Carbon tax – special edition

Brown challenges Abbott to carbon debate

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Bob Brown has challenged Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to a debate over the government’s planned carbon price.
Mr Abbott has mounted a spirited attack against the government’s plans, and Senator Brown said he would gladly hold a public debate over the issue.

“He’s one year down in this government, two years to come Tony,” Senator Brown told reporters in Hobart today.

“We’re waiting to get you in debate. You name the place and time, I’ll be there.”

Senator Brown said it didn’t matter whether the prime minister referred to the legislation as a carbon tax or a carbon price.

“It’s the outcome that matters, not the semantics,” he said.

“Tony Abbott might find it tricky. I find his prescription for taking money out of households through the tax system and giving it to the big polluters not just tricky, but downright irresponsible.”

Senator Brown said he was not concerned at the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance’s plans to spend at least $10 million on television, radio, print, the internet and social media advertisements to get its anti-carbon tax message across.

“Afraid of these big polluters? Not on your life,” Senator Brown said.

Interesting appraisal – Tony Abbott’s attack is “spirited”, somewhat lacking in logic and no backup whatsoever from anyone with any knowledge of the workings of things ‘economics’ nor from any reputable scientists. But let’s give it to him it’s “spirited”.

Will Tony Abbott do it? The tension builds..

204 comments on “Carbon tax – special edition

  1. This is a personal favorite because at last, someone has called Tony Abbott’s bluff. It’s put up or shut up courtesy of Senator Bob Brown.

  2. I think it is really stupid to expect the leader of a political party to be an expert in global warming. The most that can be expected is that he/she listens to advice and then uses his/her common sense.

    Brown has issued the challenge because he has spent the last 20 years studying the topic and would have an immense knowledge which he can use.

    Why does he not debate Gillard.

    Gillard knows nothing about AGW and only says what she is told to say by her advisers.

  3. Neil, then why doesn’t Abbott challenge Gillard to a debate on the issue instead of persisting with stupid stunts such as calling for a DD of parliament which cannot happen because under the Constitution there are no DD triggers currently before parliament.

  4. I am not up on all the happenings.

    Has Abbott called for a DD of parliament??

    I think what Brown has done is a stunt. Why does he not debate Denis Jensen if Brown wants to be a smart alec.

    Brown issued the challenge because he knows he can out debate Abbot because he has an immense knowledge of the topic. Even if Brown is wrong he could win any debate because he has spent 20 years studying the topic.

  5. Neil, Abbott is supposedly prime minister in waiting and as such MUST have a good working knowledge of all issues pertaining to the nation of Australia.

    Abbott has chosen to make an issue out of the carbon tax and has repeatedly called for the government to call ‘a new election’ on this issue. How can he then say, aww shucks but I don’t know a lot about it.

  6. Well he would know more than Gillard who is our current PM. It would be really funny watching Gillard giving us her knowledge of AGW.

    I see you have changed your statement that he called for a DD into ” a new election”

  7. Neil, absolutely. Prior to 1st July it was ‘a new election’ but now he’s calling for a DD, very obviously because the Greens now have the majority casting vote in the Senate.

    Either which way it isn’t going to happen no matter how much Tony Abbott might wish for it, no matter how many shock-jocks he might have on side.

    The deal with the Independents is that the government should run full term. The Greens obviously also want the government to run full term and so a DD isn’t going to happen. Everyone has everything to gain by the government running the full term..everyone except Tony Abbott.

  8. Its Ok for a political leader to not be an expert but they could at least have enough knowledge to debate the policy . NO NO NO is not an argument
    How dare Senator Brown challenge abbott to a debate when he actually knows the topic inside out ,we don’t need these smarty pants leading the discussion. Senator Brown should also know there is no point as abbott would not know which side of the argument he “abbott” was defending ,does global warming exist, is it fantasy ,give the money to the mining shareholders and ask them to consider cleaning up their business or implement a carbon tax as he advocated on sky in I think 2009. Abbott would have another of his wobble head episodes.
    As for Senator Brown debating the Prime Minister since they both are on the same page the outcome will most likely be that they will end up still in accord.

  9. Tedlgt, it’s a ripper from Bob Brown isn’t it. Finally, finally someone telling Tony Abbott to either put up or shut up.

    If Tony Abbott can call for a new election based on the aforementioned topic, then it’s unreasonable to consider that he could have insufficient knowledge to front up to a debate on the topic.

    The difficulty for Abbott is that given the new prominence of the Greens that he can’t just fob them off any more…my impresssion is that Bob Brown will be going for the jugular as far as Abbott is concerned.

  10. I agree , the senator is not a dill and looks like he is going to tell it as he sees it which should be good for all of us and with abbott now less relevant how many more pathetic stunts before the decent libs get rid of him and start to be serious about policy that is for the benefit of all Australians. Not just for the well paid mining executives and their PR team.

  11. “I think it is really stupid to expect the leader of a political party to be an expert in global warming. The most that can be expected is that he/she listens to advice and then uses his/her common sense.”

    I expect any leader to educate themselves on anything before parliament.

    Mr. Abbott has ignored every opportunity to avail himself of knowledge, except that from the likes of Monckton.

    I can only imagine your outrage, if the PM took the same attitude.

    I know your answer is going to be that Mr. Abbott is not in power but the PM is. That is a short sighted.

    Leaders have to make decisions, not advisers. That is why they must ensure that they are fully informed.

    PM also have to be capable of dealing with many issues at the same time. This appears to be a skill Mr. Abbott does not have.

  12. “I can only imagine your outrage, if the PM took the same attitude.”

    No I do not expect Gillard to know anything about AGW. It is not her field. I also do not expect her to know anything about Calculus, trignometry, E=MC2, black holes, galaxies etc

    I am sure Abbott could debate the Carbon tax. But it is a stunt by Brown.

    Also I have not seen that Abbott has called for a DD.

    And why should Abbott debate. Brown asks Abbott to jump. Why?? The election is two years away.

    You would think it should be Gillard debating Abbott. Why is Brown involved at all.

  13. CU, I expect a politician to avail themselves of the basics of the Australian Constitution before rallying somewhat ignorant people and inciting them to call for a double dissolution of parliament.

  14. The more sinister aspect is the raising of $10 million to campaign against the proposal. I have no faith in the Labor Party coping with this pressure considering the last backdown against the mining industry, Lobby groups are way too influential against weak leadership, oh, for another Paul Keating.

  15. “oh, for another Paul Keating.”

    Are you kidding??? Do you want another 30 months of double digit unemployment?? Selling off govt assets and using the money for recurrent spending??? 18% home loans, companies going under left right and centre.

    I could not stand it.

    And it is rude of Brown. Just say Julie Bishop got up and demanded a debate with Gillard?? Or Barnaby Joyce demanded a debate with the PM.

    Brown has asked Abbott to jump. I would tell Brown to get stuffed.

  16. “And it is rude of Brown. Just say Julie Bishop got up and demanded a debate with Gillard?? Or Barnaby Joyce demanded a debate with the PM.”

    Don’t they do that every day.

    I expect the PM to be on top of all issues that come before parliament. I expect the same of the Opposition. I especially expect her to understand what AGW and the GFD. These are things she has the responsibility for making decisions about.

    I expect to be challenge if I voice an opinion. I expect the same of our politicians.

    Garnaut asked Abbott to explain his Direct Action Policy, at the meeting where he spent time insulting all that disagreed with him. Abbott did not take up the challenge.

    Mr. Abbott like you Neil, reserves the the right to insult all that disagree. On the other hand, he is very thin skinned when insults are aimed at him. That is generally true of bullies, they show traits of cowardice.

