The Liberal Party in Australia’s parliament has a new leader.
Herald Sun Blogger and Columnist, Andrew bolt writes to me in an email:
Anthony,
This may be a first: a major political party has dumped a global warming believer as leader and replaced him with sceptic who last month called AGW “crap”. Tony Abbott has tempered his public pronouncements since, but has today become the new Liberal leader, toppling warmist Malcolm Turnbull, specifically because he was the only one of the three contenders today to promise to delay the Government’s emissions trading scheme.
Bolt adds some background:
Following up with excerpts from new Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s memoir Battlelines, released in July.
On page 171 he quotes, with approval, Bjorn Lomborg:
“Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.”
Abbott then adds:
“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions…. Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”
He also questions what climate alarmists truly want:
“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”
======
Lest you think that Climategate had nothing to do with this political shift, please read what Bolt had to say about its impact in my previous post:
The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade
Several MPs have indeed mentioned the emails in their party room speeches, and your correspondents miss the way MPs actually pick up things.
Andrew Bolt has one of the most read blogs and columns in Australia and is helping to educate both people and politicians alike on the true costs of climatic induced cap and trade, please visit his blog to show some support. – Anthony
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.… Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”
He also questions what climate alarmists truly want:
“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”
Opinion is changing on John Key too. Unless he mends his ways fast he wont survive the next election.
This is very exciting news from Australia. However, I doubt that Climategate had much to do with it. It looks to me that the tensions and entrenched positions were already well in place within the Liberal Party, and the leadership crisis probably would have happened with or without Climategate, which has not been referred to in any of the reported discussions. Nor have any of the Aussie bloggers (including Andrew Bolt as far as I know) who know what’s going on made any claim that Climategate had any influence on these events. The timing is coincidental.
Exactly. Because it isn’t *really* about CO2.
And that with China, India, Brazil and South Africa walking out if the West tighten the thumbscrews.
Wow, just wow!!
I expect there could be similar shake-ups in at least one opposition party in Canada. So far the conflict is being kept under wraps. (hush hush, deny deny if anyone asks Qs – you know the drill…)
Go read Joanne Nova @ur momisugly http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-global-gravy-train-takes-a-major-political-hit/#more-4852
I have been visiting Andrew Bolt’s blog for months. Its one of the very few havens of reality in a world of spin and I’ve come to rely on it for encouragement, much like this site.
I am absolutely delighted by Tony Abbott’s win. None of the pundits predicted it and the media will, naturally, do their best to tear him down because he actually stands for something. Just his opening comments upon winning were enough to put the heart back in the Liberal Party which, under Malcolm Turnbull, had descended into little more than a pale imitation of the Rudd government. I think Turnbull’s problem was that he was in the wrong party.
I have real hope that, if the ETS can be stopped now, it will never again raise its ugly head because of the ramifications of the CRU scandal, which has hardly rated a mention here, what with all the breathless commentary on the Liberal leadership woes. The last thing the media would have wanted was to report on anything which might actually support the position taken by the sceptics!
I have feeling that both Rudd and Turnbull, who could well have been twins in this endeavour, realise that the situation is now or never. Otherwise, why the insistence on passing it right now? Rudd might want to show off in Copenhagen, but Turnbull was offered continued leadership, with no challenge, if he would agree to simply postponing it until early next year and he refused. For someone with his raging ambition, there must have been a pretty good reason for that and the only one I can think of is that he knows its junk and that its likely to be exposed as such by then.
Climategate aside, what has shifted the views of many MPs in how they should handle the ETS, has been the enormous flood of emails and telephone calls telling them they were on the wrong track. A number of these people no doubt are aware of Climategate.
I noticed on Bloomberg that the chairman of Australian Climate Exchange Ltd. is most unhappy as he encounters a probable delay before the trading commissions start flowing.
Climategate had very little to do with this – so far the mentions of CRU emails have been sporadic and low key in the Aussie media. I mentioned a couple of citations in a previous post (7:30 Report with Penny Wong, for instance).
As I mentioned in another thread, I think Abbott will be a useful tool for the Liberal Party to temporarily “unite” behind to dump the Aussie ETS for now. Once things get serious (i.e. another election) I would expect another leader will be put forward, unless the next election is to be written off…
The next Aussie federal election will be next year, either towards the end of the year (the end of the natural 3-year term) or by double dissolution election at an earlier date, should Rudd wish to push the political advantage. In the latter case the election could be as early as April/May.
