Seriously, mofos, if you read only one blog post this year make it this one by Trevor. I literally have tears rolling down my cheeks.

Steve Fielding’s wife has written an article for The Punch.

In the article, Steve (via Susan) trots out all of the lines he’s being spewing into the media recently about looking at both sides of the story, the science not being settled, and pretty graphs presenting arbitrarily-selected data proving something or other (Tobias covers this in more detail over at Pure Poison.) But the most brilliant moment of deluded madness is this:

I briefly met Mr Gore at a breakfast in Melbourne attended by more than a thousand people. He was aware of the important role Family First plays in the senate and was keen to catch up.

After a series of phone calls I was met with a stonewall of resistance. I offered to meet Mr Gore at any place at any time but had no luck. Here we had the former Vice President of the United States, a self proclaimed climate change preacher running away from me over a few simple questions.

Don’t you know who I am? I am the leader of a Party of one that on the basis of 50,000 votes is holding the Upper House of Australia’s Parliament to ransom in a futile effort to get myself re-elected in 2010.

Steve’s just pissed off that he paid for dry cleaning for nothing.

Everything’s topsy-turvey.

One minute you’ve got Steve Fielding urging the prevention of divorce on the grounds that it worsens climate change …

We understand that there is a social problem (with divorce), but now we’re seeing there is also environmental impact as well on the footprint.

… but the next you’ve got Steve Fielding denying that climate change is even occurring.

And one minute you’ve got Tony Abbott flatly opposing gay marriage on the grounds that teh homos are unnatural, but the next you’ve got Tony Abbott resigning himself to gay marriage as long as traditional marriage is strengthened.

… a society that is moving towards some kind of recognition of gay unions, for instance, is surely capable of providing additional recognition to what might be thought of as traditional marriage … Even though [marriage] is probably the most important commitment that any human being can make, in fact there are many, many contracts which are harder to enter and harder to get out of than this one.

A cynic might suggest that these guys trot out any old argument they can find, regardless of whether they believe it, to force their religious beliefs onto others.

Family First Senator Steve Fielding (did you know he trained as an engineer?) has carefully studied both sides of the anthropogenic climate change argument and taken a side.

Family First Senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming – there’s not enough evidence that it’s real.

If only the AGW model was proposed in a collection of 2000-year-old texts of dubious authorship. That way there would be enough evidence.

In other news, Steve recently started taking the anti-swine flu medication Tamiflu because his sister-in-law contracted the virus. Poor old Steve copped a hard time from cynics who declared it was a stunt, detractors who thought it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, and even his own son who loves a good practical joke.

Steve was forced to write a post on his blog, defending the precautionary use of Tamiflu.

There have been plenty of reports on swine flu coming to Parliament House as though I am some form of carrier pigeon from Victoria. First of all I have no symptoms.

Like everyone else I have been told I am no more likely of contracting swine flu than the average Joe from Melbourne.

The truth of the matter is my sister in law was in quarantine at my family home over the weekend as she was quite ill and had no where else to go.

I have been told by doctors and the parliamentary nurse that I am of little risk of contracting or carrying swine flu.

This whole issue has been blown out of proportion and wasn’t a stunt like was reported in The Australian online.

Reporters at a press conference earlier today suggested I was being selfish by being in Canberra this week.

But given the advice I have received by doctors, telling me I am at no more risk than the average Victorian, I thought it best I go to work given the important climate change legalisation before the Parliament.

I’m currently taking a precautionary course of Tamiflu.

But this is only a precaution.

Commenter Gaz was relieved.

Well, Senator, I hope you manage to avoid swine flu and that if you are infected that the Tamiflu works properly.

Fingers crossed on that one, of course. After all, it was designed by scientists using computer models.

But I do hope you don’t succumb to the virus, otherwise you won’t be able to apologise to the Australian people when the temperature sets new records and you realise how gullible you have been.
Comment by Gaz on 24 June 2009 at 02:59:02 PM

Fielding: pwned.