  17. Neil, maybe Mr. Abbott and his party has not demanded a DD but they are demanding an election. Not one member of the Opposition that spoke at the impromptu rally correct the calls or pointed out that the supplied posters were wrong.

    Mr. Joyce was wrong when he said we would call the crowd many names. The one I think many might used, is old farts.

    Not only is a DD not possible for many a long time. It is a long time before the senate will faced the people, 2015 I believe.

  18. ‘Brown has issued the challenge because he has spent the last 20 years studying the topic and would have an immense knowledge which he can use.’

    Not true, he knows sweet FA about climate change.

    Yabbot should take Brown up on the duel, in front of cameras, with ‘seconds’ to offer advice. Bob Carter would be my choice.

    No point in debating the carbon tax until the science is settled.

  19. No point in debating the carbon tax until the science is settled.

    Curiously, that seems to be one strand of Abbott’s debatable logic, too…no point in taking steps towards a framework until a framework exists; because a framework doesn’t exist, there’s no point in taking steps towards a framework; therefore, no(thing) exists.

    Otherwise, and volte-face, Abbott’s agenda, and upon whom he feels it’s incumbent to take multilateral action, per that unilateral frame-work, seems fairly clear…

    It’s only when an incumbent’s signature policies evoke derision from all but its most rusted-on supporters that an opposition can fully focus on being an alternative government and that’s far from the case with the carbon tax especially when so much business commentary still begins with the observation that “we support a carbon price…”

  20. (Curiously, that kind of reasoning* seems to be similar to* one strand of Abbott’s debatable logic, too)

  21. Leigh, they will stick with it this time. The last time there was an election at stake, however this time as a minority government Labor realizes that they are likely to have this term and this term only to make substantial reforms.

  22. “No point in debating the carbon tax until the science is settled”

    One could say that the science of gravity is not really “settled” el gordo.

    But a good definition of insanity would be to bet against it.

  23. ‘But a good definition of insanity would be to bet against it.’

    I have clearly gone undiagnosed, but apart from that the ‘precautionary principle’ is based on models which are flawed because they ignore natural variability.

    Wallow in your ignorance, if it pleases you, but the scientific reality is that we are returning to a mini ice age and CO2 cannot help us avert that.

  24. Even if the interviewers were Andrew Bolt or Chris Uhlmann, with the likes of Lord Monckton on the panel, Abbott wouldn’t have the guts to front up and challenge Brown.on the issue.

  25. current theory is that Abbott has the intelligence of a flea and wouldn’t be able to debate Brown on this issue. Apparently Brown is an ‘expert’ and so it would be an unfair fight.

  26. ‘Abbott wouldn’t have the guts to front up and challenge Brown on the issue.’

    If Yabbot is supported by Carter, all will go well.

  27. Big deal, Alan Jones leads a bunch of village idiots down to the Town Hall. How do we know they are village idiots? because they know as much about the Australian Electoral System as they know about climate change.

  28. ‘….they know as much about the Australian Electoral System as they know about climate change.’

    That would be 90% of Austraya.

  29. This morning on ABC Insiders:

    Abbott asked a direct question on workplace reform said:

    “I can guarantee there will be no carbon tax” WTF ????????

    Abbott is losing it!

  30. ABC Insiders this morning was a treat, Gerard Henderson losing it, Abbott exposed as a lying cheat who is afraid to do a significant interview etc etc.

  31. Insiders was for the first time in a long time, had the guts to question the ability of Mr. Abbott. Mr. Abbott did not come through the process looking at all bright. Mr. Henderson found it very hard to defend the indefensible.

    One thing that annoys me are the use of “she” by many when talking of the PM. I suggest if men do not want to turn off us older woman, the think about how the use the word. The “PM”, would be better than “she”.

    I cannot help but think that “she” is the cat’s mother. Blame my up bringing that did not consider the phrase correct in polite company.

    I am sure that many that call the PM “she”, mean to infer this meaning.

  32. lunalava @9.09

    An exert from the rally with Anal Jones had him calling “julia we just want you to go away”

    Funnily though, after Anal had infamously spoken down to the the PM of Australia, Julia Gillard, for being late to an audience with “him”. It was Anal Jones who fled the country.

    Coward Anal too afraid to front the protests in Canberra and more cowardly still in being only willing to front a fawning gathering not too far from his home in Sydney.

  33. Yes el gordo, they are replacing old dirty plants with a cleaner versions. I believe China is doing the same.

    In this country, there are already some that have changed over to natural gas.

    It is in my opinion up to the companies that have dirty and outdated coal plants, to produce power, to update and clean these power houses.

    It is up to the coal industry to do research to clean up their industries.

    The message that the population and governments have to give, is the present situation is not viable and will not be allow to continue.

    It is up to governments to produce the environment that allow clean industries to prosper.

  34. Please have some sympathy for Mr. Henderson, it is hard to defend the indefensible.

    It was also nice to watch the PM being able to complete answers to questions.

    Her answers were easy to understand. Maybe we are going to see the PM using her negotiating skills with the public.

    Maybe I have caught the wishful thinking syndrome that many on the other side of politics seem to suffer from.

  35. Catching up, it does make a change to see the PM able to complete answers to questions. That doesn’t always happen in the current media cycle, where sound bites plucked from a longer answer are often used against her.

    I’m still trying to remember what question was asked of the PM when she answered ‘there will be no carbon tax…..’.

    Judging from what she said in her climate change speech before the election about the Emissions Trading Scheme, her ‘no carbon tax’ answer required a question, now lost in the shuffle.

  36. ‘It is up to the coal industry to do research to clean up their industries.’

    So you have no objection to building ‘state of the art’ coal fired power stations in Australia too?

  37. Pip, my recollection seems to me was that she unwisely reacted to Mr. Abbott’s “great big tax”.

    The PM did state, sadly that there would be no carbon tax under her government. At the same time the PM was clear about there would be a carbon pricing mechanism.

    We seem to forget there was debate at the time between the two options. A straight out carbon tax or a cap and trade like scheme.

    Mr. Garnaut and Mr. Rudd’s scheme allowed for a fix price period before evolving into a cap and trade scheme.

    Labor was at the time against a straight carbon tax. This is what I believe the PM meant when she made the statement.

    Mr.Rudd’s scheme originally had a twelve months fix price period, that became 2 years after consultation with the Opposition.

    Lets be clear, it is hard to argue that the PM is putting a carbon tax in place.

    Mr. Abbott has been allowed to go around the country, knowing that he is putting forwarded what amounts to lies. Mr. Abbott is well aware of what is being proposed and it is not what he is alleging.

    It is a shame that the political scene has deteriorated to where everything the government says, is open to be twisted and misrepresented,

    The ABC this morning appears to have dropped the habit of adding adjectives and verbs that do not belong to what is reported. Sadly channel nine is still guilty this morning. They manage to make the PM look negative with their unnecessary remarks. Same story, different presentation.

    Mr. Abbott need it to be called a tax to fit in with his campaign. If this is the biggest lie that the PM can be accused of, I believe they are scraping the bottom of the barrell.

  38. el gordo, why should I if they do not emit carbon and other pollutions. I query whether the science exists at this time to do so. I am sure the German ones will run up against a brick wall if they are not as improved as promised. Europe well knows what pollutions can do to their environment, They have seen their forests die around them because of acid rain. They also know that the damage can be turned around.

    The truth is that it is not coal power that is not wanted, it is the pollutants they emit. No pollution, no problem.

  39. “CO2 is NOT a pollutant, that’s just joolya spin”

    el gordo you could be correct but I am sure you are talking about semantics.

    One thing for sure, too much upsets the balance of nature.

    Water too is not a pollutant but if I drink too much, it can kill me. If I try and breathe it in, I will drown.

    Plants need it to survive. They also need water.

