Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
December 13th 2015 print

Peter O'Brien

Turnbull Will Always Have Paris

What he won't have is my vote or, I suspect, the backing of many other sensible, scientifically literate Australians who understand that 'climate change' has nothing to do with the atmosphere and everything to do with pleasuring rent-seeking cronies

turnbull even smuggerI woke this morning to two items of glad tidings: the world’s leaders have reached a ‘historic’ climate change agreement, and Malcolm Turnbull, the man who swore he would be doing no more than adding some spit, polish and a media-friendly smile to his predecessors policies, has immediately overturned the Abbott government’s ban on government, er, ‘investment’ in wind farms. May Gaia be praised and rent-seekers enriched!

The cult of climate change –  Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, to give it its correct title — is a strange beast, one whose advocates’ lies, distortions and pseudo-science have fascinated me for the past decade.  Although I regard myself as a conservative, I can usually concede that, on most political issues, the other side at least has an arguable case (the notable exception to this being ‘asylum seekers’).  And when it becomes clear that the other side has won, I’m usually prepared to let go with a sigh and move on.

But the business of climate change, well that is different because ‘climate change’ is an ideological issue, not a scientific one.

Back in 2001, the IPCC released its 3rd Assessment Report.  The report’s Summary for Policymakers had a prominent graph that showed global temperatures rising alarmingly from 1860 to 2000.  In 2007, the Summary for Policymakers of 4th Assessment Report contained exactly the same graph.  It had not been updated to show the measurements for the intervening six years.  You all know the reason for that omission.  A fresh graph would have shown a flat line from 1998 to 2007, which would not have helped the cause at all. By that stage, sceptics were already noting the lack of warming, but the official position of the climate science establishment was that it would require at least 15 years of no warming before their vaunted and hallowed models could be regarded as genuinely suspect.

Fair enough, but if sceptics thought they had only to wait 15 years for the whole theory to be invalidated, or at the very least to be subject to some serious questioning, they were sadly naïve.  Since that time, the scientific basis for the theory of CAGW has continued to erode while the money-hoovering juggernaut rolls relentlessly on.

Sceptics such as David Evans, Jo Nova, John Christy, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer et al continue to address the holes in the science but Malcolm Turnbull, supposedly the smartest kid in any room, will not have a bar of it. The man who is now Australia’s leader has his own agenda. Witness the public wealth he has now poured back into the wind industry, which enriches none but its backers and impoverishes everyone else.

It is inconceivable that Turnbull and his cronies are unaware of the fatuousness of a non-binding treaty based on carbon-reduction commitments, many made by some very dodgy regimes indeed. Despite the posturing in Paris, none actually believes anything substantive will actually come from the treaty they have blessed with pieties and photo ops. The establishment knows the science is bogus, but that is beside the point. There are lobbies to be pleasured, mates to be enriched, taxpayers to be fed nonsense with one hand and robbed blind with the other.

That Turnbull smile, there is a reason why it is so broad and even more self-satisfied than usual.

As I said, when the tide of politics and elected leaders’ decisions go against what I would prefer to have seen, I can usually accept it. But not this time, Mr Turnbull.

And by the way, Prime Minister, when are you calling the election? I can’t wait to express my view of what you have done and what you are. I know many, many others are feeling likewise. So enjoy the moment. I suspect the glow won’t last.

Comments [8]

  1. I’m with you Peter. I will not be voting Liberal at the next election because of their stand on so-called AGW. I suppose (living in the ACT) that this will not make much difference to results in the House of Reps but it might (hopefully) influence the Senate, with consequences for the sitting Lib Senator. I just hope that some energetic and astute journo or political commentator will show me the way to vote so that a climate skeptic candidate gets into the Senate. Where are you Tony when the country needs you? A Senate seat?

    • Tony should stay where he is. He might spend some time in the ‘wilderness’, as did Winston Churchill in the 1930′s when he was pilloried for warning of the dangers inherent in the policies/philosophies of communism and of Hitler, leader of the communists ugly cousin, the Nazis. In times of crisis it is imperative to have good men in a position to be able to do some good. The long term dangers of Islamic terrorism and the threat of ‘de-industrialising’ civilisation may be as great a that faced by the English speaking world in 1939.

    • Tezza says:

      I’m like-minded, but we have a dilemma: the ACT’s Liberal senator voted for Abbott, and doesn’t support gay “marriage”. I have no idea of his views on dangerous anthropogenic global warming, but he seems the smort of Liberal we should be rewarding rather than punishing.

