Climate conspiracy grips Senate as Coalition attacks latte-sipping opponents of coal

The influence of president-elect Donald Trump’s attack on “elites” is taking hold in the Australian parliament, with the Coalition attacking “latte-sipping” opponents of coal mining and joining enthusiastically in a debate questioning climate science in the Senate.

Frydenberg was asked in question time by Greens MP Adam Bandt about a US government report delivered in at the Marrakech climate talks that warned, amongst other things, of a 1.5m rise in sea levels by 2050 if greenhouse emissions continued at current levels.

Frydenberg responded by claiming that Australia had an “ambitious” climate target for 2030 and had been praised “for innovation” and its work on carbon capture and storage at the recent climate talks in Marrakech.

thumbs_soylatte
An anti-coal soy latte. If you see one, please alert authorities.

“It it is okay for the member for Melbourne to put his sandals up on the seat, sip his soy latte, sit in the streets of Brunswick and say that it is the end of coal,” but coal would continue to be part of the mix for decades to come, Frydenberg said.

A few hours later, Canada announced it would phase out traditional coal fired generation by 2030 as part of its “vision for a clean growth economy”. The UK is phasing out coal by 2023, and France is phasing out coal too, although it has taken a rain check on that idea because one third of its nuclear fleet are sidelined by safety concerns.

In the Senate, One Nation senator and climate conspiracy theorist Malcolm Roberts managed to have one hour set aside to debate the science of climate change as a “matter of public importance.”

Predictably, Roberts applauded Trump’s “highly moral and courageous position” on climate change, and hailed the links between One Nation and the collection of fellow climate conspiracy theorists in the inner sanctum of Trump’s administration-in-waiting.

For good measure, Roberts attacked renewable energy in South Australia (which, incidentally, has not stopped the state having the highest levels of business confidence in Australia), and he invited Australian law makers to “form a conga line” behind Trump’s proposal to open up more federal lands to oil and gas drilling and eliminate environmental regulations.

He was, of course, enthusiastically supported by fellow One Nation senator and former apprentice boiler-maker Brian Burston, who also referred to the UN climate conspiracy and claims that Trump’s election had “punctured forever” the  “fantasy” of global action.

“Even if we were to shut down the whole country, with not so much as a wood fire to warm ourselves in our caves, the difference this would make to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would be entirely counteracted by the rest of the world’s action in a matter of months,” said Burston, who lives in a place called Coal Point.

Another cross-bencher, Senator Jacqui Lambie joined in too, accusing the Greens of being “deniers of natural climate change”, which she insisted was caused by “variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun”, which could move the “average world temperature rose about five degrees very quickly to around 19 degrees.”

And she’s not a fan of renewables. “The scientific record shows that no amount of windmills, solar panels, renewable energy targets or Australian pensioners paying over-the-top prices for their electricity will stop the earth’s temperature heating up by another four or five degrees if that is what natural cycles dictate,” Lambie said.

But it wasn’t just the cross-benchers having a go, the Coalition also joined in with gusto.

bangkok
Bangkok, where the Coalition says Co2 emissions are invisible.

Senator John Williams, the National’s whip in the Senate, said: “I have not travelled the world much, though I have been to Thailand many times for Anzac Day”. But he could tell quite clearly from his travels that carbon dioxide is “actually odourless, colourless and non-toxic. You cannot see it,” he revealed.

Williams wondered why environmentalists pursued action against this “odourless, colourless, non-toxic gas which is essential to all life on earth” when “poisonous gases” such as sulfur and carbon monoxide were ignored. “Emissions trading schemes are schemes where wealthy people sell fresh air to wealthy people and poor people pay for it. It is as simple as that.”

The Liberal Party’s senator Ian Macdonald admitted he had no scientific knowledge, but said he bowed to those who do, including Senator Roberts (but not the 97 per cent of climate scientists who accept the proposition of anthropogenic global warming).

In any case, Macdonald thought Australia was doing “far more than it needs to” and then offered this brain-crushing leap of logic, suggesting Australia shouldn’t take any action until big emitters such as China, the US, Russia and the EU brought their emissions down to less than 1.2 per cent of the world emissions.

tinfoil

It was all too much for Greens senator Nick McKim, who produced a tin foil hat and asked Senator Roberts if it belonged to him. “Really, seriously, haven’t we all got better things to do than debate the conspiracy theory laden rubbish that you bring into this place?”

