to whatever is agreed to at the climate conference in Paris.  He has already said that carbon indulgences can be bought from overseas, rather than the money staying in Australia and given to homegrown parasites.  The money leaving the country will be a further drag on a slowing economy, helping to send unemployment higher.  Our government, allegedly a conservative one, cares not a wit.

Australia’s problem with global warming began with John Howard, who did not believe in it himself and could have killed it at any time by having an inquiry into the science.  Instead he attempted to be a second-rate Machievelli and tried to use it for other ends.  Those ends were to force Australia towards nuclear power by making coal-based power generation more expensive than nuclear.  Hence, he convened an inquiry into nuclear power instead of one into global warming.  Howard’s last dark deed as PM was an act called the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act of October, 2007.  That act, the NGER for short,was the auditing basis for the carbon tax and its successors.  Howard wanted to get the auditing bedded down and then start taxing.  Instead he created a Frankenstein that helped kill off its progenitor.   Thousands of accountants are employed around the country simply to produce the paperwork required by the NGER.

The NGER is the litmus test for pretenders to the throne from this point.  Labor has made itself unelectable by all but promising to open wide the boat-people floodgates once again.  That means that the next Liberal leader, and even the current one, has enormous latitude in policy because the alternative as far as the electorate is concerned is quite icky.

If a pretender to the throne wants to keep the NGER, then he or she must understand nothing, know nothing and will be a continual dissapointment, a la the Abbott regime.  If he wants to tear down the whole rotten global warming edifice, including grubbing out the roots in the form of the NGER, then there is a good chance he will be sound on many things.

Could a second coming of Abbott see such a thing? That must remain in the realm of conjecture, but I pray for such a leader — be it a newcomer or a re-tread.

David Archibald’s latest book is Australia’s Defence (Connor Court 2015).

 

 

 

Comments [8]

  1. Bran Dee says:

    There has to be someone on the government side of the house to lead with the good points of Tony Abbott without his failings. Could it be that astute member from WA who moved the first spill motion? The warning motion that proved Tony Abbott could not change for the better.

    How easy it would have been for for the new Abbott government to be convincing in insisting that excessive spending had to stop. Convincing enough to unfund the Human Rights Commission and the Anti-discrimination Commission so we could be rid of the pestilential pair. And cuts could have been made in so many areas to save money and at the same time help the conservative cause.

  2. Bill Martin says:

    Watching and listening to news reports about thousands demonstrating in support of the global warming madness is most infuriating. All those useful idiots know absolutely nothing and understand even less, yet they are enthusiastically advocating the subject of their pitiful ignorance. What is more alarming than any of that is the fact that most of our political leaders either belong in the ranks of the ignorant masses or, worse still, they lack the courage to challenge the mindless idiocy. Sadly, Abbott was one of the latter, too. His true attitude on the matter was well known by his famous “it’s a whole lot of crap” comment, but he disappointingly lacked the intestinal fortitude to act accordingly. It would be a most welcome occurrence if now, without the restraint of high office, he were to openly and loudly challenge the global madness of global warming. It is highly likely that if high profile public figures were to challenge the hysteria, a large proportion of confused and deluded people would be encouraged to seriously consider the sceptics’ view on this controversial subject. Let’s hear it Tony!

  3. Jody says:

    The cat is out of the bag on climate change. The conference in Paris is the nail in the coffin for skeptics. The younger generation wants something done and anybody over 60 won’t having anything of relevance to say on the subject, as far as the belief system now goes.

    This is the same demographic which wants to celebrate ‘cultural diversity’. But they want ME to pay for it now with my superannuation income; this last is the only thing that I care about now. I’ve decided on no more free babysitting (daycare) – let the state pick up the tab with the cash it relieves me of from my retirement income. They cannot have it both ways.

    Welcome to the brave new world of the next generation; I’m philosophical enough to be glad that, born in the 1950s, I lived through the greatest, most peaceful time in at least 200 years!! Yes, let’s get rid of the Commissions and their various officious activists.

    The rest I just don’t care about.

  4. Bill Martin says:

    The cat most certainly is out of the bag for climate change, Jody. There has been no statistically significant warming for more than 18 years; there is more ice at the poles than has been for some years; there are more polar bears than ever; there has been no increase but a decrease in severe weather events; food production the world over is at an all time record …. Only those with a vested interest – carbon credit traders and their bankers, craven politicians, generously subsidised “climate scientists”, demented “one world government” dreamers – and hordes of ignorant useful idiots continue to support the greater fraud ever perpetrated. Admittedly, combined they constitute a formidable alliance, holding sway for the moment, at enormous cost to humanity. Those of us in the sane camp dare hope that the self interests of China and India will limit the damage the crazies can inflict on the world in Paris.

