Are we being fooled?

EXCLUSIVE:

Bertel Torsten in Canberra

WHEN Christine Milne of the Greens supports Abbott's Environment Minister, Greg Hunt; when Hunt is already fighting with Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, suspicion gathers around the head of the new Prime Minister. It's looking increasingly likely that he will get rid of the Carbon Tax and replace it with Son of Carbon Tax, and the man to do it is Greg Hunt.

Hunt has called for water studies (called the "water trigger") on 47 large coal seam gas (CSG) and coal mining projects before federal approvals are granted. Seems reasonable on the face of it. But Macfarlane just the day before said he (Macfarlane) was intervening in NSW to fast track CSG projects claiming that it had a gas crisis. Racketty times in Cabinet ahead!

It gets worse. The much-maligned Labor looked at four CSG projects - Hunt is looking at twelve times that number.

And, Labor only did it to shut up Tony Windsor of creepy memory. Labor dragged their feet even though they knew it would not please their partners in crime, the Greens.


Hunt is not only outdoing Labor he is proud about it. He tells the world about it. He boasts about it. He puffs out his chest and denounces Labor for not administering the law.

"THEY stalled them all and simply refused to make decisions - it was a symbol of a dying government."
It's not enough that the ratbag Greens drool over Hunt's action; one of their fronts, the Lock the Gate Alliance - the Anti-coal seam gas organization - praised him for it.

That's not all the Greens are behind him on.

Christine Milne gave nearly the same speech on the purely political "Report" of the corrupt IPCC. Possibly Bob Brown wrote the speeches for each.


HUNT endorsed the IPCC report and was interviewed by Elizabeth Jackson.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you and does your government accept this scientific assessment?

GREG HUNT: Yes we do.


That is plain enough. A straight answer to a straight question. He accepts the IPCC assessment that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of the world's problems. Furthermore, he binds all his colleagues and the PM to the same opinion. Encouraged by this, Jackson went on to look for specifics of what he is going to do about Global Warming. Little did she know, or anyone know, that he is not in the business of straight answers any more.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: ... Do you accept that Australia will experience more fire weather, extreme rainfall, an increase in intensity of cyclones, and sea levels that could rise by up to a metre by the end of the century?


GREG HUNT: Quack-quack Well, there are a range of scenarios in the report, and the broad range shows that temperatures are likely to change over the coming century from between 0.9 to 5.4 degrees. Now that depends on the extent to which the world reduces emissions, but that's the range set out. Quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: So how concerned are you about Australia's coastal communities?


GREG HUNT: Quack-quack. Look, I think this is an important report. Quack-quack it reaffirms the domestic work of our own agencies and indeed our own agencies were well represented in the drafting of the report.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: But Minister, are our coastal communities in danger?


GREG HUNT: Quack-quack, quack, quack-quack.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: OK, so what will you do to protect coastal communities? There are a lot of people who are saying that we need to rethink planning - do you agree with that?


GREG HUNT: Ribbet, Ribbet, Ribbet. Quack. Quack.


Undaunted, she asks a third time.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: ... Practically, what will you and your Government do to protect coastal communities.


GREG HUNT: Four lines of quacks... and reduce emissions... quack-quack.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: (With rising tones and a hopeless wail) But you haven't said how you'll manage it.


GREG HUNT: RibbetRibbetRibbet...

She changes tack in despair.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: Minister, do you agree that both Sydney and Brisbane airports are at risk long term?

GREG HUNT: Three paragraphs of quacking.


And Jackson gives up, having done her best, and trots off for a Valium sandwich and a bottle of meth. 

So what does one make of Greg "Duckspeak" Hunt? All hat and no cattle? Got his own agenda?
He apparently pursues the very thing that got Gillard and Rudd landing on their faces. Then does a Campesi around every question about specifics afterwards.

So, did Abbott pull a fast one? Pretend to conservatives that he was going to bury global warming but follow an even worse course than Labor did?

Hunt has promised to subsidise 100,000 solar panels as well. Or is it all show?

The question is: will Tony Abbott bury global warming and Greg Hunt with it, or are we being fooled?

Comments

[AlterEgo]

1.

Two weeks after the election and a thumping majority!

Now :

Are we being fooled?

ABBOTT GESTURES HYPNOTICALLY

Strange post for Menzies House.

Minister Hunt's biggest problem is that he is too much of a gentleman.

Sure he dismissed Professor Tim Flannery - what else could he do?

But he had the testicular fortitude to to do it himself
and Tim Flannery said he was "courteous".

The Tim Flannery was able to contact Minister Hunt directly to advise him of the formation of the Climate Commission.

Get out of there Minister Hunt, you don't belong on the dark side!

[Allan]

2.

We will have to wait and see, won't we? However, as things stand at the present time it would appear that government and those within government who one would think had a modicum of common sense can't join the dots and see through the IPCC waffle.

A for instance would be that the IPCC in their wisdom(?) have decreed that the fact that their so called anthropological global warming has been stalled for some 15 years is of no consequence. In fact it doesn't even feature in their report. How convenient!!!