    If it is the spin of the PM, many thousands around the world appear to agree with her. The PM is powerful if she can pull the wool over so many neyes.

    Your statement does not make sense.

  40. “CO2 is NOT a pollutant, that’s just joolya spin.”

    You been hanging out at Planet Carter agin el gordo.

    A few folk who seem to know quite a lot about the effects of CO2, good and bad, have been looking at Carter’s latest silliness over at Deltoid.

    Carter’s been saying that the extra CO2 from burning fossil fuels will green the Sahara. And you don’t seem to know any better.

    As John Mashey (a frequent scientist commenter at Deltoid) says, most 10 year old kids from farms understand that plant growth is constrained by whichever input is in least supply.

    The comment by Catching Up in relation to water is apposite.

  41. John Mashey is a computer scientist, the same as Timmy Lambert, both are amateurs on the question of climate science. I don’t wish to demean either, as I’m also an amateur.

    The Sahara has been greening, I will search for a paper, peer reviewed.

  42. el gordo

    The Liu et al paper you referred to says unequivocally that the increase in vegetation detected in the higher latitudes was entirely due to warming. The role of CO2 was not discussed. It was the warming effect they were interested in.

    So how will the advance of agriculture into the higher latitudes because of warming be sustained when the world cools (as you and Carter claim) ?

    You sound very confused.

    The other paper by Lo and Hsu also referred to global warming (using the words “a truly global phenomenon”), but seeks to address the issues of abrupt localised (and seasonal) effects due to natural ocean oscillations, a perfectly valid area of research.

    The Arctic and Pacific Decadal oscillations simply shift heat around. That’s why they’re called oscillations.

    I think you have shot yourself in the foot.

  43. ‘I think you have shot yourself in the foot.’

    It does seem that way, but human induced CO2 in a cooler world will still be of agricultural benefit in terms of fertilizer.

    ‘The role of CO2 was not discussed. It was the warming effect they were interested in.’

    Yes, I take a lot for granted, increased warmth means more CO2 and along with the extra ‘pollutant’ (sic) created by humans there is undeniably more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    I say its beneficial and you say its harmful.

  44. Have I got it correct, back in the late 1990’s we had record extremely high temperatures.

    Since then the temperatures have been lower than the record highs but higher than the preceding temperatures.

    Therefore the allegations are that the climate is cooling.

    I fail to see how this is logical. What is being talked about is weather, that is temperatures over a short period of time. The climate temperature trend is still upwards.

    If there is more CO2 in the atmoshere, does that mean there are less of other gases such as oxygen. Is not the balance important for nature to continue on an even keel.

  45. ‘Therefore the allegations are that the climate is cooling.’

    It’s not weather, this is how Easterbrook sees it and I agree with him.

  46. You are correct about the temperature trend, CU. Since 1998 there have been 2 years (forget which) which have been even hotter.

    Climate scientists regard 30 years of data as the minimum to differentiate weather from climate.

    Increasing CO2 doesn’t displace other gases, but oxygen is of course “consumed” in the burning of fossil fuels, and so therefore a small amount (in parts per million) is sequestered. Most life forms seem to have a wide tolerance for variations of the oxygen level if that was your concern.

    Like most things however, the dose is the poison, and oxygen levels of more than a few % either side of “normal” are toxic one way or another.

    What makes CO2 special though is that it’s a “tri-atomic” gas, in that the molecule has 3 atoms. Like ozone and methane. Gases with this molecular structure have this strange ability to absorb (and radiate) energy in the infra-red wavelength. The other gases are transparent to IR.

    The “even keel” as you call it is a function of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The thermal balance of the Earth is controlled by the Earth radiating away to space its excess heat using this special property of CO2.

    Strictly speaking, “greenhouse” is not a very good description of the process (in fact it’s wrong) and I think it would be better if the actual physics were more widely understood. The deniers would not so easily peddle their myths to a more wised-up audience. Perhaps someone with more expertise than me would care to expand on the subject sometime.

  47. Thanks Mangrove Jack, I was being a little sarcastic. I do not understand the science fully but I do know what el gordo and others are peddling is silly.

    When we upset natures balance, the result is generally bad. It is better to prevent damage than to mop up after it occurs.

    Look what happens to our fragile country side when we over stock. We end up with what resembles a desert, with much of the limited top soils washed away.

    Look what we did to the forests of Europe and the Americas with acid rain.

    I find it hard to turn my back on 50 years of research to listen to a few, most who have no experience in the science.

    The debate now is not about whether climate change is occurring. It is about how we deal with it,

    No country of any importance is doing nothing.

  48. The questions in QT border on the insane. It appears that Mr. Abbott has no other skills but to create fear in the community.

    It is true, if you predict nothing but doom and gloom, re the economy, the worse will occur. Confidence sometime be fragile.

  49. CU, oh dear remember the days when Rudd had strips torn off him for downplaying the economy – how dare the leader of the opposition try to undermine Australia’s economy.

  50. ‘I do know what el gordo and others are peddling is silly.’

    Global cooling instead of warming is more ironic than you imagine.

    I will let Easterbrook defend his temperature reconstruction, my interest is focussed on three climate possibilities in the absence of rising temperatures.

  51. Min, I think you can go back to all Opposition Leaders for the last 100 years or more.

    There was another convention that you did not trash the government or PM while overseas.

    You definitely did not visit other countries for that reason. The Opposition is quiet on the visit to Malaysia and Nauru.

  52. Just received…

    Breaking News: Government to announce Price on Pollution – Sunday 10 July 2011

    This weekend the Gillard Government plans to announce a price on pollution as the central element of a comprehensive policy to tackle climate change, cut pollution and drive the transformation of the Australian economy to a clean energy future.

    >> For more information on Sunday visit >>

    After hearing a report on the discussions of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, Cabinet agreed tonight that sufficient progress had been made to allow an announcement date to be set for Sunday 10 July 2011.

    Considerable common ground has been achieved in the MPCCC talks in recent weeks.

    This reflects the genuine commitment of members of the MPCCC to tackle climate change to protect Australia’s environment and support the economy.

    While there will be additional discussions with the MPCCC this week, followed by further Cabinet consideration, it is expected that the remaining details will be finalised in these discussions ahead of Sunday’s announcement.

  53. Typical O’Farrell intelligence..oppose something before you even know the details.

    “The Premier will be arguing this case very clearly with (Ms Gillard) at COAG, saying, ‘Until you tell us how this is going to work, we’re opposed to it and you need to stop it’,” Mr Baird said.

  54. From:

    Key independent Tony Windsor has hailed the climate agreement as “a momentous occasion”, while the Opposition is warning scams of the system are “inevitable”.

    Isn’t it amazing how the Opposition know that the agreement is going to be prone to “scams” when they weren’t even part of the committee – they could have been but Tony Abbott rejected Julia Gillard’s offer.

  55. “And when you have a complex issue people will listen to the simple messages.”

    Like CO2 is a pollutant, the irony burns.

  56. El gordo – a visualisation exercise for you. Things are not inherently bad, it’s when they get out of balance. Think of the environment as having to maintain a balance – for example, not enough oxygen in the water then fish die. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere..we die…

  57. Channel nine and seven are refusing to show the PM announcement of the climate change proposals on Sunday night. They claim that she is making a political announcement.

    Sorry, I do not understand. I thought she was announcing policy that is being put in place.

    I thought she was announcing, according to Mr. Abbott, the biggest changes the country has faced in it’s history. (Mr. Abbott’s words when calling for an election or plebiscite. )

    We can see by their actions, how the changes are going to be reported. PMs over the years have been granted time by all TV stations when new and important legislation is being introduced.

    It has nothing to do with politics but with the peoples right to know. Are the media afraid that if people listen direct, it will be harder for them to distort what is being said.