Labor senator Jenny McAllister agreed: “It is 2016 and we should not be devoting an hour of time in this chamber to debating whether climate change is real. We actually should be devoting a month to exploring ways we can address it.”

Comments

89 responses to “Climate conspiracy grips Senate as Coalition attacks latte-sipping opponents of coal”

  1. Mags Avatar
    Mags

    Jeez, the lunatics really are in charge of the asylum. How have we ever elected such ill-educated fools???

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Very true however it would appear that the senate particularly does reflect the breakup of society with different levels of understanding and with core beliefs that are removed from sensible reasoned conclusions.
      The Senators actually believe the stance they take is correct.
      One did mention the It has long been known that characteristics of the Earth’s orbit. (its eccentricity, the degree to which it is tilted, and its “wobble”) are slightly altered on timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Such variations, collectively known as Milankovitch cycles, conspire to pace the timing of glacial-to-interglacial variations.)
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html

      However her conclusion that, this is why there has been a very abrupt trend in the last 100 years, would appear the opposite of what should be happening, if looking at the Milankovitch Cycles.

      1. MrMauricio Avatar
        MrMauricio

        Milankovitch interpretation correct!!!These 4 cycles and variations in solar output have initiated many warming/cooling periods but variations in CO2 has also been involved often lagging but sometimes initiating rises and falls.There’s clear correlation between recent rises in a heat trapping gas CO2 from human burning of fossil fuels at the rate of 100 times volcanic levels of emissions,and the observed rise in average earth temperature.The increase of isotopes of CO2 associated with burning are clearly evident in the atmosphere.

        1. john Avatar
          john

          Your absolutely correct.
          The isotopic make up of CO2 and equivalent are showing exactly where the constituent make up of the atmosphere is coming from this is irrefutable.
          The historical record as i believe over 80 reconstructions show a trend equivalent to over thousands of years not 100 as we are seeing now and living in.

          Education my friend is lacking in the wider community full stop.

          1. Len Botterill Avatar

            Yes John. A basic lack of education is the problem. Because plants indeed have a structural preference for C12 over C13 or C14 ( its less neutrons make it more workable) . By burning the plants as fossil fuels we alter the proportion of isotopes in the atmosphere. This is readily detectable, and is positive proof that the CO2 increase is indeed caused by man, and not any other source.
            It is just totally embarrassing that we have these uneducated fools in positions of importance in Australia.

    2. John McKeon Avatar
      John McKeon

      There is a desperate need for at least one person who is well informed about climate science to go face to face and in the ear of people like Jacqui Lambie.

      1. john Avatar
        john

        Very true however just who can do that is the question?

        1. John McKeon Avatar
          John McKeon

          Giles, know anyone who could do the honours?

          I hope Greens politicians and associated people are onto this, although – if they are – they obviously haven’t achieved a break through yet.

          1. john Avatar
            john

            Old mate a Green would not go down with the said person.
            Perhaps a young person who is a relative who has studied science could just politely introduce the person to a gentle understanding of the basics. Starting with the normal situation is we should be moving into a very slow cooler world.
            At about .01 degree each year not up by the horrid figures we are seeing all the time.

          2. John McKeon Avatar
            John McKeon

            “… a Green would not go down with the said person …”

            john, do you mean someone like, say, Jacqui wouldn’t engage or do you mean no one from the Greens or the green movement would engage?

            I noticed some very interesting faces engaging with Clive Palmer in previous crucial parliamentary negotiations – with the aim of softening the reactionary anti-climate science blows from the COALition. One was associated with a progressive economics and social justice think tank (where they actually do think) as well as being formerly associated with the Greens.

            Some of the best political advice I ever heard was that one must engage and network, even with one’s political enemies.

          3. john Avatar
            john

            I do not think Jacqui would engage with a green.
            So a person who has qualification yes, but I bet you a relative who has some qualifications would be welcomed.
            Note we are dealing with the ill informed here who may have preconceived ideas.
            And once in a position they then stick to what ever belief they have because they see any evidence of it being incorrect as a destruction of their self image and belief in self.