I believe that they have also dismissed the fact that there is evidence of more north pole and glacial ice this year than in previous years. But, as one would expect,these inconvenient truths are brushed aside as being insignificant. Of course they are.

Then there is Greg Hunt's statement that our own so-called climate scientists have contributed greatly to the IPCC report. These are the same so-called climate scientists that supported the ravings of Flannery.

There is the possibility of course that the government is sticking dutifully to the UN's illogical "Sustainable Development" group-think that says the climate can be controlled by throwing lots of money at it, or rather throwing lots of money at the UN.

Australian governments are really good at that particular illogical solution to nagging problems. After all they have practiced it for decades trying to come to grips with problems within the Indigenous community. During all of that time they never learned that the more money they threw at the "problems" the worse the situation became.

I read this morning that one of these very clever "climate scientists" says that creating false trees will assist in soaking up the CO2. What, pray tell, is wrong with real trees?

Lunacy prevails.

[dB]

3.

Hunt has promised to subsidise 100,000 solar panels as well.

Actually, he's promised to subsidise 1 million solar roofs. But none of this is new.... this has been the coalition's stated policy for some years and was all re-stated right through the election campaign.

Abbott has promised a government of no surprises, which presumably means they'll do what they said they'd do, even on Direct Action. Sometimes, unlike with the other mob ("there'll be no carbon tax under a government I lead"), you get what you voted for.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/coalition-to-strip-arena-to-fund-million-solar-roofs-program-43768

[dB]

4.

What, pray tell, is wrong with real trees?

Nothing at all, indeed that's one of Hunt's plans. He's going to pay a green army of some 15,000 people go go out and plant real trees:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta/liberals-reveal-green-army-plan/story-fngr8huy-1226586160682

But the artificial trees are about 1000x more efficient at absorbing CO2, and don't need sunlight to work.

[dB]

5.

There's a mock-up "photo" of the artificial trees here:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/aug/27/engineers-call-for-artificial-trees-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide

They're those fly-swatter shaped things alongside the "motorway of the future".

[Rumplestilskin]

6.

100,000 solar panels or 1,000,000 is immaterial. If solar panels save money, people will buy them without subsidies. Once down that track, the subsidies are demanded for electric cars, for solar powered mousetraps and all the rest. "Son of Carbon Tax?" more likely "Son of Pink Batts" there is no difference in theory or practice.
What's more, and possibly a side issue, those solar panels will come from China whose solar panel companies are on their knees and going bankrupt for lack of orders world wide.
Not to mention that audits of emission savings are nil when all the costs of manufacture, rare earth mining and so on are factored in.
Privately I am hoping against hope that Australia HAS been conned and that lip service will be Hunt's brief, and that the Thousand Cuts Action Plan is the real plan.

[dB]

7.

100,000 solar panels or 1,000,000 is immaterial

At $500 subsidy per roof, one costs $50 million and the other $500 million. One of Hockey's first actions is to increase the national credit card limit past $300 billion so he can issue a bunch of infrastructure bonds to pay for all this stuff.

I sense the budget emergency is going the way of the boats.... if we stop talking about them, they'll go away.

[Jack]

8.

From Jo Nova's website - a comment from one who has been there done that. I would have written it first only I type slower than him.
"I agree with Graeme Inkster. And solar is likely to backfire when the utilities get too disgusted with having to mess around with thousands of very small suppliers feeding them power intermittently. The subsidy is down and the real story on solar has yet to be felt. In the meantime, if you want a good weekend task, get up and wash down those solar panels every week or you’ll very soon be supporting worthless hardware on your roof. They collect dirt very fast and when I last looked, dirt is opaque to sunlight (this comes under the heading of things they’re afraid to tell you).

The worst of this nonsense is that a charge shows up on my bill to compensate Edison for handling this mess. Yes, Graeme is right. I pay for this nonsense. As far as I’m concerned it’s just punitive. You’d otherwise let the solar provider pay the cost via slightly lower rate per kWh delivered to the grid. It’s all just plain nuts!

There will never be a solar panel on my roof while I am alive. I have no use for nonsense and I don’t buy into it. I learned my lesson with solar water heating and that’s that.

If there are any U.S. readers with solar we’d all like to hear about your experience."

[dB]

9.

Joe Hockey better increase that credit card limit even more. If these guys could get away with this in opposition, imagine how expensive they'll be to run in government:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/brandis-joyce-attended-wedding-on-taxpayers-tab-20130928-2ulgn.html

[Jim Witt]

10.

Australia, or the world for that matter does not need solar in the form of photo voltaic panels. We have massive amounts of energy available to us. What we need is a government with the guts to demand the miners and producers of these energy supplies supply the Australian domestic market at production cost, and then they can export the surplus. We are such a small market anyway that it would hardly show up on their bottom line. One thing to keep in mind folks is that while the Libs are the most conservative party with a realistic chance of forming a government in Australia, they are still far from conservative, and they are full of ass wipes who want more central control, and the climate change scam was created just for that purpose. The Green's and Labor are not the only party that harbours a nest of socialist vipers folks, open your eyes.