    I am sure they will have their hands out when the government is force to TV advertising to get the message across.

  58. They claim that she is making a political announcement.

    So we can assume that when Smuggles has another thought bubble it won’t be reported, do you think, CU? I imagine that means the proposed campaign against the carbon tax won’t get a guernsey either.

    No more budget reports, or election campaign broadcasts either one can only assume. SBS will clean up and hopefully 7 & 9 will cop a huge ratings fall.

    But, as you rightly suspect, this is just an excuse for the MSM to deny the public access to government policy. I hope the PM has a baseball bat up her sleeve. Starving them of information and government cash come election time is a possibility, I suppose.

  59. ‘Like CO2 is a pollutant, the irony burns.’

    the ignorance, it pollutes

    Somebody, somewhere, recently, appeared to insinuate that it isn’t a pollutant cos it wasn’t listed by the EPA as something they were measuring. Interestingly, one of the ‘pollutants’ he mentioned was ozone. Which, even more interestingly, is a gas that floats around in our atmosphere naturally as well as C02?

  60. CU and Jane..umm err.. re “Channel nine and seven are refusing to show the PM announcement of the climate change proposals on Sunday night. They claim that she is making a political announcement.”

    So therefore Channels 9 and 7 should immediately cancel tonight’s news because it contains politics….

    And of course forthwith they will not be telecasting anything pertaining to Tony Abbott saying “A Big New Tax”, nor any pics of rallies, nor anything except the following..maybe cooking shows and repeats of Seinfeld….

  61. It seems that Lord Monckton isn’t wanted.

    The German Club Tivoli in suburban Windsor scrapped plans to host two speeches by Lord Monckton on July 20 after learning he displayed a swastika next to Professor Garnaut’s name and said ”Heil Hitler, on we go” during a lecture in the US.

    Lord Monckton also alleged the government climate adviser had a ”fascist point of view”.

  62. Ignorance, indolence, or ideology.

    Or possibly a blend of all three.

    “Global cooling instead of warming is more moronic than you imagine”.


  63. Is Mr. Abbott rsponsible for lack of confidence in the economy?

    “Unlike economic models humans aren’t the most rational of subjects and that’s the challenge for any Government, but particularly this one, battling under so many handicaps, many of them self-inflicted.

    And the greater risk for the Government is that the economy, like politics, is a confidence game; and if the punters really do start losing their faith, than this could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”


  64. Yawn..Abbott in parliament is still bleating about ‘the government doesn’t have mandate…’. The government has a mandate because the government set up a committee to which the Opposition were invited to participate. The Opposition therefore were provided with the opportunity to participate in proceedings however they declined the offer.

    As they declined the offer to participate in the Carbon Tax Committee, then they have no authority whatsoever to whinge..and whinge endlessly it would seem..about the results coming from that committee.

  65. Is this the last day, that Mr. Abbott will be allowed to abuse the parliamentary rules.

    The speaker has said he will allow the motion today but will examine the situation over the break.

    It becomes boring when you repeat the same action over and over.

    As some one said that Mr, Abbott will have five weeks to study the proposition.

    I hope this leads to some sensible question that have something to do with what is on offer, not what is in Mr. Abbott’s questionable brain.

  66. CU, Harry Jenkins will be looking at this carefully (wonderful name Jenkins BTW..good Welsh name mostly from Monmouthshire). From my somewhat limited knowledge the Speaker can disallow if he considers this ‘a tactic’ with the intention being to limit debate.

    Well, blind Freddy could tell you this but Harry Jenkins does have to have specific instances and provable factual information, and this can be difficult…not just ‘knowing’ what the Opposition are doing to limit debate, but have sufficient provable facts to be able to stand by one’s decision..

  67. Abbott is dead meat..even Sky News acknowledges that A Deal Has Been Done. And states that this is a significant moment for the government. I am allowing myself a moment to reflect..but mostly to gloat.

  68. You certainly may. From what I’ve heard on Sky News, it’s still..

    The Opposition is demanding to know……

    I will tell the Opposition precisely, there is a lemon tree out the back and you may piddle there. TUFF. You lost, we won.

  69. Just popping in for a moment and can’t stay (don’t thank me!!)

    But Min suggests that the government somehow has a mandate because they established a committee!!??

    Min, you must use an unusual political dictionary, becasue that doesn’t form any definition of a mandate that I’ve heard of.

  70. ToM, you are always welcome here…annoyingly so, but always welcome 😉

    ToM a mandate is to “issue commands or orders for../issue authority to”. Therefore clearly a mandate may take many forms, including that by a committee of authority.

    I would consider that given that the Carbon Tax Committee is in agreeance and that given that the Opposition chose not to participate then Tony Abbott cannot complain about the conclusions reached by the aforementioned committee.

  71. Min @4.33pm, ROFLMAO!! :lol:, :lol:, 😆

    This latest tosh from the Smuggles Set is further proof that Smuggles is completely unfit to be considered as a viable alternative PM and that the opposition is a complete and utter rabble and unfit to govern!

    For these idiots to have refused to participate in this most important committee demonstrates just how unfit they are to govern. They have lost all credibility with these kindergarten tactics and then to attempt to muzzle debate underlines it in thick black texta!

    They have cost the people who, for whatever unfathomable reason, voted for them, any chance of having their views represented when the committee met and thrashed out the policy!

    However unlikely it is that that rabble would have contributed anything worthwhile, they should have participated and represented their constituents! They are an absolute disgrace!

    No doubt they will have the unmitigated gall to whine about the policy, but their refusal to participate has stripped them of that right. If I had been stupid enough to have voted for them, I would have dashed off a very savage letter by now. I shall anyhow, as that log of wood Patrick Secker is the incumbent.

  72. Exactly and precisely Jane. Do not any of the Opposition’s followers comprehend that by Abbott’s No No No then he is denying them the opportunity to make improvements. If you are not part of the solution, then for heaven’s sake Tony just sit down and shut the hell up!

    For those who haven’t already seen this..

  73. So Mr. Abbott wants parliament to sit so the proposals on climate change can be scrutinised.

    Can he justify the cost, so he can ask a few inane questions each day, while he awaits his chance to dish out more abuse with a suspension of standing orders each afternoon.

    I suggest that Mr. Abbott and his party actually read and study the climate change proposals for the next five weeks. This is to enable him to ask some questions about what is being proposed, not what he makes up in his questionable brain.

    Maybe during that next five weeks, Mr. Abbott can take some instruction about how to talk about reality, not what he wishes the world to be.

    Maybe Mr. Abbott can move from the world of a toddler with his no, no, no…. Maybe he can stop behaving like an adolescent bully and move on to be a thinking adult. I know it is a lot to ask of the man, but it needs to be done.

    I am sure that the PM and the Labor government will be answering questions from our illustrious media. I am sure the PM will only be too happy to make herself available to answer questions.

    No, we do not need parliament to sit next week so Mr. Abbott can score political points. There will be plenty of time for that when the leglisation goes before the parliament at the next sitting.

  74. Catching up,
    Maybe Mr. Abbott can move from the world of a toddler with his no, no, no…. Maybe he can stop behaving like an adolescent bully and move on to be a thinking adult. I know it is a lot to ask of the man, but it needs to be done.

    Nah, that’s just too much to expect from Abbott.

  75. Hear! hear! Min @7.37pm.

    CU @8.11pm, I question that Smuggles actually has a brain.

    As for the moron demanding that Parliament sit for an extra week to answer his inane questions, he had the opportunity to be part of the process during which I’m sure Nanny would not only have answered all his questions but would have happily changed his nappy, too.

  76. Jane, nice to see you back again:smile:

    I heard the PM saying today that Abbott’s tree planting would have to be a forest the size of Tasmania.

