Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


Andrew Bolt

Nov 30, 2009

Goading them on

So. The Liberals are, according to The Australian, facing an "electi

User login status :


So. The Liberals are, according to The Australian, facing an “election rout” if they go with Abbott and Minchin and block the ETS legislation.

Liberal Party meeting room, 2011

Should this deter them? NOT ON YOUR LIFE, declares one of their most enthusiastic cheerleaders, Andrew Bolt, presenting his four arguments why they should press on regardless:

1. The Liberals were headed for defeat, anyway, even if they approved Rudd’s great green tax.

The adults in the Liberal Party might be a little less cavalier about the difference between “defeat” and “rout”. For one thing, their funding would be greatly reduced if their numbers were. For another, as soon as they’re no longer the second largest party in parliament, then they’re no longer the obvious opposition. They’ve been relying on Australians’ sense that “you have to vote for one of them” for years. If they were really defeated – defeated down to DLP levels – then they’d be lucky if they ever recovered.

2. Telling sceptics to back Rudd’s great green tax because it’s popular is like telling a socialist to become a free-marketer for the votes. Some people really are in politics to fight for their values, even if the battle looks hopeless. Are journalists really so hostile to principle in politics?

Opposition to action on climate change is why these MPs are in politics? Really?

Is Andrew suggesting that the Liberals should now have conscience votes on everything?

3. The polls may show lots of public support for “action” on “climate change”, but the numbers are fast falling, and fall even lower when the question is narrowed to support for a great green tax. How much further would they fall if the Opposition started to argue against both, instead of echoing Labor? The commentariat is underestimating the power of passionate, reasoned argument of a position backed by economics and the latest evidence of a cooling world.

No, you’re overestimating the gullibility of the general public as opposed to those who read your comment threads. It would be courageous for the Liberals to assume Bolt’s readers represent the general public.

4. The science underpinning Rudd’s great green tax is suddenly looking much shakier. Even Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the IPCC report which underpins Rudd’s global warming schemes, concedes “where the heck is global warming?” and complains: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” A revisiting of the science is not just urgent, but imminent.

Well, that’s of course a cynical selection from the email in question, and Trenberth isn’t saying that there is evidence there is no warming, just that their “observing system is inadequate”.

Do the Liberals really want to put their reputations on the line over a leaked email – fake, stolen or taken out of context – again?

Bolt thinks “time is the Liberals’ friend”. He thinks that their delaying the ETS vote and then tearing themselves up over it over the next few months is the party’s best hope in the long-term.

I’m just glad he’s advising their side of politics, not mine.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Mr Lefty


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


19 thoughts on “Goading them on

  1. Vereor

    I do agree that the climate is changing. But terms like ‘indisputable’ and ‘incontrovertible’ are used all over the place without the use of empirical evidence.

    Three more indisputable facts:
    1. Bitumen roads are covering more of the surface area of industrialised countries everyday.
    2. Bitumen roads absorb and retain heat to a much greater extent than the equivalent surface area of grass and native fauna. Contributing to the The Urban Heat Island effect.
    3. Should we stop building roads and rip up the existing ones?

    I do not dispute the facts you mentioned above, but I would have to add to each one of them:
    1. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere
    – Yes it is, but every graph of the last 400,000 years shows it moving like the stock market, with levels just as high as now in the past.
    2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    – Yes, it is one of the weakest green house gases, with a high diminishing effect as it concentrations double. Water Vapour is one of the strongest and most prevalent green house gases.
    3. The greenhouse effect increases with increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    – Yes, but with all positive feedbacks there are also negative feed backs that need to be taking into account in an possible model.

    Unfortunately I have seen more evidence that over the last 400,000 years the temperature of the earth has effected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than visa versa. Temperature rises always come first, and the the CO2 levels follow after. (Al Gore use to like to show the graph zoomed out so it was harder to notice, funny how he no longer uses it like he did in his movie)

    Wouldn’t it be wiser to spend money on making precautions and preparations for adoptions to future climate changes in the world. Rather than just putting finical instruments in place and then sitting back to see if Climate Change is Anthropomorphic?

    I am all for taxing pollution. But the ETS is more aimed at taxing the carbon cycle, and seeing that life on this planet is carbon based, the carbon cycle is also the circle of life.