  2. Jody says:

    The Paris conference is over and the progressives are already crowing about how our lives are going to change. I’m a shareholder and retiree and I’m not pleased to hear Ross Garnaut say about 2 hours ago, “if you didn’t read the writing on the wall (with respect to investments) you’ve done your money”. Very smugly at that.

    And now, I’m left with energy stocks which will be worthless going forward and living in the Hunter – almost entirely dependent upon the resources sector. Alright, I suppose, if you happen to work for a Quango or the ABC.

  3. I think all catastrophists, especially those in the media, should be vigorously told as often as possible that all life on this planet is dependant on CO2. When it drops below 150ppm all plants start to die and soon after [in geological terms] all animals will also die. All the ‘dreaded fossil fuels’ were once living things that originally came from atmospheric CO2. We are doing all life on this planet a favour by burning fossil fuels. Life on earth will cease in about two billion years time unless we return future life [CO2] to the atmosphere.
    Deserts have already started to ‘green up in many parts of the world and food crops have increased production by about 14% from even the modest amounts of CO2 mankind has re-released back into the atmosphere. The worlds temperature has NOT risen beyond natural variation levels since temperature records have been kept, and have not risen at all for the past 19 years despite the extra CO2.
    The greatest ‘tree saving’ event in recorded history was the discovery of the use of coal for fuel. Europe was doomed to be virtually treeless before coal. If the ‘tree huggers’ really like trees and not just hate humans they would encourage more fossil fuel use.
    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] as Australia’s political leader 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.
    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 of these people’s statements should have been the lead item on ALL broadcasts regarding the 40,000 ‘climate bureaucrats’ holidaying in Paris.
    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.

  4. Ian MacDougall says:

    Jody:

    I have BHP shares. As I watch their value sag, and competing renewables gaining, I still incline to the view that coal is a good investment. While it’s just getting less attractive by the hour as an energy investment, it must win in the end as a resource one.
    Coal and petroleum are our main source of long-chain carbon compounds; in turn the feedstock of the plastics, road tar, and other chemical industries.
    Right now, if I had the spare cash, I would be preparing to enter the market as a BHP buyer. So for what it’s worth, my advice is to hang on in there.

    http://www.afr.com/business/mining/bhp-sees-coal-price-getting-worse-before-it-gets-better-20151124-gl7az1

  5. Jody says:

    Thanks, Ian. I notice on the front page of the SMH it reports that Scott Morrison is saying there will be huge budget cuts. I wrote on “The Guardian” comments section that if we do not have a resources sector of coal, gas and oil then people need to get used to the idea that there won’t be any money from the government for services; that people cannot have it all their own way. Who knows, the affluent middle class might actually have to stump up some cash to contribute to the state education of their children. That’s an idea whose time has come. Universal free education was promulgated in the middle of the 19th century. We are now living in the 21st Century and are looking at much reduced government revenues if our energy sector is to be targetted. As of today, we need to get people used to the idea that they will be the ones paying for our changed environment.

    • en passant says:

      Jody,
      You are like a unicorn, a sort of mythical creature that could but does not exist – a living contradiction – socialist conservative..
      Firstly, woe is me you complain, as your share prices are falling and this will reduce your Standard of Living so that is bad. But then you support the view that what you see as another section of society “the affluent middle class might actually have to stump up some cash to contribute to the state education of their children. That’s an idea whose time has come.” Let those affluent people cop it, so long as your self-funded income is preserved! That is a sort of selfish ‘kill them first’ cry popular among large groups being executed a few at a time. Trust me, they will come for you too, eventually.
      Then it is on to “if our energy sector is to be targeted. As of today, we need to get people used to the idea that they will be the ones paying for our changed environment.” Why do we need to accept this idea? How about another approach where we target the political elite that is deliberately causing us this unnecessary pain? Let’s throw them out of office and on to their well-funded pensions and get some realists into Parliament who will protect and stand up for sovereign Oz rather than get us used to less amid plenty? I do not have any water restrictions in the country where I live because as the population grew the Government looked at the problem and came up with a radical solution that is unthinkable in Australia: they built another dam. Did I just see Greg Hunt faint …?
      Sorry, but I have to go as I think I feel the need to take a really long, long, long refreshing shower”