Friday, November 06, 2009

About f'king time, Mr Rudd

Respectfully, you should have been using this sort of hard language to publicly out and route these most insidious AGW deniers (not sceptics ~ sceptics form their views based on the peer-reviewed evidence) in the Liberal party, a lot earlier. We've already seen how many political cowards in the Liberal Party snuck across into the denier camp as the public bought your you-are-doing-something and climate change concern dropped in its priorities.

But, these words are as pleasing on the eyes as the drought-breaking rain is on the parched face of a cockie:

"These do-nothing climate change sceptics are prepared to destroy our children's future,"

"The do-nothing climate change sceptics are still alive and well in the coalition,"

"The argument that we must not act until others do is an argument that has been used by political cowards since time immemorial, both of the left and the right.

"They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.

"You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition, on a gut feeling, on a political prejudice you have about science."

Well put, sir. Though, technically speaking, you just pinged them Do-Nothing Deniers. Now route 'em hard, and route 'em for good. Take the best damned deal you can to Copenhagen. We want 25% emissions cuts below 2000 levels, minimum.

at

9 comments:

  1. VangelV9:37 am AEDT

    It seems to me that Rudd is afraid because the electorate has seen through the fake science as nature is not playing along.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wadard9:06 pm AEDT

    Do you know what percentage of the electorate think climate change is serious and want to do something about it, VangeIV?

    ReplyDelete
  3. VangelV12:54 am AEDT

    "Do you know what percentage of the electorate think climate change is serious and want to do something about it, VangeIV?"

    The polling data shows that concern about warming in Australia dropped by 14% in the past year.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2730362.htm?section=justin

    Declines have also been noted in the UK, EU, and across the globe. To have action taken on the issue one needs the US to take part but there is a serious problem on that front. AGW was the last of twenty issues that concerned Americans and now we see that only 36% of Americans think that man is responsible for the warming. I believe that 37% believe in haunted houses.

    http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/17275/onethird-americans-believe-dearly-may-departed.aspx

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6470183/Britons-least-concerned-about-climate-change.html

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/02/lawrence-solomon-canadian-concern-over-climate-change-plummeting.aspx

    This means that we are unlikely to see much 'progress' at Copenhagen as politicians feel the heat from voters and people who point to the science showing that there isn't a warming problem on a global basis. It has not helped the situation that the dendro community has been discredited as analysis of the data shows that their conclusions are not supported by the full proxy sets and that the only way to get the hockey stick they have been presenting is by making unsupportable assumptions and cherry picking. And the claim by CRU that pre 1979 temperature data has been destroyed is also causing a problem. It seems to me that one way out for some political parties is to claim that they have been duped by the people that have doctored the data and by a UN political body that ignored much of the science that falsified the AGW hypothesis. It is my guess that if Mojib Latif is right about cooling the voters will lose patience and ask why the impact of warming due to changes in the cyclical ocean changes were ignored and blamed on CO2 instead. They will ask the IPCC why such effects were not in the models that predicted catastrophic warming and what will happen to the effect of CO2 when the warming due to changing ocean currents and solar activity are plugged in. (The answer to that part is that CO2 becomes immaterial in comparison to the natural factors.)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/an_inconvenient_truth_about_gl.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wadard10:13 pm AEDT

    So you do know, but you won't post the figure up. That's all I need to know about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. VangelV2:54 am AEDT

    So you do know, but you won't post the figure up. That's all I need to know about.

    First, there are a number of polls, which you have access to if you can use Google. I assume that you do but have no interest in finding out. Second, I already gave you links to a number of polls which you seem to have no interest in looking. Third, if you are an Australian you should already know. Your countrymen no longer consider AGW to be a top priorty issue that requires government attention and have elevated six others ahead of it.


    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming-drops-down-list-20091012-gu1w.html

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/global-warming-drops-down-list-20091012-gu1w.html

    Of course, the poll questions are very important so you can get any answer you seek. But in politics what matters is not the wording on a specific poll but the sentiment momentum. And on that front Rudd is losing the battle to the people who are rational and look to the science instead of the spin.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/24/lawrence-solomon-australia-becoming-a-denier-nation.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5:11 pm AEDT

    Hmmm - The science is a lot more logical and easier on the eyes than the expression of your emotions. I'll stick with science and won't go along with GW unless the science tells me otherwise - it is facts that move me, not rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  7. VangelV5:59 am AEDT

    Anonymous said...
    Hmmm - The science is a lot more logical and easier on the eyes than the expression of your emotions. I'll stick with science and won't go along with GW unless the science tells me otherwise - it is facts that move me, not rhetoric.

    While the AGW proponents make speeches and write a lot of materials they have yet to produce a single EMPIRICAL STUDY that shows that CO2 is a material driver of temperature change. Until they do, they have nothing but empty words and a lot of hot air.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:13 pm AEDT

    The global warming gravy train continues to collapse as the silly UN IPCC report continues to be exposed as nothing more than referencing newspaper articles, student essays and advertising - hardly what you could call a scientific document

    ReplyDelete
  9. VangelV3:54 am AEDT

    The global warming gravy train continues to collapse as the silly UN IPCC report continues to be exposed as nothing more than referencing newspaper articles, student essays and advertising - hardly what you could call a scientific document

    But we have blogs like this one ignoring the IPCC collapse and still pushing the faith based AGW position.

    ReplyDelete