          4. Kenshō Avatar
            Kenshō

            Your questions are determined by a perspective as a person interested in science or reason based upon evidence. The discussion is about whether people wish to pursue coal or renewable energy etc. In other words it’s about reasoning from self interest. As a social worker I would rarely attempt the sort of rational discussion you describe. With the strategy of talking to these elected leaders, individuals rarely change especially when others want them to. It really is necessary to slowly raise awareness with voters. It is accepting this is humanity’s journey. Trying to convince people like Roberts or Lambie is okay though they are symptomatic of the gravity of humanity’s awareness and are elected as a result of being in resonance with humanity.

      2. Giles Avatar

        The CSIRO tried with Roberts to no avail, I’m pretty sure that others have tried with Lambie et al, but the Tasmania senator seems to have been sold a line from the nuclear lobby.

        1. John McKeon Avatar
          John McKeon

          Thanks, Giles. I’m getting into the mood to try face to face bbq conversation with the other side, but we all know Roberts is a total waste of space on this issue.

      3. Annette Schneider Avatar
        Annette Schneider

        Apart from her denial of the peer reviewed scientific consensus, Lambie is actually a good egg. She should educate herself rather than joining these idiots. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    3. MaxG Avatar
      MaxG

      Ill-educated people voted for these ill-educated clowns; the same in the US — why Trump came to power.

      1. OnionMan77 Avatar
        OnionMan77

        Wish you would stop repeating that easy untruth.
        Trump didnt win. Hillary lost. The young democratic vote wanting Bernie refused to vote for Clinton.
        The republican total vote remained constant, the democratic vote total crashed by approx the 11 million Bernie supporters.

        https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/11/votes-768×399.png

        Australians get all the blame for voting a tent full of ill-educated clowns.

        1. Rod Avatar
          Rod

          I look forward to seeing this graph in 2020, assuming there is still a democracy and minorities and women are allowed to vote.

        2. Brian Tehan Avatar
          Brian Tehan

          The flaw in your argument is the fact that Clinton got 1.7 million votes more than Trump. According to Peter Martin in the Age, nobody has ever lost the presidency before on such a margin. Obama won by 5 million votes so your figures don’t stack up. Hilary lost somewhat over 3 million votes but, then again, she’s no Barack Obama, nor is Bernie Sanders.

  2. DJR96 Avatar
    DJR96

    They sure don’t have any comprehension of the consequences of any significant sea level rise.
    A huge amount of human endeavour, resources and investment is built along the shores all around the world. It has been built to suit the existing ocean levels. Much of it will be worthless and lost with even a metre rise in sea level. Are we prepared to suffer that loss, or pay to protect it somehow? That loss or expense would far outstrip the investment required to be fossil-fuel free.

    And that resource is finite. Some of it will be required for a long time yet, particularly aviation and shipping. There is no harm in reducing our dependence on it when there is viable renewable alternatives. Or is that just too sensible…..

    1. Rod Avatar
      Rod

      You are spot on about finite resources. It is obvious some people will never accept humans are responsible for climate change and are oblivious to the real consequences.

      Maybe for those people we really need to push the finite resources line.
      It is totally irresponsible to waste fossil fuels and consume them at the current rate.
      We must leave something in the ground for future generations.
      Hopefully they won’t need or want them.

      1. DJR96 Avatar
        DJR96

        The other thing people seem to forget, is that almost all of the fossil fuels we use cost money to extract, process and deliver to consumers in a usable form. That’s hardly efficient!
        Whereas renewables are for all intents and purposes cost free after the capital installation.

        1. Rod Avatar
          Rod

          No need to remind me of FF inefficiencies.
          In a past life I did power station stats for a thermal gas fired station. The older units would sometimes get down to 22% to the front door. Then add on line losses.
          The rest went up the stack as lost heat or into the ocean keeping the dolphins warm.
          Don’t quote me but about 15% of the energy in petrol is used to move a vehicle the rest is lost heat. Crazy.

