“Many people hear very confusing claims about the science”

I have to pinch myself.

What did I say in July ?

I have to think back to the Whitlam years to come up with a comparable state of shambles in our Federal Government.
The fascinating question arising now is – “..what madness will replace the citizen’s assembly ?”

5 thoughts on ““Many people hear very confusing claims about the science””

  1. There may yet be an interesting conundrum for the vice regal to mull over in the life of this parliament( relations by marriage notwithstanding)

  2. Warwick,

    Assemblies, parliaments… whatever. They hardly ever constrain the Executive: look at the RSPT “mining-tax”. You notice that Parliament had no role in demonstrating to Rudd/Swan that the RSPT was a bad idea; poorly conceived and badly managed.

    The confidential committee looks like a device to allow the Greens (and independents) to have a pseudo-cabinet role… thus shutting them up for a while. They will find it harder to campaign for their still-greater-madness or threaten to withdraw parliamentary support while they’re part of the confidential process. The Prime Minister can leave it to the invited experts (Ross Garnaut, Rod Sims) to hose the Greens down in the committee and lock them into something she/Cabinet can wear.

    It sounds politically clever. But too clever. Secretive decision making on a tax that half the country believes is unnecessary and that some (but not all) of it’s business supporter want only because they figure they’ll be net-winners (from associated compensation, export exemptions, possible taxation of imports, and huge alternative-energy subsidies) is bound to cause problems for the same reason that the RSPT caused problems.

    Taxes that have ‘social’ objectives like this one need to be based on unambiguous community support or they’re cactus. I don’t believe there is unambiguous support for a go-it-alone tax on ‘carbon pollution’. So…

    Best,

    Peter

  3. The Canberra Times has a weird headline summing up their GreenLeft take on the latest Gillard disaster.
    “Gillard dumps climate stinker” – v odd seeing it was her idea in the first place.
    The article has several quotes from pro IPCC people and balance provided by Greg Hunt. Save us. Seems that the core reason for getting rid of the Citizens Assembly was that Ross Garnuat wanted to update his magnum opus which could cause delays. The Greens must find this 9 month period to 1 July 2011 very frustrating – trying to play with all the big boys & girls but not yet seated in the Senate.

  4. I’ve just placed a comment on Jo Nova’s site but thought I would put it here in I hope this relevant spot:

    Did anyone see the article in the Australian Climate change sceptics lose battle as onus of proof shifts www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/climate-change-sceptics-lose-battle-as-onus-of-proof-shifts/story-e6frg97x-1225941959223
    It’s about the precautionary principle which I anticipate Julia Gillard will start to talk about shortly; As the article says ‘The principle appears in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. It is one of the four principles of ecologically sustainable development. Those principles have been absorbed into Australian environmental law at commonwealth and state levels since 1991.’
    “the precautionary principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof as to whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage,” “Where there is a reasonably certain threat of serious or irreversible damage, the precautionary principle is not needed and is not evoked . . . “But where the threat is uncertain, past practice had been to defer taking preventative measures because of that uncertainty.’
    This has been changed by the absorption into Australian law of the precautionary principle which “… operates, when activated, to create an assumption that the threat is not uncertain but rather certain. “… if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and there is the requisite degree of scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle will be activated.”

    The author goes on to say ‘In Australia, the climate sceptics have failed. No political party is arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible. The only argument now, in accordance with the precautionary principle, is determining what preventative measures have to be taken to reduce emissions.’

    But she fails to explore the possibility that the threat does not exist or is negligible; just because political parties are not arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible does not mean it the threat does not exist or is negligible; I’m still firmly of the belief that a Royal Commission should be held to determine this issue for Australia;

    I urge all similar minded people to write to Parliamentarians supporting that view or alternatively opposing a price on carbon or both

    Julie Bishop is running a poll on her site about carbon tax; go and vote it only takes a minute
    www.julie-bishop.com/
    The strongly oppose voters are leading but not by much

  5. Professor Bob Carter has an article in Quadrant Online today
    www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/11/bob-carter
    Gillard’s climate U-turn
    (quoting selectively)
    Early in the recent election campaign, Julia Gillard was reported as saying that there would be no tax on carbon (dioxide) while she led the federal government.

    Instead, she said, ”What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change”, which turned out to mean the appointment of an assembly of 150 citizens to advise on the ways and means – a suggestion that prompted immediate public derision.

    Just before voters went to the polls Ms Gillard again stated categorically: “I rule out a carbon tax”. Of course, that statement was rapidly rescinded after the election of a hung parliament created the political imperative that Labor court the Green and independent members who now held the balance of power.

    Making a dramatic U-turn, Ms Gillard rapidly segued to a new policy position. This involved scrapping the idea of a citizen’s assembly and erecting in its place a new Multi-party Committee on Climate Change (MCCC) to advise on policy options, which now again were to include of necessity (hat tip to the Greens) a carbon dioxide tax.

    ….
    The primary question that the MCCC needed to deal with, of course, was whether dangerous climate change is occurring, and if so what policy options might be available to mitigate it? First and foremost then, there was a scientific issue to be resolved.

    The committee’s state of mind on that issue was rapidly clarified by Ms. Gillard, who announced on September 27 the starting assumption that a carbon dioxide price was required to reduce “pollution” and to encourage investment in low-emission technologies.
    ….

    The Canberra climate committee is a farce. Whilst its members have been indulging in play school politics, the Canadian Senate, paying attention both to the real science and to the result of the US election, has rejected a Climate Change Accountability Act that called for greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. …

    The government wants to declare a price on carbon dioxide, and businesses (especially energy suppliers) want certainty. As others before me have pointed out, these twin needs can best be met by allocating a price of $0 per tonne to carbon dioxide emissions – forthwith.

    Time to catch up folks; global warming alarmism is on its deathbed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>