tip off

Goading them on

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

phonebooth
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.

18
  • 1
    monkeywrench
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    The extreme right of the Liberals are in a dangerous feedback loop with Bolt.They look at his blog popularity and convince themselves that this translates into what the voters really think. Bolt himself is pleased with his apparent role as The Voice of The Right, and panders to his readership with topics like this.
    It’ll all end in tears.

  • 2
    Joe
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    On point 2, the Liberals are a party that believe! In the ’50s they believed in anti-communism, now they believe in anti-environmentalism (apologies to “Beyond the Fringe”).

  • 3
    toiletboss
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Agreed.

    It is passing strange that he considers his rear echelon commenters(now marginalised to a single abortion of a daily thread) to be indicative of a dingbat groundswell amongst the rest of humanity.

    Imagine the pangs of anguish he must be facing when he puts his head on the pillow at the moment, after all, his favoured candidate St. Peter bailed on him despite his shameless efforts to thrust him into the limelight.

    Who knows which way the cookie will crumble? It should prove to be an interesting week, given that the so called ‘Unity Candidate’ has been sprung seeking counsel from the Cunning Runt- the old man primarily responsible for the shambolic state of the Libs to begin with.

  • 4
    surlysimon
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Andrew is on a hiding to nothing here, if the liberals delay the ETS and Labour go to an election with it the Liberals will be decimated, not just lose but be reduced to an almost minor party. The make up of the Senate after the next election is most likely to see the Greens hold the balance of power and they will want a stronger bill and will probably get it.
    So Thank you Andrew Bolt you are a true friend of the green movement, maybe they should strike a medal for you.

  • 5
    twobob
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Bolt thinks “time is the Liberals’ friend”?
    He might be right, I doubt it though. His whole argument is based upon his own spin that the world has cooled. I am really glad that he does not understand statistics because if he did then terms like standard error and variation around a mean would shake him to his core.
    If the world goes on for another ten years without warming he will look quite good. But I doubt that is going to happen. We have just had records smashed for November temperatures and I expect that we will see a record average temperature set for November. December will see more of the same as the ocean temperatures are about 2 degrees above normal.
    Point is just one year where we have a mean temperature above 1998 levels will sink him and his argument. Might not happen and for the worlds sake I hope it doesn’t but it just might and if it does the man will be publicly humiliated and his chosen side of politics will be ruined.
    I dont like bolt and I like him even less now that I realise that his humiliation and the utter demise of the liberals depends upon the world warming and him being wrong.
    I almost wish that he is wrong but I’m not quite that petty. I want him to be right, I don’t want global warming to be real even if that means I have to put up with him crowing about how right he was and how wrong the rest of us are/were.
    ……… insert suitable curse here ……..

  • 6
    Dewgong
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Shh. Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.

    Point is just one year where we have a mean temperature above 1998 levels will sink him and his argument.

    Don’t be so sure about that. Thus far he and his flock have been arguing against and denying incontrivertible evidence for global warming due to the increase in Co2, I see no reason why they would not do so again in the future.

    I expect something along the lines of “scientists are manipulating the data” with throwbacks to this CRU rubbish, or “ok, so the world didn’t stop cooling in 1998, but this time it really really has reached it’s peak and is cooling from now”, especially if the year following that turns out to be cooler.

  • 7
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    The Liberals are doomed DOOMED!!

  • 8
    confessions
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    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?

    OF course that would be why those ‘sceptics’ are furiously now trying to paint themselves as wanting to act on AGW – Nick Minchin yesterday telling everyone how much money he spent on CO2 emissions abatement when a minister. And why they are trying desperately to get Hockey to thow his hat in the ring because they know one of their own won’t win against Turnbull. Andy isn’t reading the politics of this. Again.

    The other day I also linked to this post that gives a pretty good argument why the far Right are in decline in the Liberals. This of course also applies to Bolt, which is why he is so loud and bellicose at the moment. If the Libs embrace bipartinship on climate change then he loses mainstream legitimacy for his radical views on AGW, and ends up looking like one of those fringe ranters that nobody wants to associate with.

  • 9
    Bloods05
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Heed this farce! End this fraud!

  • 10
    Bloods05
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Is this the Great Liberal Split of the noughties? Could we see Abetz, Tuckey, Bernardi, Mirabella, BishopX2 and McGauran hiving off the form a new DLP (Dopey Liberal Party) founded on the sacred, inviolable principle of opposition to action on climate change?

  • 11
    surlysimon
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    I liked the way Andrew has contended that the Party room hadn’t backed the ETS deal in the party room( he has repeated this several times), yet the figures Lenore Taylor quoted on Insiders showed the joint party room backed Malcolm, if you take out the Nats the margin is bigger, it’s only if you just ask the back bench that the numbers swing against the ETS. So now we are calling for selective democracy, some peoples votes counting, others not.

  • 12
    confessions
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Is this the Great Liberal Split of the noughties? Could we see Abetz, Tuckey, Bernardi, Mirabella, BishopX2 and McGauran hiving off the form a new DLP (Dopey Liberal Party) founded on the sacred, inviolable principle of opposition to action on climate change?

    It would be great to see because they’d never win elections and our parliament would finally be rid of the trouble-making dinosaurs like Tuckey and Bishop B. But of course they’d never follow their principles and go it alone because they need the mainstream legitimacy of the Liberal party to hide behind. How anyone could define these people as standing by their principles is beyond belief.

  • 13
    Bloods05
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    He’s pretty shameless Surly.

  • 14
    bpobjie
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Number 2 is interesting. Allowing everyone in the Libs to follow their principles would get the ETS passed, wouldn’t it?

  • 15
    Posted November 30, 2009 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    That’s a very good point. What the deniers are calling for is the majority of the Liberal Party MPs to be forced to go against their consciences.

  • 16
    Vereor
    Posted December 2, 2009 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    “denying incontrivertible evidence for global warming due to the increase in Co2″

    Has anyone see this incontrovertible evidence with there own eyes?
    I would love to be able to have a look at it too.

  • 17
    PeeBee
    Posted December 3, 2009 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Vereor, I think you have a good point, although a little pedantic.

    However, I think there is enough evidence around to see there is something happening to the climate. Personally, I have seen evidence: the ‘hay season’ in the area I grew up is a full 2 months earlier now than it was when I was a kid. Twenty years ago, my house never got hotter than 28 degrees, two years ago I installed an airconditioner. But this is just evidence that climate is changing. But what is causing this change.

    For that I go back to basics, and there are three indisputable facts:

    1. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere
    2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    3. The greenhouse effect increases with increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    So we have an effect and a mechanism that could cause that effect. Is that enough for you?

  • 18
    Vereor
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    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.

One Trackback

  1. By Warming hearts, wherever they go « An Onymous Lefty on November 30, 2009 at 9:15 am

    ...] Al Gore is “the Gore effect“, then is a record month of heat when the Liberals are tearing themselves to pieces over the issue of an ETS “the Liberal Party effect”? Would wherever the deniers go [...

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...