      2. DJR96 Avatar
        DJR96

        Speaking of resources, it doesn’t help that we hoomans have cleared half the trees on the planet.
        Here’s something that may help provide some perspective of the timeframe we have had an impact on the planet
        https://www.facebook.com/1600710093477035/photos/a.1600748273473217.1073741828.1600710093477035/1806989596182416/?type=3

        1. john Avatar
          john

          Very true DJR however no use talking into a vacuum.
          Speak to your club atm i am doing exactly that having put together a pretty extensive energy saving program for the next 20 years.

      3. Annette Schneider Avatar
        Annette Schneider
        1. nakedChimp Avatar
          nakedChimp

          Perfect. Can I get Soylent Red then please?

        2. Rod Avatar
          Rod

          I saw a photo the other day of Chinese farmers climbing trees to pollinate fruit as all the bees have died.
          Maybe pollution rather than climate change but still very scary.

      4. Len Botterill Avatar

        Sounds good in theory. The problem is the long tail of carbon emissions. It hangs around for centuries, unlike methane with a half life of ~8 years.

  3. trackdaze Avatar
    trackdaze

    Unfortunately its going to take mother natures wrath in the form of multiple category 5’s in succession to knock some sense into them and those that vote for them.

    Or maybe greenland we need a chunk to break off ahead of time to spook the tin hats.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      I would nominate Antarctica as the area to watch.
      No doubt it will not make any difference because those with a closed mind will just ignore it.

      1. MrMauricio Avatar
        MrMauricio

        West Antactic ice sheet already declared unstable(as well as Greenland)-melting from above (warmer air)and below(warmer sea)- and the land below it is sloping toward the sea!!! .Interesting the British Antarctic base on the Brunt Ice Shelf had to be moved further south on the shelf recently after a massive crack in the ice appeared behind it.

        1. john Avatar
          john

          Yes I have been following that information.
          This year we have a strange situation where both north and south have moved in tandem this is not know of.

          1. Len Botterill Avatar

            What will be interesting to watch is to what extent the overturning current is inhibited not only in the North -West Atlantic, but also in the southern hemisphere by increased fresh water flows coming off the WAIS.

    2. john Avatar
      john

      I think this is paper also shows a paradox because of the loosing in the Polar jet stream, colder air goes further south, atm Far Norther Russian and Europe have had heavier than normal snow falls.
      http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/ice-melt.html

      1. nakedChimp Avatar
        nakedChimp

        not really paradox.. the extremes will increase and some parts will get colder as well. It’s just that cherry picking and omitting those details is easier = populist.

        1. john Avatar
          john

          Actually follow the links and have a look at what has happened to the ice in the Arctic, it is very revealing.

      2. MrMauricio Avatar
        MrMauricio

        The polar jet stream is oscillating over a wider latitudinal amplitude as pressure bands weaken under warming.Each time polar air travels into lower latitudes it is replaced by other warmer air masses,so exacerbating polar warming. Over recent weeks air temperatures were up to 34Deg F warmer than average for example.Polar sea ice is now 30% less in extent than prior to 1980.Warming is occurring much faster in the Arctic.Shipping companies and oil companies are expanding into ice free zones.There is also the impact of the Arctic conveyor-fresh water interrupting/diluting the Gulf Stream which keeps W.Europe much warmer than it would be otherwise

        1. john Avatar
          john

          I know have a look at this up to date information.
          https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/arctic-sea-ice-is-losing-its-bulwark-against-warming-summers

          Play the video showing the ever decreasing ice mass.

        2. john Avatar
          john

          Yes the Gulf Stream is something that is being looked at if it keeps on trend to lessen or stops NE USA and NW Europe will plunge in temperature

  4. Andrea Avatar
    Andrea

    What I find most appalling is that Frydenberg doesn’t appear to know the difference between climate change mitigation, and climate change adaptation. He was asked a question the effect of climate impacts (i.e. adaptation) and all he could answer was something about emission reductions and commitment to coal. Does this Minister understand his responsibilities? Has he read Australia’s National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy?
    I think we need to get back our Environment Department! It’s all very well to shove Energy and Environment together if you want to do something about emissions. But if adaptation gets ignored, then we are seriously in trouble.

    1. nakedChimp Avatar
      nakedChimp

      They don’t care.. the results of handling it this way will only come about in 5-10 years.. that’s way past those guys horizon.