    She also pointed out that there have been 136 days in which [relevent] questions could have been asked, but were not asked….

    Grogs Gamut covers the Question Time topic very well, but he’s gone off to write a book, so the rest us might have to check up on Hansard {just kidding }.

  77. Just think if he allowed some of his back bench to join the panel, he would know what was going on. Mr.Abbott could also have had some input.

    I am extremely glad he did not take up the PM’s offer. There would have been no chance of an agreement or outcome if he did.

    Is it me or is my impression that parliament is becoming surreal correct.

    We have the opposition getting up and repeating lies and misconceptions on everything. We have the government putting forwarded what appears to be common sense. What either side says appears to have anything to do with what the other is saying,

    Bills are going through with no mention in the MSM or the opposition. On Monday morning, Mr, Abbott put his plebiscite bill to the lower house. Nothing more mentioned by the MSM or by the Coalition

    There appears to be very few amendments put forward by the Opposition in either house. I do not think a government has had such a easy time in parliament.

    All Mr. Abbott’s effort seem to be aimed at his early morning photo opt and his spriel at the end of question time, moving suspension of standing orders. Mr. Abbott does not appear to be interested in any other aspects of the parliamentary process.

    All we get in the MSM is that the PM lied or what Mr. Abbott says.

  78. Like any self disrespecting masochist, Abbott loves to be smacked hard, ’cause it fires him up so that he over-rides his good senses and it makes him do and say things that amaze and amuse us as we watch his serious circus.

    Just an observation though……he has the cock’s cocksure walk, it’s the walk of a droog (think A Clockwork Orange).
    That stiff legged macho ambulation meant to display serious intent………but it also shouts trouble on a stick.

    For those of us inner Sydneyites old enough to remember back some, Abbott’s strut is pleasantly or not, reminiscent of the ol’ “Paddo walk”, which also was mean’t to display the challenging arrogance of certain egotistical street toughs sporting slew eyed looks at all and sundry insight.

  79. I think he has worked on that walk. It is not as prominent now.

    I have another description, that of a mug lair.

    I think we are going to see some interesting theatrics from now on. He is unable to hide his contempt for the PM.

    He would lose heavily if he played poker. His body language is more interesting than what he has to say.

  80. CU, @11.38pm, do you reckon it’s contempt or frustration because he can’t break her.

    I’d like to be a fly on the wall when he finally realises all that legislation is sailing through unchallenged, 1July has passed with no sign of an election and the PM is treating him as an irrelevance.

    How far away can a complete meltdown be? Whose turn is it to bring the popcorn? I wonder if Min will give us the keys to the cellar? 😆

  81. I saw a piece on the ABC news last night speaking about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in hte Northeast of America. The government should take heart from this scheme, and also use it as an example of what can be acieved. On any measure, it is a success. They used Delaware as an example, although it looks like they could have used any state, even New Jersey, who it was reported had withdrawn from the scheme, although, on closer inspection, it appears that they have only flagged that they are going to withdraw. This however is also up for contention.

    Two Democratic Assemblymen, John F. McKeon and Upendra J. Chivukula, have indicated that within the next several weeks, they intend to propose legislation that would revoke the Governor’s authority to withdraw from RGGI.

    And the claims, by the Governor, that it was unsuccessful, also appear to be unwarranted.

    Supporters of the initiative were quick to respond, pointing to a February 2011 report from RGGI Inc., a nonprofit group that oversees the program, which found that climate change air pollution across the region had fallen 30 percent since 2008.

    Regional energy costs reportedly dropped between 15 and 30 percent, due partly to RGGI-funded energy efficiency programs that created a year’s worth of work for nearly 18,000 people across the 10 states.

    In New Jersey, the carbon trading program adds about 30 cents to monthly residential energy bills, NRDC’s Bryk said.

    It also appears that the reason for ending the program is more because of pressure from vested interests rather than the success or otherwise of the scheme. Although, he might be up against it, as support within the state for the scheme is very high.

    Yet Governor Chris Christie is under enormous pressure from out-of-state oil interests to re-evaluate the state’s participation in RGGI. As a part of this effort, Americans for Prosperity – a corporate front group funded by the infamous Koch Industries oil firm – recently launched radio and TV ads propagating false information about the program in order to block clean energy, avoid accountability for air and water pollution, and protect their enormous profits.

    The poll, released today and conducted for NRDC, finds:

    A full 74 percent of New Jersey voters want to keep New Jersey energy dollars in state rather than send them out-of-state, or out of the country, to bring in fossil fuels.
    69 percent of voters favor homegrown solar energy and offshore wind power over polluting coal.
    61 percent would support a program that curbed climate change while also creating jobs and cultivating a clean-energy economy in New Jersey.
    And, a full 60 percent said they would be willing to pay an additional 75 cents on their monthly energy bills – a number that is higher than most estimated costs, which have actually only gone down thanks to RGGI’s support of energy efficiency programs – to curb power-plant pollution and invest in cleaner, local energy sources like wind and solar.

    Now, I realise that the abc(tos) put in these opposing points to gain what they might call ‘balance’, but it would be more accurate if the actual details behind this alleged ‘withdrawal’ was more widely reported, as it appears that the withdrawal (IFF it ever goes ahead) is more a political, and not a financial, decision.

  82. Tom, from your ‘new report’ link..

    Instead, we’re generating regional economic benefits by investing more in local businesses that provide jobs for residents, weatherize our homes, upgrade heating and air-conditioning systems, and provide energy with clean, homegrown American power.

    Which is why China is now the world leader into research into renewable energies. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Chinese know how they hate to be reliant on anything not Chinese for anything. This of course doesn’t bode well for Australian exports in the future..which is yet another reason for Australia to be leading rather than following.

  83. “jane

    CU, @11.38pm, do you reckon it’s contempt or frustration because he can’t break her. ”

    Definitely contempt. What annoys him most is that she leaves the chamber every time he rises to his feet to suspend standing orders. I fail to understand why he would expect anyone to stay to be abused.

    Maybe he right that no other PM has done this, leave the chamber. The truth is that no other Opposition leader has abuse parliament procedures as he does.

    I feel mean making the comments I do about the man, but I find it extremely hard to respect the man. I feel he deserves the contempt I feel.

    Maybe I feel this way about the man because he shows no respect for anyone, including the PM and us. I despise the man for the fact he has created so much gloom about the labor government.

    I know the government is far from perfect but they are not the disaster that he claims.

  84. CU, putting on my educational psychology hat for a moment – this is exactly what is recommended when confronted with “bad behaviour”, one takes oneself away from the situation and let them have a tanty all by themselves. Tanties are no fun unless you have an audience 🙄

  85. So channels 9 and 7 say no to a direct feed from the PM on this historic occasion and with Gina in control at 10 they will no doubt follow the others.

    This is a commercial decision to do with advertising revenue, presumably.

    It is better that the ABC run the propaganda at our expense and give Yabbot a right of reply.

    Comrades….when the miners start their advertising onslaught the commercials stations will share in the booty and the ultimate spoils of victory.

  86. el gordo, what is being missed, is that Mr. Abbott is losing his chance to have his address in reply.

    Maybe they will be blatant enough to allow Mr. Abbott time while denying the PM time to address the nation.

    The stupid part is the announcement is being made in the middle of the day and is unlikely to affect regular programming.

  87. El gordo what ‘spoils of victory’. We had a thing called an election and we have the government that we the people voted for. Certain vested interests – the gambling industry, Big Tobacco, Foreign mining companies, might try to influence public opinion but they do not get to vote in parliament. In the old parliament the government had to contend with the somewhat weakminded and easily influenced Senator Fielding but now with the Greens in Senate these mega wealthy organisations are basically wasting their advertising dollars.