Great article about what Tim Lambert calls “The Australian’s War on Science” in the SMH:

Less well documented so far has been the industry’s influence on the media. Take the powerful News Corporation, which publishes two-thirds of our remaining newspapers. Despite a spectacular about-face on climate change in 2007 by News Corp’s chairman Rupert Murdoch, no media group can match the Murdoch press for consistently fomenting global warming scepticism and arguing against climate change mitigation measures.

News Corp’s tabloid provocateurs Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt rail against greenies every other day but don’t have the attention to detail to influence national debate on climate change science, emissions trading and reduction targets, and international negotiations on global warming.

The Australian – Rupert’s baby and local flagship – does. But nothing you read on climate change in The Australian can be taken at face value. Its coverage of the issue is effectively sponsored by the resources industry.

Read it.

I love single-issue political parties. They pop up now and again, seemingly with no mission other than to give bloggers fresh fodder, only to attract a couple of hundred members, some media attention for a couple of days, and then disappear off the mainstream political radar. This month’s single-issue party is a doozy; I just know we’re going to have a lot of fun with The Climate Sceptics.

And all power to them. There is a growing number of people out there who are sceptical about climate change or about the role that humans play in it, and a growing number of outright deniers. If the Climate Sceptics Party wants to have a crack at representing those people, then who are we point, laugh and ridicule?

So let’s say you are sceptical about climate change and you are looking to support a political party that will oppose legislation you see as unnecessary and destructive. You stumble across the Climate Sceptics and you like what you see.

The boxing kangaroo means they’re dinky-di Aussie, mate.

But, being a thinking person, you see some contradictions and dodgy assertions. Firstly, you’re a little taken aback to see this graphic.

You know, being a thinking person, that a slick diagram proving that the sun is rooly, rooly big doesn’t conclusively prove shit when it comes to climate change.

And you know, being a thinking person, that our society works best when people take personal responsibility for personal actions, considering how they affect themselves, other people, and shared surroundings, so you’re disappointed to see this hand-washing, guilt-absolving statement.

You wonder to yourself, being a thinking person, if this political party exists to drive better national policy or just clear people’s consciences. You begin to doubt, as a thinking person, the Climate Sceptics, and your doubt only strengthens after reading the About Us page, where you find these statements about the organisation’s philosophy.

• We support family values
• We support a return to basic values, good manners and respect for human values within our society.

And your worst fears are confirmed. The Climate Sceptics are not just a single-issue party that exists to drive better legislation on your behalf, they’re also a conservative movement committed to reinforcing those tired concepts of “family” and “basic” values, like discrimination against homosexuals and restriction of personal freedoms in the name of personal freedom. The Climate Sceptics, far from existing to battle it out on environmental issues, exist only to fight the culture wars.

GrodsCorp’s favourite über-freak, Prodos, has a long history (scroll to point five) of being hostile towards those who hold opposing views, despite his oft-repeated claim of being “objective” and “constructive”. For somebody who is so apparently committed to rational debate, our Prodos can only tolerate his own way of thinking. For once I am in complete agreement with Dr (sic) John ‘TingTong’ Ray who said of Prodos: “[his] ego has run away with him. He thinks that his own approach is the only defensible one.”

The latest self-aggrandising project to spew forth from Prodos’ ego is the objective and constructive Are You A Moron? project, which requires you to answer “yes” if you believe in any of the following:

• Global warming
• Scientific consensus
• That the debate is over
• Renewable energy
• Taxing carbon
• Green jobs
• the idea CO2 is a pollutant

As is the way with all of Prodos’ projects (Privatize The ABC, Celebrate Capitalism, Thinker To Thinker, I Love Prodos etc.) he seems to be more interested in the pithy slogans, domain names and merchandise than he does in the issue. This particular project boasts at least four domain names (areyouamoron.com, greenpoppycock.com, carbondioxideisnotapollutant.com and greensliepeopledie.com) — conservative estimates put the total number of domain names owned by Prodos at over 9000 — a blog with links to stuff other people wrote, and a massive range of stupid merchandise like this:

Someone needs to proof read Prodos’ slogans for grammar before he prints them

Now all he needs is a matching song, perhaps along the lines of this one he wrote about Teh Moooooooslems.

What happens when you really, really, badly want a graph to show something and you blow your load too early?