      1. Andrea Avatar
        Andrea

        Yes, but I wonder if he even knows about the Adaptation Strategy

        1. Kenshō Avatar
          Kenshō

          So many reasons environmental groups should demand Frydenberg’s resignation. 65% of voters have green values even though they may not vote for environmental issues as a first priority. Would probably help Turnbull out by setting a precedent and silencing the hard right.

  5. Farmer Dave Avatar
    Farmer Dave

    This ignorance is appalling. What amazes me is either these denialists are totally sure they are right, or they have absolutely no care for the consequences of their being wrong. Even if they don’t care about their children or grandchildren, surely, given their egos, they have some concern for their reputations?

    In the spirit of making the punishment fit the crime, I would like to lock them in a room with a hundred years of sea level data and not let them out until they had accurately hand calculated 12 months running means and accurately hand plotted them on a very large sheet of graph paper. They might even learn some respect for data, too.

    1. Rob G Avatar
      Rob G

      Let them be chased by brown polar bears in the arctic

      1. john Avatar
        john

        The question you would be asked is “What is a graph?”

      2. Rod Avatar
        Rod

        I’m imagining the mad monk on his bike

    2. Len Botterill Avatar

      Excellent. And also let them observe how remarkably stable the Sun’s radiative output really is from century to century, thereby demolishing one of Malcolm Roberts’ pet theories.

  6. howardpatr Avatar
    howardpatr

    I wonder if Frydenberg is permanently overdosed on mogodon.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      I am sorry i did not realise you had already said this but my conclusion as well.

  7. Kenshō Avatar
    Kenshō

    I’m not sure I’m supposed to be though I couldn’t help laughing through reading this article. For the record I drink chai, herbal tea from the garden and cacao. Looks like Frydenberg drinks beer. Glad he’s discerning a difference. I gave up beer when I left the Army a few decades ago.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Yes is is all rather appalling when we have the leaders of the nation looking like dad and Dave wondering why the dam is leaking after they dug a hole in it.

  8. Brad Sherman Avatar
    Brad Sherman

    What does the Coalition drink, Nescafe?

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Magadon in the coffee I expect.

      1. Brad Sherman Avatar
        Brad Sherman

        =-) !!!

  9. orko138 Avatar
    orko138

    Mandatory IQ tests for parliamentarians. Mimimum 120 to get in thanks… that should sort out the problem we have

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Cripes no one qualifies.
      Set it at about 80 some will just get in with a bit of help from their kids telling the answers

      1. orko138 Avatar
        orko138

        Fair enough, but you get my point.. Well above average should be the minimum for the people charged with leading the nation.

        1. orko138 Avatar
          orko138

          Or is this ‘elitist’?!!

          1. john Avatar
            john

            No it is what a nation that believes in innovation would do.

          2. Diego Matter Avatar
            Diego Matter

            I agree that they should have a good IQ, but on the other hand, the elite got it sometimes very wrong in history…

          3. orko138 Avatar
            orko138

            Sure, but on average, smarter people will make fewer bad decisions that less smart people. I also think its dangerous to mix the concepts of ‘intelligence’ and ‘elite’ – it seems that the popular conversation at present is starting to muddle the two. This could be a dangerous precedent if we are now starting to see the rise of Fascism again

          4. orko138 Avatar
            orko138

            Sure, but on average, smarter people will make fewer bad decisions that less smart people. I also think its dangerous to mix the concepts of ‘intelligence’ and ‘elite’ – it seems that the popular conversation at present is starting to muddle the two. This could be a dangerous precedent if we are now starting to see the rise of Fascism again

        2. john Avatar
          john

          Absolutely I totally agree.
          Unfortunately the first causality of polities is truth.
          As a rep you have to toe the party line so even if you know it is total bullocks you have to say it otherwise your party gets rid of you but worse so do the people you appeal to.
          People need education that is the problem.

  10. Cooma Doug Avatar
    Cooma Doug

    The thing to keep in mind when debating the matter is the way the arguments on each side stand up in the discussion.

    The man made argument has hundreds of detailed studied, proven and supported concepts.

    The denialist crew have many unsupported concepts. But to be fair they have many that are proven and supported. However there is a major difference as the argument proceeds.

    The man made argument concepts all progress and converge at the same point. Probably the most powerful thing about it.

    The denialist argument is a collection of concepts that are unrelated and do not have a synergy with a common result.

    A senior executive of a major energy company told me in 2012 that climate change is not man made and was in the hands of Jesus.
    Another exec at the same meeting said its not man made because there was an ice age predicted in 1969.
    His wife added that it was hot in Rome in 1100AD.

    1. MrMauricio Avatar
      MrMauricio

      Without industrial human burning the Earth would be heading into an Ice Age- we have overcome this effect.However it was about this time 1960s that the first evidence of rising levels and the impact of CO2 was being collated.Not long after,in the 70’s,Exxon scientists ,who gathered data from their oil tankers, warned the company that burning its product would warm the planet.We have the evidence of these warnings,and their are law suits pending.Not long later Peabody Coal scientists warned of the same, consequence.
      Rome circa 1100-will check!!!

    2. john Avatar
      john

      I can not find the link to the Exxon knew page however this perhaps will make some interesting reading it is how Toyota came to make the PHEV.
      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102016/exxon-climate-change-hybrid-cars-technology-another-road-not-taken-electric-vehicle-toyota-prius

  11. Kenshō Avatar
    Kenshō

    “Frydenberg responded by claiming that Australia had an “ambitious” climate target for 2030 and had been praised “for innovation” and its work on carbon capture and storage at the recent climate talks in Marrakech.”

    Someone should ask Frydenberg directly what he thinks has led to global warming. I’m also unaware of Turnbull’s position on global warming.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      The carbon abatement is a program that had been set up previously where for instance a Pig Farm could claim credits for turning the methane into power to run the farm.
      The other are that has been utilized is not cutting down trees by land clearing now with this aspect i have doubt it seem 1 person has applied for a rather large proportion of the amount of the credits under this system.
      The payment to councils for their efforts were already in place, the pig farmers and chook farmers ditto.
      So this whole claiming they have made some kind of wonderful change is all smoke screen and mirrors and i can see another rip off of the tax payer a mile off especially with the land clearing aspects of this.

      1. Kenshō Avatar
        Kenshō

        Sounds like your suggesting the Coalition are merely interested in ways to turn carbon sequestration into making a buck and it was never about helping the environment. To run this argument and be consistent, you would also have to suggest Mal’s forays into EV’s and fascination with new technology are not really for the purpose of benefiting the earth or humanity. I’d say this could be getting cynical although since we’re speaking of the Coalition I imagine this is realistic. There has got to be some altruism there somewhere. Perhaps our chief scientist really wishes for the lives of humanity and wellbeing of the planet to improve… I for one think we need to be careful not to become pessimistic about human nature or get jaded. Surely this kind of self interest is a prelude to a more enlightened self interest, where we all realise the economy is better with a fair economy and healthy eco-systems as benefiting us… its just the wheels of evolution turning…

  12. John McKeon Avatar
    John McKeon

    I didn’t vote for anyone in the COALition, nor Malcolm Robert’s outfit, oops, I mean Pauline Hanson’s outfit. And I usually drink flat whites. Occasionally Long Blacks with milk on the side. Not at all ashamed.

    1. john Avatar
      john

      You could drink dish waste and i am sure u would not vote for the said people./

  13. Kenshō Avatar
    Kenshō

    Despite any criticism, it’s a great beginning for Frydenberg to work on his empathy with other people.

  14. Robin_Harrison Avatar
    Robin_Harrison

    The main problem is an adversarial, dualist system that divides society almost exactly into right and left on ideological grounds. When ideology rules reason, logic, truth and facts become optional and disposable extras.
    The pinnacle of this lunatic system is determined by who is the most convincing unprincipled, lying thief.
    Are we expecting sense from this nonsense?
    Fortunately the economics and exponential growth of renewable energy and EVs seems to have reached a point of inevitability and is immune to the antics of those fools.

  15. Ian Avatar
    Ian

    Not happy about my tax paying these utter morons.
    Debate must now be moved into ‘how to implement’, while ‘is it happening?’ discussions must be banned. Ffs.

    At least the NSW Coalition are doing something and today they announced their $500M energy efficiency strategy and draft plans.

  16. Ken Dyer Avatar
    Ken Dyer

    I am glad that Roberts managed to waste an hour of the Senate’s time, along with McDonald, Frydenberg, Lambie and co. I am hoping that they will never speak of global warming again, so we can all get on with our renewable energy plans, and how we can do our bit to avert global warming. But don’t tell them.

    However, I for one have now invested in a tin foil hat to block out the lunatic looney tunes coming out of Canberra, I have also read a theory that wearing a tin foil hat was a device invented by Governments so that your every thought is amplified and recorded by them using special radio frequencies only available to them. I think the Australian Senate has access to those frequencies.

    Can anybody clarify this?

  17. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    Sounds like a Trumpitis infection of your federal parliament.

  18. digicle Avatar
    digicle

    All this talk of Carbon Dioxide has gotten outta hand, we should just be banning Nitrous Oxide and Mercury emissions, simplify things.

  19. Kenshō Avatar
    Kenshō

    What’s happening is stuff that has been hiding away in the shadows has now got permission to come out. That’s a good thing.

    1. Annette Schneider Avatar
      Annette Schneider

      It may inspire us to get off our backsides. #breakfree2016

  20. Radbug Avatar
    Radbug

    Trump will cause interest rates to revert to the mean, and probably overshoot. This means that the return on capital must be that much higher than today. EVERY company in America has gorged on ZIRP-based loans to make their unprofitable activities appear profitable. They are already defaulting on these loans, using Chapter 11 to carry on regardless. Capital providers are being burned, big time. There will be no capital to fund anything in Trump’s first term, let alone coal-based ventures.

    1. Kenshō Avatar
      Kenshō

      Maybe those with capital had too much.

    2. Annette Schneider Avatar
      Annette Schneider

      I am relying on Trump to apply the finishing touch to the crash of the Global Economy, because nothing more gentle will make a difference at this late stage in Anthropogenic Climate Armageddon. http://energyskeptic.com/

  21. Robert Comerford Avatar
    Robert Comerford

    Roberts has no scientific qualification either!
    What a waste of public paid time.

  22. Annette Schneider Avatar
    Annette Schneider

    I believe that it is our herd instincts at fault. The comments on this page and many other recent articles show that there are many of us who actually respect the scientific method and/or understand the science. Where we fall down is our collective belief that any one can or will lead us out of this, especially corrupt, greedy, badly educated, frightened or insane politicians. Remember that they are more frightened of us than we are of them and ask yourself, “What would Gandhi, Martin Luther King or the Suffragettes done when faced with governments like this?” Here’s a clue – https://youtu.be/vdTBfqY3rao

    1. Kenshō Avatar
      Kenshō

      Hi Annette, yes I too see it as “Anthropogenic Climate Armageddon” to use words from religious vocab which will relate to many. In a way yes, I too could support the idea of “herd instincts” of slowing public action though being more specific there’s regular developmental factors, as yet preventing humanity from awakening and mobilising:
      # physical addiction, drugs, alcohol, pharmaceutical,
      # emotional hangups, wounding, hurts, withdrawing into things like self pity,
      # “concrete mind”, focused upon paddling fast to survive with no evaluative capacity left, then seeking rest with TV, video games etc,
      # those with “formal operational thinking” paralysed by false premises – its just sun spots, temp rises happening anyway etc.

      Once all these developmental factors are taken into account, we see the challenge to unite collectively depends on collective awareness to surpass many of these challenges, for there to be a general gravity of awareness around genuinely evaluating global issues, with the ability to understand broad global themes, personal responsibility to see how we are all contributing. So yes we can call that herd instinct, if we say that is the majority of humanity beings in an undifferentiated blob, still emerging in aware voting power, and politicians merely reflecting the quality of our collective awareness.

  23. Biologyteacher100 Avatar
    Biologyteacher100

    They should really take time learn to some science before trying to debate. The only people really qualified to debate science are scientists. For the most part, scientists are debating what the public would consider very nuanced positions.

  24. DevMac Avatar
    DevMac

    Australia used to be “the clever country”. That’s clearly no longer the case. It is truly shameful that so many people that are “leading the nation” are so far gone as to outright reject scientific consensus.

    Scientific consensus trumps democratic consensus (fact trumps potential fiction). This is painfully obvious reading the above.

    Truly shameful for all Australians.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.