[Anton]

11.

Let's see:
Greg Hunt-
>Bachelor of Laws
>Master of Arts in International Relations
>A permanent twat
>Ignorant enough to believe in AGW

and, we don't have a science minister anymore.

Dr Dennis Jensen
>BAppSci
>MSc
>PhD
>Sufficient scientific training to call AGW for what it is - crap

Can Tony kill two birds with one stone?

[Anton]

12.

But the artificial trees are about 1000x more efficient at absorbing CO2, and don't need sunlight to work

I assume that in the new sensitive caring age we no longer treat the first law of thermodynamics as necessary.

[Allan]

13.

Physicsworld eh. Seems like they are just a whacky as the IPCC.

Artifical trees, oceans full of iron to encourage CO2 absorbing plankton growth and giant panels in space to reflect sunlight, costly inefficient wind generators and manipulation of the climate. Really?

[Anton]

14.

This is what happens when government "supports" science.

Commercial reality and academic integrity become obsolete concepts, replaced by consensus and identity politics.

It is now well past the time where the scientific method should be reintroduced to science.

[dB]

15.

Physicsworld eh.

Well in this case their only sin was to report on it; the source report was from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (UK).

But I take your point. The Institute of Physics, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers... the conspiracy just gets bigger and bigger. What is wrong with all these people? If they just came to MH for their scientific knowledge, think of the money we could save them.

Hey, maybe we should charge for our services. Hit each report that comes in with a big red DUMB IDEA stamp, and charge them $100 for our consideration. All proceeds to the Andrew Bolt defense fund. They want peer review, and between us we surely have the credentials. If they're dumb enough to write this stuff, surely they're dumb enough to pay us to review it.

[iibbit]

16.

Sad to say, you are correct in your assertion that the Greens and Labor are not the only parties to harbour socialists in their midst.

Equally sadly, Australia has always had strong socialist tendencies hence the socialists in the Libs.

However, they like to be called Progressives these days, sounds better, less threatening to those not so well informed. The question is, to what do they wish to progress to? Socialism, without a doubt which will suit the UN and its purposes very well indeed.

[Vivienne]

17.

Well said Jim Witt and and iibitt, I despair for the entire world the UN is the most dangerous organisation the world has ever produced, they want nothing more than control of the whole of humanity.

When, will the people wake up.. Read the UN document on sustainable development agenda 21.. The UN Agenda for the 21st century, the Future the UN want for you, you will have NO choice. Sec 7 HUMAN SETTLEMENTS Sec 9 AGW.

Politicians the world over support the UN Agenda, but not one of them are game to tell the people about it. A21 SD Has been working it way into our lives since 1992. The Australians were never told about it nor given a vote on it. Some Democracy we love in.

[Arthur Dent]

18.

It gets worse. The much-maligned Labor looked at four CSG projects - Hunt is looking at twelve times that number.

Perhaps as a thankyou to Alan Jones for his contribution?

[Arthur Dent]

19.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ebP43RlZW3Q&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DebP43RlZW3Q

[Anton]

20.

Sadly, many previously proud professional bodies in the western world have started on the path to becoming de facto trade unions. The institute of mechanical engineers (UK) has regressed a long way in this direction.

We are seeing this in Australia as well.

This is what happens when government takes an active role in science. sad, but true - ask an engineer not employed by the governemnt.

About scientific debate. Traditionally it would contain:
>A valid metric
>a falsifiable hypothesis
>unbiased data from a valid experiement
>exhaustive attempts at refutation
>full disclosure of data, models, methods and analysis, for review by opponents of the theory

But you prefer ridicule and ad hominems.

No argument, evidence or logical analysis. No examination of the evidence. Reference to authority and dismisal of opposing opinions.

You try to look smart, but just prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are a fucking idiot

[John Mc]

21.

Engineers Australia is as left-wing as you can get. It's completely inappropriate for an engineering organisation to make judgements on political correctness rather than utility.

[Arthur Dent]

22.

But Macfarlane just the day before said he (Macfarlane) was intervening in NSW to fast track CSG projects claiming that it had a gas crisis. Racketty times in Cabinet ahead.

Seems Macfarlane certainly doesn't have the confidence of Mr Alan Jones when it comes to coal seam gas.

"Now I couldn't think of a person in this Abbott Ministry, more uninformed in his portfolio, than Macfarlane. For him to be argueing that opposition to CSG is unscientific, borders on the laughable-certainly it's offensive."
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/15391

It's not enough that the ratbag Greens drool over Hunt's action; one of their fronts, the Lock the Gate Alliance - the Anti-coal seam gas organization - praised him for it.

A Greens' front? Perhaps someone should tell Alan. It's advertised on his website.
http://www.2gb.com/shows/alan-jones-breakfast

[Arthur Dent]

23.

It's a "Science Minister's" prerogative to change his mind ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXWhQ0SJh0c&feature=player_embedded