Everyone loves trying to summarise important speeches as Wordles, hoping the at-a-glance nature of the resulting graphic might give some insight into the speech’s themes. So I plugged Malcolm Turnbull’s press conference from this afternoon, announcing his intention to vote against the government’s emissions trading scheme, into Wordle to better understand it.

However, pretty as it may be, the Wordle didn’t really help me understand the thrust of Turnbull’s speech. So I went looking through the text for easy-to-understand metaphors and I found one.

We don’t want to get into a sort of Betamax/VHS debate here, you know where Kevin Rudd says I’ve got the best scheme and the rest of the world say, ‘yeah that’s very interesting Kevin, it’s very interesting but we’re not interested in adopting it because it’s from our point of view not practical’.

So I set this out graphically, for ease of translation.

Here’s Kevin Rudd’s technically-superior, yet unpopular ETS scheme:

And here’s the massively popular, yet inferior scheme favoured by the rest of the world:

And here’s the format offered by Malcolm Turnbull in the place of the government’s proposed scheme:

Laserdisc: experience the future of technology NOW

Gasp in horror as Michelle Bachmann completely denies Co2 is harmful in any way, before recycling the “trace gas” meme.

Click here for a neat little summary as to why she is wrong.

(Thanks to GrodsReader Andrew.)

It might be lazy blogging, but I don’t think I can make my point about Earth Hour any better than I did last year.

Somebody call Teh Press! Carbon’s role in AGW has been clarified by the Citizens Electoral Council (who?), and we need more carbon!

Nature craves more carbon dioxide

Government policies to force drastic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, out of fear of CO2 as a “pollutant”, are insane… The global average atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently a tiny 387 ppm (parts per million)—just a trace gas—and trees and plants are craving for more, yet fools are threatening to decimate our economy, in order to reduce this life-giving gas.

If this is true it will cause a total realignment of thinking across the world and a total change in behaviour; it’s revolutionary stuff. What sort of evidence is behind this theory?

Commercial greenhouse operators are advised to add enough CO2 to maintain about 1,000 ppm around their plants… The dinosaurs survived just fine when CO2 concentrations exceeded 2,000 ppm… Exhaled human breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 ppm…

Oh, dear. Is it even worth wasting the kilojoule or two of energy required to type a critique of those arguments?

This one’s a bit longer than normal but it’s well worth listening to the end for Ant Rogenous’ pants-busting pwning of Leon Bertrand QC.

In this episode The Editor, John Surname, Ant Rogenous, Jeremy Sear and Craig discuss:

* ETS/ CPRS/ WTF/ BBQ
* CarbonChoices
* Wicked Campervans’ wicked two fingers to the ASB
* Ask A Barman
* Funniest things on the intertubes

** Because all youse bastards are too busy giving me shit in another thread, use only the “Play in popup” link or the “Download” link. **

[display_podcast]

Subscribe:   

Brendan Nelson has withdrawn the coalition’s support for an emissions trading scheme in the absence of similar schemes in the USA, China and India — a “pre-Howard position on climate change” as one journalist beautifully put it. Despite the fact that developing countries are never going to consider emissions trading if developed countries are not prepared to lead the way, Andrew Bolt thinks it’s a great policy from Nelson and the coalition.

Another brave but politically savvy call by the Opposition Leader… And Nelson’s demeanour in announcing this was also right. No histrionics, but still with a sense of moral purpose.

Nelson’s demeanour was right? Let’s take a look at the good doctor’s demeanour and moral purpose in making his policy announcement.

QUESTION: Are you saying there should be no emissions trading scheme until the post Kyoto arrangements are hammered out and China and India are committed?

DR NELSON: We must be ready to implement an emissions trading scheme as a market-based solution to address climate change and Australia’s contribution to it…

He then continues to dither for two more paragraphs, before providing a more solid answer to the next question.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson [inaudible] clear, regardless of when the start date of am emissions trading scheme would be, if we got to it and China, India and the US were not signed on, you would say that we should not start the scheme?

DR NELSON: We should not start an emissions trading scheme in Australia until we are absolutely confident that it is ready to commence and also that the rest of the world has a start date for dealing with climate change itself.