    • I agree with everything you say Bill but it has all been said before, for years on end, to no affect. The alarmists and rent seekers don’t even want to discuss this and in a democratic society I see no real other (than rational discussion) way to change the situation. I now pin my hopes on the climate itself. I wait for the time when a severe cooling will severely curtail our food supply, tragic as that might be for most, but not all. I’m a bit with Jodi on that. I have enough to see me out to the end and if the rest want to self-harm, feel free. I think that you do tend to get a bit more cynical with age. Words just fail me in trying to explain what is happening here.

  5. Who ever replaces Malcolm, [Lord 'Waffles' of Wentworth, the 'philosopher king' and supreme navigator of the ship of soft social issues in dangerous economic seas] must first address the issue of the media, especially that of government owned media before attempting to sort out any ‘climate issues’ or any of the other parasitic ‘commissions’ such as the HRC and ‘Fair Work’, ACCC etc. [The ABC must be the first 'commission' to be sorted out.]
    With regards to the AGW hoax, the MSM in Australia [and overseas] know that ‘catastrophic’ AGW is a fraud because they have been told so by two prominent UN officials – Christine Figueras and Otto Endenhoffer, but the MSM refuse to report on it all, let alone prominently. Both should have been the lead item on ALL broadcasts at the time and not just for Climate/AGW matters.
    Here are two quotes from them:-
    - Christine Figueras – [UN Secretary on UNFCC- United Nations Framework on Climate Convention] – “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
    – Otto Endenhofer – “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 giga-tons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 giga-tons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil. First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

  6. Ian MacDougall says:

    Bill Martin:

    “Those of us in the sane camp dare hope that the self interests of China and India will limit the damage the crazies can inflict on the world in Paris.”
    As I see the situation, China and India are both on the horns of the same dilemma. They are both heavily into combustion of coal for the usual industrial processes like power generation and steel making, thereby increasing the GHG load in the atmosphere; but at the same time they are heavily dependent for their fresh water supplies on glacier-fed rivers coming off the Tibetan plateau, as is most of Asia. They need to abandon coal as an energy source fairly soon if they are to have water for agriculture and even for drinking in some places. As those glaciers are retreating, as are 90% in all of glaciers worldwide, those countries face drought in future. Hence they appear to be taking the Paris climate summit seriously.
    My wife and I happen to have been among the official 6,000 or so you term “useful idiots” participating in the climate march in Canberra, along with Australia’s former Chief Scientist Penny Sackett. (The present incumbent, Professor Ian Chubb, also endorses the mainstream ‘warmist’ science.)
    Don’t get me wrong: I would dearly love it if you ‘sceptics’ turned out to be right. But the facts appear to be against you. As the prominent ‘sceptic’ Ian Plimer pointed out in his ‘Heaven and Earth’, thermometers are intrinsically unreliable due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ in particular. So forget thermometers. But the global ocean is rising (at 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) which can only be due to glacial melt, thermal expansion of the ocean, or both. That is the clearest unequivocal evidence we have that the planet is warming.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

  7. Ian MacDougall says:

    Bill Martin:

    “Those of us in the sane camp dare hope that the self interests of China and India will limit the damage the crazies can inflict on the world in Paris.”

    As I see the situation, China and India are both on the horns of the same dilemma. They are both heavily into combustion of coal for the usual industrial processes like power generation and steel making, thereby increasing the GHG load in the atmosphere; but at the same time they are heavily dependent for their fresh water supplies on glacier-fed rivers coming off the Tibetan plateau, as is most of Asia. They need to abandon coal as an energy source fairly soon if they are to have water for agriculture and even for drinking in some places. As those glaciers are retreating, as are 90% in all of glaciers worldwide, those countries face drought in future. Hence they appear to be taking the Paris climate summit seriously.

    My wife and I happen to have been among the official 6,000 or so you term “useful idiots” participating in the climate march in Canberra, along with Australia’s former Chief Scientist Penny Sackett. (The present incumbent, Professor Ian Chubb, also endorses the mainstream ‘warmist’ science.)

    Don’t get me wrong: I would dearly love it if you ‘sceptics’ turned out to be right. But the facts appear to be against you. As the prominent ‘sceptic’ Ian Plimer pointed out in his ‘Heaven and Earth’, thermometers are intrinsically unreliable due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ in particular. So forget thermometers. But the global ocean is rising (at 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) which can only be due to glacial melt, thermal expansion of the ocean, or both. That is the clearest unequivocal evidence we have that the planet is warming.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm