Tony Abbott appoints climate skeptic to "help" on environment | RenewEconomy

Tony Abbott appoints climate skeptic to “help” on environment

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tony Abbott appoints climate skeptic – who compared impact of man-made CO2 to a human hair on 1km bridge – as assistant environment minister.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bob Baldwin, a man who once compared the impact of Australia’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions to that of a single strand of human hair on a 1km bridge, has been appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment.

baldwinThe announcement was made as part of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s ministerial reshuffle. Baldwin will assist Greg Hunt, after previously being assistant to the Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. It comes just a few weeks after Abbott sent Trade Minister Andrew Robb, another climate skeptic, to chaperone foreign minister Julie Bishop at the Lima climate talks.

In a speech in China in 2010, at the APEC SME summit, Baldwin said that the climate had been changing for millions of years – a favourite meme of the climate denier community – and even praised Rupert Murdoch as “the starting point for green innovation”. This is what he told the Chinese:

“Ladies & Gentlemen, our climate is changing, it has been for many millions of years.

Oil, coal and gas are all products of climate change, in fact if our climate had remained constant, those commodities would not exist and we would probably still have dinosaurs roaming the earth

There has been much debate, considered opinion, and a disparity of views from a wide range of eminently qualified experts on the issue of the contribution of mankind and our emissions to climate change.

Facts have been disputed; reports have been discredited; and communities have been divided over the arguments, assumptions, conclusions, and indeed, the very existence of human-induced climate change.

On this subject, I have adopted the pragmatism of the chief executive of News Limited, Rupert Murdoch, who said and I quote, “the planet  deserves the benefit of the doubt.”

Ladies and gentleman, while each of us will have our own views about climate change, the pragmatism of Mr Murdoch is the starting point for green innovation.

Elsewhere, Baldwin said: “I am neither a sceptic nor a denier. I have read widely and talked to scientists, but I am not a scientist. Maybe climate change is cyclic? I do not know, because there are too many subjective opinions in this argument, each proffering a different expert perspective.”

If that seems equivocal, another speech in parliament gives no doubt about Baldwin’s skepticism, if not outright denial. Quoting climate-denying Queensland shock-jock Michael Smith, Baldwin compared the impact of any Australian efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions to that of a human hair on a 1km bridge.

“Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it …

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. Just 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. Just 10 metres left …

9 metres are argon. 1 metre left out of 1 kilometre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre—that’s carbon dioxide. …

97% is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. … Just over a centimetre.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre—so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted—by a human hair. We would all laugh ourselves silly.”

So, that’s settled then. Hunt, who says the Abbott government does accept the science of climate change, and describes its emissions reductions to date as Australia’s great “gift to the world”, will have carriage of Australia’s domestic climate policy, while the international stuff is assumed by Bishop, after checking in with Robb.

Hunt, however, also has carriage over approvals to coal mines. The Newcastle Herald, Baldwin’s local paper, reported in August that Baldwin may be asked thy the NSW anti corruption watchdog to explain why he wrote  to ‘‘implore’’ the NSW Coalition government to support Nathan Tinkler’s proposed coal-loader.

The paper said documents  with the Independent Commission Against Corruption show Baldwin drafted a letter to then-state ministers Chris Hartcher, Mike Gallacher and Duncan Gay in April 2011 urging  in-principle support to the $1 billion coal-loader. “I implore the New South Wales government to do everything it can to see this project come to fruition,” he wrote.

Australia’s post 2020 emissions reduction targets will be reviewed by Abbott’s own office, after its extraordinary success with the renewable energy target. Baldwin will be given special responsibility for the deployment of Abbott’s “Green Army”, which has a $525 million budget to pick up litter and plant trees.

Meanwhile, Fairfax Media reports that  Abbott has declared the repeal of the carbon tax as his biggest contribution for women in 2014.

During a Monday morning interview on the Today Show to promote his cabinet reshuffle,  Abbott was asked by host Lisa Wilkinson to nominate his top achievement in his capacity as Minister for Women.

“Well, you know, it is very important to do the right thing by families and households,” Abbott replied, according to Fairfax. “As many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family.”

Ah, the Abbott government at work.

P.S. While we are all feeling uplifted by such events before Christmas, Fairfax Media has on Monday announced a $200 million merger of its radio interests with that of Macquarie Radio, voice-box of noted climate change deniers Alan Jones, Chris Smith and Ray Hadley.

“The merger brings together the greatest mix of talkback talent ever assembled in a single radio network. Leading presenters engage listeners with an unprecedented quality and diversity of commentary, entertainment and sport coverage,” Fairfax CEO Greg Hywood said, without a hint of irony.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. suthnsun 5 years ago

    More like AARGH!!! than Ah i feel..

  2. Tyson Adams 5 years ago

    It looks like he’s implying that dinosaurs died because of climate change and became oil and coal…. Not even wrong.

    • Wilf Gerrard-Staton 5 years ago

      It’s my understanding that dinasaurs became extinct because of a huge meteorite hitting the earth. Apparently this brought on climate change with a rush which caused extinction. We seem to be rushing to it as well.

      • Tyson Adams 5 years ago

        Also have to remember that oil and coal predate dinosaurs.

  3. Lawrence Winder 5 years ago

    When will these apparatchiks be sent to homes for the criminally insane?

    • John P 5 years ago

      As soon as we can organise a double dissolution!

    • mike flanagan 5 years ago

      After they have completed their terms in the blue and sandstone colleges for the criminals, we may relent and find space for them in the institutes for the insane.

  4. Keith 5 years ago

    I give them full marks for consistency. They leave no-one in any doubt that they wilfully ignore evidence based science. Does Abbott seriously think that by adding the word science to a portfolio it will fix that barnacle?
    Appointing Scott Morrison to Social Services shows that they aren’t listening to the consensus that they have it in for those doing it tough.

    Consistently, purposefully, methodically setting out to be a one term government, but a lot of damage repair for the next lot.

    • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

      “Appointing Scott Morrison to Social Services shows that they aren’t
      listening to the consensus that they have it in for those doing it

      What “consensus” might that be?

  5. Coaltopia 5 years ago

    I often quote Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”… but in this case, Abbott’s malice towards the environment seemingly outweighs his errant stupidity.

    • Alan Baird 5 years ago

      Damn good quote! Good follow up too. He doesn’t have to be stupid to do what he does but it does help.

  6. johnnewton 5 years ago

    The fusion of Macquarie and Fairfax is going to result in a flood of tears before bedtime

    • Alan Baird 5 years ago

      Yes, what an unholy duo. While there is VERY little common ground between Fairfax Radio and the SMH and Age, in contrast, 2UW and 2GB are pretty similar and have hilarious shock-jock attitudes that exist in a parallel universe. On NTS (Fairfax, plays repeats of stuff from 2UW etc)) the other day I heard some Murdoch guru opined that in fairness, he didn’t think Tony Abbott had substantively broken any election promises, the talking-head for Fairfax enthusiastically falling over himself to, in fairness, agree. In fairness, BULLSHIT.

  7. the Griss 5 years ago

    The planet NEEDS and deserves more atmospheric CO2.
    We owe it to this wonderful planet of ours to FEED the biosphere, so that it will feed us in return.
    Hopefully soon, people will wake up to this REALITY.

    • Pedro 5 years ago

      Is your comment tongue in cheek??

      • the Griss 5 years ago

        Not in the least.
        It is the REALITY of life on Earth that CO2 is major part in the carbon cycle that provides for ALL life on Earth.
        Surely people know this ?
        Surely people know that the coal is carbon that should still be in the carbon cycle.? That is where it belongs !!!!!

        • Pedro 5 years ago

          No one is seriously arguing that we don’t need any CO2. Its about the concentration levels in the atmosphere that is the issue and the impact that has on the biosphere.

          As for coal, it is and always will be in the carbon cycle just in a million to billion year time frame. What humans are doing is taking coal with a cycle time frame of millions or years and converting it to CO2 with a several hundred year cycle life. What we are effectively doing is putting millions of years worth carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time, and rapid climate change is the consequence. It is not really a problem for the earth, it’s a problem for the lifeforms that live on the surface.

          • the Griss 5 years ago

            You need to do some of your own research on what levels of CO2 plant life prefers.
            Its not hard to find. 🙂
            What rapid climate change? Its been stationary for 16 years.
            That’s not rapid. !!
            And the max temp in Sydney in Jan 2013 was basically the same as in 1939? (the AWS registered 45.3C, no-one knows where the extra 0.5C came from)
            If you care to hunt back, you will find that Australia was significantly warming in the late 1800’s early 1900’s, and the world was significantly warmer through what was called the MWP and RWP, and certainly warmer back to the Holocene optimum.

          • Ronald Brakels 5 years ago

            Here is the GISS data from NASA:


            Sixteen years ago was 1998. Place your finger there on the graph and then move it along the five year mean until you get to the end and you’ll see your finger is HIGHER than when you started not LOWER. So why did you write, “What rapid climate change? Its been stationary for 16 years.”? Are you a liar or were you somehow mistaken? Which is it?

          • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

            “Here is the GISS data from NASA”

            Please take the time to compare the GISS data which James Hansen used back in 1999 to show that the USA had cooled and compare that with GISS data today:


            Just as with current “adjusted” BOM data this data can no longer be trusted. The satellite data is still good, please try that.

          • Ronald Brakels 5 years ago

            So first we had the Griss who apparently can’t read a graph and now we have you, Matti, who apparently can not be bothered to actually compare the GISS temperature analysis with satellite data to see they both show the same clear warming trend:


            Place your finger on the RSS or UHH satellite data mean lines in 1998 and move your finger along to the end and you will see your finger end ups HIGHER than it was and not the same or LOWER than when you started.

            Anyone else need help with basic reading or comparison of graphs? Maybe you should watch more Play School. They do teach basic graph reading skills on Play School, don’t they? If they don’t, it’s starting to look like they should.

          • Damien van Hoogen van 5 years ago

            Accurate temperature measurements only began in 1955. Convenient that your 1939 date occurs before this 🙂
            All world meteorological services indicate that 2014 was hottest year – really – just use your favorite search engine.

            You have made some foolish assertions based on ‘intuitive’ logic. You are correct that models are not proof – nobody asserted they were. I don’t think you understand the concept of proof in the context of science.

            As over 99% of publishing climate scientist accept the AGW proposition, as well as all national scientific and meteorological bodies – the burden of proof is upon you.
            So can YOU produce a peer-reviewed paper that suggests a different model to AGW?

          • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

            “Accurate temperature measurements only began in 1955”

            This is complete nonsense. We have had very accurate thermometers for hundreds of years.

            Here is a peer reviewed paper for you (not saying that I endorse it):


            Murray Salby has also addressed this question:


        • bruceter 5 years ago

          Surely!!! Shirley!!! I’m just impressed how hermetically you have sealed your mind so that anyone who thinks differently to you is a pure dunce!! That’s a really good set iof delusory symptoms..enjoy them pal, a la land is hard to comeby. Keep it and develop it with houses and hotels so anyone who lands on your square has to cough up. You can also get ten bucks for second prize in a beauty contest so there’s that too . fun and games when you have a monopoly on truth. Hail to thee, lord twonk. Say hi to Shirley for me.

      • the Griss 5 years ago

        And I defy you to pull up even one single scientific paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.
        Or you can take the religious approach and just “believe”. 🙂
        No, models are not proof.
        No, spurious coincidental correlations are not proof.

        • Peter Daams 5 years ago

          I think I’d rather “believe” the thousands of professors, doctors, nobel laureates and scientists who say man-made CO2 does cause climate change instead of some anonymous coward posting in CAPS LOCKS.

          • the Griss 5 years ago

            LOL, that old argument.
            Why not quote the 97% just to add to the hilarity 🙂

          • wideEyedPupil 5 years ago


            There you go. Thousands of climate science papers examined. You lose.

          • the Griss 5 years ago

            Where is that paper ?
            Got a link yet ?

          • Alex 5 years ago

            @the Griss – you seem to lack an understanding of the basic physics of how CO2 absorbs reflected heat and how increased atmospheric concentrations warm the atmosphere. You seem to fail to understand that the melting and shrinking glaciers, the appearance of warm-water species in the southern ocean and the warming oceans result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions. You have clearly cherry-picked the data from denialist websites and your beliefs are not backed up by science. You also fail to understand that the atmosphere is not infinite and polluting it is not a good idea. You are a troll, and not a very bright one.

          • the Griss 5 years ago

            LOL, its like being in a non-thinking echo chamber.
            So funny.. But you guys are on your own to believe what ever religion you like.
            Go for it.. but engage brain at some stage 🙂

          • Pedro 5 years ago

            The Griss has an echo chamber inside his scull

          • Coaltopia 5 years ago

            Even his avatar is a troll.

          • Peter Daams 5 years ago

            Nah, I don’t waste my energy debating with trolls who are too cowardly to even post under their real name.

          • Harry Verberne 5 years ago

            It’s interesting is it not that troll and/or denier activity seems to have increased on this site. I see it as a measure of success of the site’s articles and concern on the part of the trolls that they are losing the debate. Got nothing, offer no credible scientific evidence in support of their often ridiculous assertions but these must not go unchallenged.

          • wideEyedPupil 5 years ago

            The onus is on you. Science deals in evidence, proof is for maths and courts. Write a paper, or even find one ‘disproving’ Climate Science and collect five nobel prizes for free.

        • Les Johnston 5 years ago

          The atmosphere is not open. It is finite.

          • the Griss 5 years ago

            Self constrained by gravity..
            You are learning, well done. 🙂

        • Harry Verberne 5 years ago

          Just give me some of your “proof” that “proves” that CO2 does NOT cause warming.

          • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

            Empirical evidence shows this (see my post above).

            The burden of proof is always upon the one making the affirmative conjecture.

          • Harry Verberne 5 years ago

            Yes you are correct- my mistake. But the evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW.

          • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

            “But the evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW.”

            No, it does not. Not at all. We had moderate a warming between 1978 and 1998 of 0.3 degrees, cooling prior to that and zero warming afterwards.

            25% of the total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since The Industrial Revolution have occurred since 1998, yet no warming.

            Your theory is falsified by empirical evidence.

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment [or empirical evidence], it’s wrong” – Richard P. Feynman

          • wideEyedPupil 5 years ago

            Yeah there’s no obligation on the denialist clown to provide any evidence other than drivel to refute the mountains of evidence around AGW & CC.

        • Alen T 5 years ago

          Please familiarise yourself with the natural greenhouse effect, notably it was first established in the mid-1820s. Simple logic will tell you that adding more will result in increasing the effect, evidence from rising temperatures and importantly from the vast amount of heat now stored in the oceans, proves that this simple logic checks out. If you want to know what the expert scientists think on this topic then I suggest reading through any of the working group 1 reports by the IPCC (AR 1-5). Remember, the IPCC does not actually conduct its own research, but compiles and essentially summarises information on this topic that has previously been conducted and published by 1000’s of scientists on this topic in the field.

          Your denial drivel and flawed assertions may confound and confuse those people that have very limited knowledge on this, but it does and will not work on anyone with even the most basic knowledge of atmospheric science and radiative forcing. Remember, people do not tend to become deniers as they gain more actual scientific knowledge, but rather they become convinced that anthropogenic GW is real and occurring. Even Abbott is now convinced CC is real, according to his G20 closing remarks anyway.

          • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

            Human emissions of CO2 account for only 3% of the total of CO2 emissions, the remaining 97% being natural emissions from the biosphere. This 3% is well within the range of natural variation (10x more) and cannot have a noticeable effect on climate.

            25% of the total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since The Industrial Revolution have been since 1998, yet we have seen zero statistically significant warming since then and even possibly a slight cooling (not statistically significant). The empirical evidence is very much at odds with AGW theory.

            From 1940 until around 1978 the planet cooled. Most people are not aware of this. We then had a short period of 20 years of slight warming, topped by a strong El Niño year, then no warming following that. This step up in temperatures correlates with ocean cycle changes far better than it does with the rise in CO2.

            The planet has warmed after coming out of The Little Ice Age. You would be very hard pressed to find many scientists who would support the notion that the warming of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was due to anthropogenic influences.

            It is to be expected that this natural warming would lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, in accordance with Henry’s law as the oceans have warmed. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere today which is anthropogenic is only around 15ppm which is not enough to have any measurable effect on climate, again being within the bounds of natural variation.

            There is no statistically significant difference in the warming rates between the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and between 1975 and 1998, again falsifying AGW theory. This fact is acknowledged by Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia CRU.

            We constantly hear of a mythical “97% consensus” that we are threatened by dangerous climate change due to anthropogenic influences. The studies which purport this have all been well and truly rebutted in the science journals, with the latest Cook et al paper being called for retraction.

            While most climate scientists believe that anthropogenic CO2 has some influence (as do most skeptics), the majority do not believe that it is a significant issue or can even be measured.

          • Alen T 5 years ago

            Ok let’s begin. First of all it does not matter if it is 3%, 10% or even 0.1%, if it is allowed to accumulate then over time simple maths will tell you that “from little things, big things grow”. The continued removal of carbon sinks ensured that the emissions were above the levels and limit at which the natural environment could absorb the carbon without causing adverse effects, which is happening with ocean acidification and notably they are more acidic now then they have been for millions of years.

            Second, you claim that because emission have been higher in recent times and no significant warming has occurred, it validates your belief that aGW is bogus. The climate system does not respond to changes in a linear fashion, however, warming has consistently continued and rather than all in the atmosphere the ocean has absorbed vast amount of this energy. This leads to your point of statistically significant warming. The ocean has absorbed around 90% of this energy that has been trapped by the enhanced greenhouse effect, so although warming might have continued at a slower pace in the atmosphere, to gain a full and accurate picture you have and should account for this vast amount of heat too. Please remember, warming has continued and every year has continued to be hotter than the previous, including 2013 which was the hottest year on record (although 2014 is predicted to beat this).

            You go to also question the 97% consensus and justify it through one paper, the Cook paper. This 97% figure is widely accepted by everyone in the professional community and has not been disputed by anyone in any meaningful sense (apart from the likes of you posting unfounded claims). The incentive would definitely be there, as would any scientific paper disproving CC; he person would be an instant millionaire, and not to mention the scientific accolades to go with this finding. But simple fact is that no one can do it, because CC is real and anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

            There is political influence in the release of the final drafts of IPCC papers, but it is to alter some of the wordings not to change any of the findings. The opposition to CC is politically focused, so if anything this would result in the final wording being too conservative -as is the belief of many scientists. The science remains unchanged.

            The BOM data is actually very reliable, and besides please explain what they have to gain from altering the data to suit their desires? Very little I’d say, but the consequence of lying would be enormous so I do not see a reasonable and logical person making such a decision, it simply does not make sense. Their data is actually in-line with every other meteorological organisation around the world, so just because the truth doesn’t suit you please stop making unfounded claims about a globally respected organisation . The data is always available to do your own checks, after all they have nothing to hide.

          • Harry Verberne 5 years ago

            Just read this and rebut it with scientific evidence and links, not just assertions.


        • wideEyedPupil 5 years ago

          How would you disprove this consensus position?

          Common ploy of the ignorant is to set the threshold of evidence impossibly high for something they have an ideological objection to accepting. The causation is simple and can be understood with school level physics: GHG gases absorb IR radiation traveling from Earth towards space. When CO2, water vapour or other GHGs re-emit the energy (this is how light waves are reflected by material) they do so in a random direction, so half the time it’s down towards Earth again, effectively creating an atmospheric Greenhouse. Correlation: nothing else fits. Volcanoes and GHGs from industrial revolution fit closely and every other conceivable input has not fit the data even remotely. So the only spurious is your intentions and qualifications to be talking bout things you don’t understand. The models merely confirm what basic school level energy physics and chemistry tell us by running ‘what if’ scenarios which show without Anthropogenic GHGs the surface temperatures wouldn’t be rising.

          And the ignorant set the threshold for evidence for something they do believe trivially low (‘it’s a conspiracy perpetrated by thousands of scientists who compete for funding and have a material as well as altruistic incentive to hold each other to account because a shock-jock says so’).

  8. Dave Keenan 5 years ago

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Hey Giles, when will you stop calling them “skeptics”. Scientists are skeptics. These guys are just plain deniers whether they deny that or not.

    • Alen T 5 years ago

      I have been wondering the same thing!! They classify themselves as ‘skeptics’ to gain some sort of credibility from the public from all the drivel they advocate, please stop aiding them by promoting
      them as real skeptics rather than the frauds and deniers they are. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck….it probably is denier.

      • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

        Do you deny that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998?

        • Richard Koser 5 years ago

          That cherry has been picked so often it must be pretty bruised by now.

        • Stephen Brailey 5 years ago

          Yes…look at the long term trend not some edited chunk of data that tries to prove a point. Of course the amount of heat trapped within our atmosphere is increasing because the amount of CO2 is increasing.

    • OnionMan77 5 years ago

      From now on let us refer to these self styled “climate skeptics” / “climate sceptics” (note US/UK spellings) as “climate septics”.
      They infect the debate of climate change so as to avoid the required CO2 abatement to maintain a viable ecosystem, with a toxic spray of verbal diarrhoea.

  9. John P 5 years ago

    If I wanted technical advice on a scientific problem, I would go to a scientist not a politician, least of all a Liberal politician.

    • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

      Then you would agree that we should not at all listen to the IPCC or the UN on scientific matters.

      I agree with you, thank you.

      • Keith 5 years ago

        Well Matti, the IPCC happens to be a very large slice of the world’s experts in climate science so not sure what you are suggesting.

      • John P 5 years ago

        The conclusions published under the umbrella of the IPCC are all formulated by a large team of scientists including some from Australia. They had been selected to do this work on the basis of their qualifications in the area. As it happens, the basic science of global warming is readily explained by the physics of the ‘greenhouse effect’. This is not rocket science but is covered at Year 10 level in the school curriculum.

        • Matti Ressler 5 years ago

          “The conclusions published under the umbrella of the IPCC are all formulated by a large team of scientists”

          The IPCC policy documents are not at all formulated by scientists. They are hashed out amongst politicians.

          • John P 5 years ago

            The scientific content of the reports are certainly compiled by scientists but it is also true that the usual political interference occurs, especially from the right, to ensure that there is no “embarrassment” to certain leaders. The science is quite clear. In the really bad old days, the Bush white house used to critique papers by James Hansen (NASA) to ensure that the GOP didn’t look too foolish.

          • Stephen Brailey 5 years ago

            I’m sorry Matti but the IPCC is a commitee of scientist, while their reports are considered conservative they aren’t doctored by politicians. That was the point if setting up the IPCC in the first place…world leaders in climate science reporting on climate science!

  10. Connor Moran 5 years ago

    Bill Maher has an excellent response to the “I am not a scientist” line:

    Yes, arsehole, but there are people that are that understand this shit!

  11. Connor Moran 5 years ago

    Even Shell/Exxon/Chevron/Gasprom/Wesfarmers would be embarassed.

  12. Cartoonmick 5 years ago

    This does not surprise me (He promised NO surprises).

    Anyone with a bit of common sense can see right through his plan (He did promise a transparent government).

    I can only come to one conclusion,,, he thinks we are all stupid. Well, I guess he’s right about the “stupid” appraisal when considering those who voted him into power. How stupid were they?

    Or, is it arrogance? Are they totally arrogant in their treatment of the Australian public?

    Its got me beat, I just can fathom their logic.

    This cartoon kinda depicts their approach on climate change . . . .


  13. DogzOwn 5 years ago

    So how does a such a clever bloke relate to ozone? On world average, it’s 10 ppm against 400ppm for CO2. Per the hallowed broadsheet by Rupert today,

    “The ozone hole is ‘rewriting’ Earth’s ecosystems”

    That’s a super skinny curly hair. How about a reply Mr Baldwin?

  14. Bob_The_Boily 5 years ago

    The Comrades in China agree with Bob. lols

  15. KEITH X 5 years ago

    Highly misinformed click-bait style article this one.

  16. Conrad 5 years ago

    Bob Balwin is a boofhead, who got onto Nathan Tinkler’s smelly team: “Federal Paterson MP Bob Baldwin may be asked to explain to ICAC why he wrote to ‘‘implore’’ the NSW Coalition government to support Nathan Tinkler’s proposed coal-loader” (Newcastle Herald, 11/08/14). There is no way he will be promoting beautiful clean renewables – he voted in support of Bills that promote CSG extraction in his electorate.

  17. onesecond 5 years ago

    Well, I would think to point out that humanity has already added a 12 mm layer of CO2 around the whole world that right now changes the total global heat balance of the earth would be enough convince everyone of man made climate change and the urgency to act but on the other hand people are really stupid I presume.

  18. John Saint-Smith 5 years ago

    I love that 1km to 12 mm analogy. At .05% It is an almost exact match with the amount of alcohol in the human bloodstream that makes us unfit to drive. Can you imagine laughing derisively in the face of the policeman who’s just shown you the reading on the machine? “Geez Mr Plod, are you trying to tell me that 0.5 ml worth alcohol in a whole litre of my blood is going to make me drunk? I’m laughing myself silly here!”
    Most prescription drugs we take to avoid high blood pressure, etc, are effective at far lower concentrations of a few parts per million!
    There is no science in this puerile dissertation. What matters is not the absolute quantity of man-made CO2 (which just happens to be 40% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, not 3% as Baldwin the mindless dupe states) it is the impact of that component of the atmosphere on the temperature of the planet’s surface – which is profound.
    The lunatics are in charge of the asylum – expect chaos.

Comments are closed.

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