Okay. But there’s more detail needed.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson you appear to be adopting a sort of a pre-Howard position on climate change; that you’re not even committed to an emissions trading scheme in 2011-12 in the absence of further agreement at Copenhagen. Is that correct and have you given any thought at all to the detail? For example, would you support a slow start to a scheme if it did get up and running with fixed low prices for permits in the early years? Or alternatively the phasing in of different industries?

DR NELSON: Well, again the Coalition’s position has been for the best part of a decade that the whole world has to act…

Then two more paragraphs containing no details about how Doc Nelson thinks Australia should act.

QUESTION: So you’re no longer committed to a 2012 start date for an emissions trading scheme?

DR NELSON: Well again, we have always said that there has to be a genuinely global response…

So, “no” then?

QUESTION: Yes but Dr Nelson, that’s a [inaudible] change of policy… You’re saying that you’ve changed the policy?

DR NELSON: Well, what I’m saying to you is that there has to be a genuinely global response to climate change. That has always been our position. It always will be. Australia acting alone will be an exercise in environmental futility that will be destructive to our economic future. That has always been our position and it continues to be so. We would, we would expect…

QUESTION: But the answer is yes.

DR NELSON: No it’s not.

You poor, poor man, Brendy. I feel sorry for you.

QUESTION: And in the absence of a global agreement at that meeting, your commitment to an emissions trading in 2012 is subject to that, is that what you’re saying?

DR NELSON: Again…

QUESTION: It’s just a little unclear.

DR NELSON: Again, we will annunciate (sic) our policy, under my leadership, once we have carefully examined the Garnaut Report, the green paper, the other sources of expert advice that we are taking, and we’ll have a well-considered approach to it.

Australia can’t wait for you to annunciate (sic) your policy, Dr Dither.

But there was one more humiliation waiting for the opposition “leader”.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson, you say, you say you’re worried about the Greens in the Senate, but aren’t you throwing the emissions trading scheme’s future into their hands if you aren’t prepared to negotiate with the Labor Government and provide your numbers in the Senate to an emissions trading scheme.

DR NELSON: Well you’re putting words in my mouth and that’s not true.

If I could just say one other thing in relation to the Art Monthly photographs…

As usual, when the going gets tough Brendan Nelson resorts to schoolyard retorts and changes of topics. And this is the respectable demeanour and moral purpose that so impressed Andrew Bolt. “Hmm. Have we (correction: I) misjudged the man? Is he growing into leadership material, after all?” asks Bolta.

Not likely.

I’ve got to admit that I almost feel sorry for Andrew Bolt. Watching Gordon Ramsay on television a few weeks ago he fell in love. There was something about Gordon Ramsay — a man’s man with conservative values and masculine pride — that made Bolta’s heart beat a little faster.

I like particularly the standards Ramsay upholds and which drive him to fury when transgressed.

Ramsay, you see, thinks hard work honours man. Slackers drive him spare: “You might as well just f… off.”

He thinks if a job is to be done, it’s best done well. Sloppiness is an insult to a worker’s dignity. A moral crime.

He thinks if you’re taking a man’s wage, you owe him a day’s labour. Those who bludge on their boss are called “cheats” and the worst, like the manager of Dillons, are out the door.

He thinks reason beats irrational sentiment. If orange paintings of what seems global warming turn off customers, then too bad if the owner loves them to sentimental tears; they must go to save the restaurant.

He thinks some authority is better than none when you want things run well. Three managers in one chaotic restaurant get pared to one, despite the tears, because collectives and group fuzzies just don’t work.

Yet he also believes in loyalty and teams – the little platoons of society that are the bedrock of a community.

But just like a lot of desperate crushes this love was not to be. Imagine Andy’s feeling of rejection when he discovered that Ramsay wasn’t quite the man he believed him to be (with a bit of groupthink thrown in for good measure.)

My faith in Gordon Ramsay’s good sense has been shaken. Tim Blair exposes another eco-hypocrite – a global warming prophet in a Ferrari, and with a disturbing taste for banning other people’s little pleasures.

Having your heart broken is no joke. My thoughts are with you, Andrew.