  88. “Comrades….when the miners start their advertising onslaught the commercials stations will share in the booty and the ultimate spoils of victory.”

    Do you really think they will have the same success the second time around. I suspect that many are now aware of record profits and have come to the belief that the only thing that would please these people is to have no taxes imposed on them.

    As they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

    The debate from now on will be on reality, not what Mr. Abbott’s alleges is going to happen. It is now a little harder to create fear and gloom.

    The argument now not about whether climate change is occurring but how to deal with it.

    The debate now is between who has the best plan to create a prosperous future.

    There will be whether Mr. Abbott likes it or not, comparison between his Direct Action scheme and what the government is introducing.

  89. Not all business is against the carbon pricing mechanism.

    “A group of more than 50 businesses representing finance, energy, technology and retail have signed a letter supporting a carbon price.

    The group, which includes GE, AGL, Ikea and Pacific Hydro, believe the carbon price is critical if Australia is to reduce emissions and ensure the nation remains globally competitive.

    The letter comes as lobby groups continue to pressure the Government over what should be included in its carbon package, which will be released on Sunday…………….”

  90. CU, re “The argument now not about whether climate change is occurring but how to deal with it.

    The debate now is between who has the best plan to create a prosperous future.”

    Exactly, just as per Tom’s links of this morning for other countries the debate is all about what is the best way to tackle climate change..whether or not it is occurring is an ancient argument long settled.

  91. ‘The argument now not about whether climate change is occurring but how to deal with it.’

    Climate change happens, it comes with the biosphere which is about to experience regional cooling.

    We are not prepared for the consequences because our scientists, politicians and journalists are asleep at the wheel.

  92. And apart from “scientists, politicians and journalists are asleep at the wheel.”..likewise Big Business..

    A group of more than 50 businesses representing finance, energy, technology and retail have signed a letter supporting a carbon price.

    The group, which includes GE, AGL, Ikea and Pacific Hydro, believe the carbon price is critical if Australia is to reduce emissions and ensure the nation remains globally competitive.

  93. The coal industry is asleep at their wheel too. ‘Bald faced lies’ they have been called.

    [audio src="" /]

  94. “We are not prepared for the consequences because our scientists, politicians and journalists are asleep at the wheel.”

    What consequences. We learn to rely on other than petrol to run our industry. Something that is becoming scarce and a drag on our economy.

    We have cleaner and in the long run more efficient fuel for our industry.

    Old jobs and technology replaced by new. n That is the way of he world, it is forever changing

    If we do not do anything, we risk the planet suffering dire consequences that we will not be able too reverse.

    Economies do recover from downturns and shocks. The World depression before the last world war did come to an end, and many years of plenty followed.

    The consequences of doing nothing far out weigh those of acting.

    Lucky for the world, science does change and I am sure will meet the challenge of finding the technology we need to deal with new challenges.

    Personally I do not believe you are correct, but I hope you are because I do not think the world is going to meet the challenges of climate change.

  95. What is interesting. The coal industry is predicting the destruction of the industry and the lost of 5000 jobs. 5000, hardly the end of the world. All they are doing is pointing out to the public the small number employed in these industries.

  96. Further to the RGGI scheme, and related to the misrepresentations told by ulman to our Prime Minister when he attempted to derail her point that Australia were not ‘going it alone’ with the Carbon Trading Scheme, it appears that the one state he almost got right when he falsely claimed that they were ‘pulling out of those systems’ will now not go ahead with this alleged ‘withdrawal’

    New Hampshire Senate Votes to Stay in RGGI

    In a two-to-one vote the New Hampshire Senate approved a bill designed to maintain the state’s involvement in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

    And, considering the high level of support for the scheme in New Jersey, it wouldn’t be surprising if New Jersey also has a major rethink on their involvement.

    But, the question remains, why do those against the Carbon Pricing continually persist in lies and misrepresentations when it comes to defending their position? And why are they not called on it by the MSM aat large.

    (Perhaps it is because they are one of the main perpetrators?)

  97. Bigger and better ski seasons accompany regional cooling. 😯 Well sugarmagundie…that’s a blessing isn’t is, let’s not worry about several species being wiped out not to mention agricultural pursuits devasted…we can all go skiing.

  98. Been watching the QT live feed at ABC, and just read this

    Seriously, Andrew Robb is quoting a bloke that *said* he was told by Australia Post that increase postage is because of a carbon tax?

    lol, thats their argument, some bloke reckons?

  99. “………… of the ACCI said is a long way from the endorsement Abbott was claiming. And by the way, Anderson used to be on Abbott’s staff as a senior adviser in the Howard government, so Anderson wasn’t letting past loyalties get in the road of what he thinks.

    Abbott hoped to use a rare appearance on 7.30 to misrepresent support by the ACCI for his direct action plan. Instead he was caught out bending (if not breaking) the truth.

    The full details of Labor’s carbon tax will be outlined on Sunday for all to see. Inevitably, attention in the days that follow will be on the government’s scheme, but after that the debate needs to move on to compare it with the Coalition’s scheme.

    If that happens people may find the government’s offering is the lesser of evils.

    Abbott likes to court sceptics who believe that deep down he is uncertain about climate change, but both major parties have the same emissions reduction target for 2020: a 5 per cent cut on 2000 levels. That means they both need to find cuts across industries and households over the next nine years of a similar magnitude to achieve their stipulated targets.

    So when Abbott condemns Julia Gillard’s carbon tax as a blow to the national economy, it is important not to view the attacks in isolation of the Coalition’s alternative plan for carbon pollution reduction. After all, they want to achieve the same cuts. Here is the rub: there is not an economist in this country who believes Abbott’s direct action plan is a more efficient way of achieving the 5 per cent cut. The Productivity Commission says pricing carbon is the most cost-effective way to achieve cuts. Professor Ross Garnaut agrees.

    In other words, unless Abbott is prepared to admit his direct action plan may not be implemented or retained to 2020, and certainly wouldn’t be enacted with such force so as to achieve the 5 per cent reductions promised, it will cost Australians more than the carbon tax. If critics of Gillard’s carbon tax want to support a leader who won’t waste billions of dollars on the issue, I am afraid Abbott is not their man: unless he is being disingenuous about his intentions.”

  100. At the risk of giving el gordo oxygen (oops, sorry, CO2…as one would a leafy vegetable)

    Could el gordo explain why we are about to enter a cooling phase ?

    I guess this is something Bob Carter’s been saying ?

  101. ‘Instead he was caught out bending (if not breaking) the truth.’

    I’ll note it wasn’t ulman who caught him out, you know, the one doing the ‘hard’ interview.

  102. El gordo might be a tiny bit right, but any cooling change on the planet will be restricted to local areas. For example, it is feared that the huge Gulf of Mexico oil spill will effect the seasonal northerly wind and water flows that generally help warm up the east coast of the USA. This will have diddly squat effect on Australia’s climate direction.

  103. ‘…let’s not worry about several species being wiped out not to mention agricultural pursuits devasted…

    I’m not worried, it’s regional cooling and if any species is wiped out then we can say they were very careless to perish after a million years of ice ages and global warming.

    Australia will hopefully make up any shortfalls in food production in the northern hemisphere, because of a shortened growing season.

    Roswell, the Californian ski season is still going strong, do you imagine this has something to do with AGW?

  104. El gordo, I hardly think that a strong ski season in California is proof that we are entering a cooling phase.

    There is ice at both poles, yet the Sahara is still a desert.

  105. Roswell, it’s not a matter of warming or’s a matter of change to the environment where species have no time to adapt. There will of course be crisis situations such as oil spills, volanic action, earthquakes, tsunamis and just think of the humanitarian crises that these things have caused.

    There are indeed localised areas which might benefit from climate change..but By Gee..Australia isn’t going to be one of these being the dryest continent on Earth.

    Consider, Adelaide will have a climate equivalent to the Simpson Desert, Mebourne will have climate equivalent to Adelaide.

  106. Min, I was being sarcastic in my last comment. El gordo does his best to attract sarcasism and I willingly obliged.

  107. Point taken. The Greens TWICE voted down the CPRS and it could be said that they brought Rudd down. And yet now they are prepared to vote in favor of a carbon tax.

  108. Sarcasm?

    Oscillations determine weather and of particular interest is the NAO, which is related to the behavior of the sun.

    Over the next 20 years we should see regional cooling in North America and if the snow fails to melt it’s not global warming.

    In Europe we can expect severe winters like the past three, which indicates we are in a cool phase.

    The first decade will have snowier winters in the UK (similar to the 1940s) and the 2020s may have less snow and sunnier conditions, but really freezing.

    Not every winter is horrendous, some may be mild, but the temperature trend will be down even with the occasional heatwave summer.

  109. I’d leave the long term weather forecasting to Haydon Walker, el gordo.

    We’re talking about climate.

    Are you saying we’re sliding into an oscillation induced cooling phase ?

    If so, who’s oscillating ?

  110. Mangrove, yes it’s the long haul trying to explain the difference between climate and weather.

  111. On lunalava’s ABC topic..this is just so quotable, I have…

    Is the mainstream media a ‘gigantic trolling device’?

    Thank you el gordo, this quote has now gone feral..kidding 😉

  112. Pull yer head in Tom.

    By the 2040s there will be drift ice in the North Atlantic as a Grand Minimum takes hold.

  113. El gordo and the consequences of the 2040 drift ice will be…

    Sooo, there’s an ice drift..please explain. And basically what’s this got to do with the price of eggs?

  114. ‘At around 2040-2050 we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe.

    ‘The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe and the Arctic.’

    Nils-Axel Morner

  115. ‘”The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation.”

    Pity it hadn’t been a bit speedier. We might’ve chucked off some lightweight genetic baggage.

  116. Yes indeed for high school science, the solar minima being the period of least solar’s actually a good time for us peoples on earth to observe auroras.

  117. You asked for a song Min :mrgreen:

    A bit cheesy, but appropriate tonight?

    As TB might say, “QUEENSLANDER!”

  118. Tony Abbott, always on topic of every subject…

    TONY Abbott wants to plant more trees to tackle climate change but today he was unable to say how many he would put in the ground or how they would be watered.

    And Abbott’s tree planting idea is never going to happen anyway because as previously noted the Nationals have, and in fact still are objecting furiously about this pesky ‘tree planting’ happening on agricultural land.

  119. ‘…long term weather forecasting…’ has nothing to do with climate?

    I imagined that seasonal weather forecasting for 2050 is climate but, in your simplistic view of the world, weather has nothing to do with climate it’s only the temperature trend in relation to CO2 that is real?

    Wow, the intellectual depth around here is very deep.

  120. ‘Wow, the intellectual depth around here is very deep.’

    Says the guy who quotes Nils-Axel Morner ROFL

    ‘Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook.’

    That last bit reminds of someone. Heres lookin at ya grodo 😉

  121. el gordo,
    To make it simple for you “climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”.

  122. ‘Tom, I really feel like some music..what can you offer.’

    Sorry about the delay Min 😉

    And sorry about the intro ad in the youtube clip, it was the only version I could find from the Saints & Sinners album, before they metalled (stuffed) it up and it lost all it’s bluesey feel. Since we are talking of weather, er climate, er whatever

  123. Ummm…you aim to discredit Morner? Fair enough, that’s his concern.

    Morner’s theory that Solar Minima ‘were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation’ is interesting.

    Makes more sense than AGW.

  124. ‘Morner’s theory’ is crap

    AGW is science.

    So I guess, in the absence of any science to support your case, just go with throwing out any oddball hypothesis you can find, no matter that it has been exposed as a crank already

  125. Just a rumour at the moment, but I believe that Channels 7 & 9 have done a backflip and have joined 10 and the ABC in telecasting the PM’s address on Sunday.

  126. The must have woken to the fact that they were denying Mr. Abbott and his cohorts a voice. How could they trash what the P announces if they do not broadcast the speech?

  127. Listening to the members 5 minutes statements, today is going to be extra loud and angry.?

    Has anyone listened to the senate QT and the treatment that is dished out to senator Wong. It is unbelievable.

  128. Min, the big bosses stepped in:-

    {after all licence fee rebates are inportant.}

    Nine Entertainment Co chief executive David Gyngell is believed to have pulled rank on Nine’s head of news and current affairs Mark Calvert who had originally knocked back the offer from the PM’s office on the basis it was a party-political broadcast “without question, and without opposing views”.

    However, Mr Gyngell told The Australian Nine would be broadcasting the address because: “this is an extremely important issue for the

    A spokesman for Seven said the network will also be taking the address at about 6.30pm. This also represents a change of heart after Seven news and current affairs boss Peter Meakin said earlier in the week “we have done live addresses before but that has been when someone is saying something for the first time rather than an explanation or a marketing exercise”.

    It is understood Seven boss David Leckie made the call to broadcast the address which is expected to be pre-recorded and last about five minutes.

  129. Catching up, that’s a good point. The Teevs can’t really give Abbott air time without allowing the PM the same !
    It hasn’t stopped any of them up till now, but this is an offical announcement on a big reform so would otherwisw be an obvious snub

  130. ‘…last about five minutes.’

    More time than I can spare.

    Does anybody know if Yabbot gets ‘right of reply’?

  131. CU re “How could they trash what the P announces if they do not broadcast the speech?”

    They could and they we know the Murdoch media makes it up as they go along.

  132. El gordo, it’s not an’s a policy announcement. There is no right of reply although I should imagine that all of Sunday arvo tellie will be filled to the brim with Abbott’s opinions.

  133. ‘Does anybody know if Yabbot gets ‘right of reply’?’

    Yes, he will be releasing his reply this Saturday 😉

  134. Censure motion early today in the lower house. 114.46

    Surprise because it not on TV.

    Mr. Abbott is really upset. The abuse is as loud as I have heard him. Asking questions must bore him to go so early today.

    The PM was stupid enough not to leave the chamber. Mr. Abbott is sure loading it on. Maybe it will abck fire as he is coming across as a bully.

  135. I wish they would stop yelling. Now we have Ms. Bishop in full flay.

    There whole claim is fallacious. There will be full scrutiny of the proposals when the bill is put before the house.

    The PM stood up, opened her mouth and Pyne jumps up to complain.

    What his happening is an disgrace and shows the desperation of this Opposition.

  136. Today is the last day of Parliament and I think that everyone concerned will be pleased when it’s over. The opposition has nothing to offer by way of useful questions. Here we go again, suspension of standing orders…

  137. Cu, Abbott …lie, lie, lies, lies, then J Bisop, lie …….speaker Harry Jenkins finally calls a halt to the ‘lie’ them and Bishop withdraws.

    The ‘stunt for the day’ seems to be ‘don’t let the PM speak’.

    Now another motion for suspension of standing orders…..and this nonsense is all done on ‘taxpayers money’.

  138. Abbott must be getting closer to his “teapot” moment…. I’m a teapot, I’m a teapot

  139. Via a friend, via a tweet from Possum at Crikey…

    Can we officially call this the Harvey Norman Parliament? All marketing, flogging crap and so far, 252 days interest free.

  140. “castrato” Pip, perfect word. Mr. Abbott did a good job.

    It appears that someone meowed Ms. Bishop. Kettle calling the pot black. Trouble with this type of behaviour, it nearly always comes back to haunt you.

    Mr. Bolt is making a big thing of the incidence. Difference that Mr. Bolt has not noticed, is that the PM did not accept that the behavior was acceptable. The PM quickly apologise on behalf of her party.

    I do not remember any such action when Ms. Bishop made paw like actions with her hands during QT.

    Today’s bullying and abuse of the PM by the Opposition was beyond belief.

  141. Bad form from who ever the culprit was on Labor’s side of the chamber. Plus of course whereas Penny Wong was just being ‘precious’, there are already cries of outrage by the MSM when the same thing comes from the Labor side. Not that this is in anyway condoning this sort of behaviour..just sayin’.

  142. ‘Yes, he will be releasing his reply this Saturday’

    Ha ha…. good line Tom.

    But what about the budget, the opposition gets a right of reply?

    Not that it matters, Tony can just sit back, soak up the ambience and let the miners advertising campaign destroy joolya’s carbon dioxide tax.

    This explains the turnaround by commercial television to run the PM, because the miners have promised them $10 million dollars in advertising revenue from their war chest.

    Gina has her fingers in this classic strategy.

  143. Yes, the opposition gets the right of reply to the budget because this is written into protocol.

    The Foreign Owned Mining Companies’ advertising campaign will be about as successful as Big Tobacco’s advertising campaign – once Australians realize how much money these foreign owned companies are making and especially how much money they are taking out of Australia compared with how much Australia is getting out of it.

    Ewww cringe..Gina and fingers..horrible thought.

  144. How many times did Ms. Bishop use the word “she”. It must be record in a short speech.

    When asked who “she” was, she replied “don’t you know who your PM is?”. Ms.

    Bishop cattiness and nastiness is not accidental. It was a demeaning for for all involved.

  145. I love it. Neil and elgordo go on with what their task for the day, in spite of what everyone else is it about. It would be lovely to be as focus.

  146. CU, I was honestly wondering what el gordo would have to talk about after we know what it is, it’s the mining tax….

  147. Min, it’s a lot different to big tobacco (a noxious weed that kills) this is about the miners going to war with the support of the rank and file.

  148. This will be fun, Tom.

    Going by the changed voting habits of the rank and file in NSW on don’t believe the union is speaking for the members.

  149. O, how quick Mr. Pyne jumps to attention when one on his side is a victim of insults.

    Noticed how a competent PM handles the situation. No cover up and member instructed to take responsibilities for his actions.

    “Liberal backbencher Kelly O’Dwyer leapt to her feet: “I think it is very important that you look to the tapes to find out who made that catcall, I think it is an outrageous slur,” she said.

    The Parliament dissolved into chaos as the Prime Minister tried to speak on the motion. Fingers were pointed from the Opposition side – directly towards where Mr Fitzgibbon sat.

    Opposition business manager Christopher Pyne told the Speaker the House would only come to order if the malefactor “confessed and apologised”.

    Then Mr Fitzgibbon rose, saying there were “a number of interjections” from his side of the House and: “I do a catch-all apology for any that I may have made”.

    “Not good enough,” said Mr Pyne, after more finger pointing, shouting and general disorder.

    “It is with great regret that the House will find it impossible to move on while the member concerned hides behind anonymity,” Mr Pyne said.

    “We all know who it was. The press gallery know who it was, and I would invite him to apologise to the House.”

    That brought Mr Fitzgibbon to his feet again. “Mr Speaker, I apologise in a catch-all way. I thought that covered the incident.”

    But the Prime Minister did not think it covered the incident at all.

    She told Parliament that it was indeed Mr Fitzgibbon who made the noise and she gave him the most public of reprimands.

    “I will be requiring him to apologise personally to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, as a woman in this Parliament, of course I say to all members of the Labor team and all members of Parliament generally, conduct towards women in this Parliament which would not occur towards men in this Parliament is inappropriate and wrong and should not be done to any member,” she said.

    And with a few “hear hears” it was all over – except for the discomfort of a government hoist with its own petard.”

  150. “….There are some obvious short-term political benefits in being able to make patently absurd claims with a straight face. Perhaps this disregard for the truth will exact a price from Abbott and his political allies before the next election……”

    I truly hope so.

    “………But no one on the political right does care about such things. While the lies and errors of people like Jones, Plimer and Sheridan are egregious, even supposed experts produce obviously wrong numbers. Last year, economist Terry McCrann claimed that a carbon tax would double the retail price of electricity, on the basis of a calculation about the wholesale price. His numbers, out by a factor of two, were duly repeated by Tony Abbott. Even when the error was exposed, neither McCrann nor Abbott bothered to correct it (Abbott’s free pass on power claims, AFR 5/8/10). A few months later, Greg Hunt made similar claims, this time out by a factor of five.

    There are some obvious short-term political benefits in being able to make patently absurd claims with a straight face. Perhaps this disregard for the truth will exact a price from Abbott and his political allies before the next election. If not, Australia will surely pay a price for electing a government based entirely on lies.

    John Quiggin is an ARC Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland.”

  151. ‘She told Parliament that it was indeed Mr Fitzgibbon who made the noise and she gave him the most public of reprimands.’

    I like Julia just that little bit more, but what else could she do? Fitzgibbon has stupidly embarrassed the PM and she could have done without this at the moment.

  152. “but what else could she do?”

    The PM could do what the Opposition attempt to do. Refuse to apologise, try to justify their actions and belittle the victim.

  153. el gordo, Mr Fitzgibbon did not embarrass the PM. He embarrassed himself. Why should the PM be embarrassed, she did not do anything wrong.

  154. Mr. Hockey was literally jumping up and down to day in QT, demanding that Mr. Swan tell him when he was told that only 500, not an 1000 would pay.

    It appears that the 500 was an Australian beat up. Mr. Hockey’s statement was used in the lead up to the censure motion.

    The PM Made a comment, that the Opposition seem to be disappointed that the public was not being slugged with a tax on petrol.

    “In yet another amazing ‘exclusive’, THE AUSTRALIAN, have concluded that the removal of petrol from the equation now reduces the 1000 top polluters to only 500.

    They no doubt claim, like Tony Abbott is, that petrol was only removed recently. Yet I am pretty sure that Greg Combet came out pretty quickly to counter the petrol will eat your children claims, but being hampered re the at that time the still in negotiations plan. But he did come out. And it was well after that the government and the independents and the greens kept saying 1000.

    Which lets me to believe that the numbers bandied about by THE AUSTRALIAN is more of the attempt to throw mud in the air. Some attempt to say that this will cost more or some such.”

  155. Quiggin said something I agree with

    “There are some obvious short-term political benefits in being able to make patently absurd claims with a straight face. Perhaps this disregard for the truth will exact a price from Abbott and his political allies before the next election. If not, Australia will surely pay a price for electing a government based entirely on lies”

    How about “There will be no carbon tax under the govt I lead”

    And Swan saying that it was an hysterical allegation that labor would bring in a carbon tax.

    Lies, lies lies and more lies

  156. “It can only be lies if you repeat what you know not to be the truth. ”

    But Neil, if you believe it to be the truth at the time, is that a lie?

    Does it ocunt with you if it is one lie against many by the other side?

  157. CU

    Was that you on Bolts blog?? You got lots of replies.

    Yep- she lied. She lied to help her win the last election. ALP politicians know how to tell the correct type of lie to win an election.

  158. ALP politicians know how to tell the correct type of lie to win an election.

    And yet you continue to peddle the line that John Winston Howard was the greatest PM eva? One phrase conclusively blows that out of the water – “Children Overboard.” Greatest lying PM eva maybe 🙄

  159. Bacchus, not only did Howard lie about that one but the photographs of ‘children in the water’ were doctored to remove the date and the time.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s