Aussie Prime Ministers only get 3-year terms, but they can run indefinately.
As a long-time Labor voter (and branch secretary of the greenest Labor Party branch in the 80s), I will be voting for the Liberal Party for the first time at the next election. Had Turnbull not been ousted, I would have voted informal. [Hiya Informal!]
This has nothing to do with ClimateGate. Carbon Trading was always a crock. Sadly, Labor Party solidarity insists that all party members must vote for whatever the PLP decides. So it goes…
Maybe KRudd’s “government”* will be the first to lose power after one term.
* According to the Australian Consittution, the Queen of Australia is the Australian Government.
WAY TO GO, AUSTRALIA!!! The Joanne Nova article referenced above is awesome.
Iren: “there must have been a pretty good reason for that and the only one I can think of is that [Turnbull] knows its junk and that its likely to be exposed as such by then”
Exactly my thoughts.
Congrats, Aussies. A small but significant step in the right direction.
Despite the changing of the guard in Australia, after two days of listening to the ETS BIll discussion in the Senate, as far as I can tell, not a single person has yet talked about Climategate/ leaked emails/ corrupt and treasonous data, and the now glaringly obvious fact that this BIll is built entirely upon corruption and lies.
The closest anyone got was mentioning the papers that show that summer grasses and regrowth forests outstrip dry established mature forests as carbon sinks. A valuable point in itself, but hardly as devastating as the blow that Climategate should be.
mainstream media here in Asutralia is also extremely quiet on Climategate, instead it is full steam ahead, head in the sand , running with any story about Copenhagen, Dudd and Obomber.
Of course this GW agenda (first surfaced in Australia in 1999) is not about climate change. it is about global power and total world manipulation through TAX and levies via the UN/ WHO climate body. It would be a NWO wet dream, and once established, almost impossible to eliminate.
It’s starting. British general election has to be held by next June, with both main parties still with their head in the sand about the dodgy science. Minority parties have been claiming some notable scalps recently though and Cameron won’t want a hung parliament (even if it’s what they deserve..)
While Climategate would not have been the primary driver behind the spill I am fairly certain that the barrage of emails sent in (i know i was one) about Climategate would certainly have had an effect – possibly like the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.
I noted this in tips but for others interested, i was listening to the senate talks over the past few days and today one of the senators actually covered climategate – spoke about the absurdity of pushing the legislation in the face of the scandal and that the science was on shaky ground. Also went on about how many politicians in the room had scientific backgrounds and that the validity of the tax needs to be made on science. Also went on about having an investigation into the science.
I cannot recall word for word – there may be a written transcript somewhere but i have been unable to find it – but the fact that it was raised in session means that they are aware of it – to what extent I am unsure.
The ETS is finally being discussed as a the massive tax imposition that it really is rather than the saviour of the Great Barrier Reef and the world’s climate
@ur momisugly Richard (top) – Key might not survive the next election, but thanks to his lack of conviction and the MSM in NZ squashing the whole thing we’re already saddled with our Emissions Trading Scheme. At least the Aussies have the chance to back out of theirs, while we carry our “clean green” millstone to Copenhagen.
Just heard on our radio here in New Zealand that the Aussie ETS bill failed in their Senate. K Rudd won’t be going to Copenhagen with a victory under his belt afterall!
As for our John Key, I think he is playing a very cagey game. He is avoiding appearing at Copenhagen despite some recent pressure from those countries set to benefit the most from any payouts via Copenhagen, at the recent C.H.O.G.M. (Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting). Key has stated that he doesn’t believe monetary handouts are the way to respond to any future crisis, whatever that might be. His idea is to provide a suitable technical response to any given situation as they arise.
See, things are heating up. Except of course the seas around New Zealand which remain profoundly cooler as they have for most of the year.
I’m with Abbot.Bring it on Rudd.He may lose,but I doubt Rudd will pick up extra seats,he is the pm,that has done nothing for Australia,except send us into debt.
to the writer of this blog:
that post u have here has a lot of spin, almost as bad as the warmist side.
something you should note
Abbot won the leadership by ONE vote when the leadership spill occurred
ONE vote
Turnbull may have won if one of his loyalist MPs wasnt in medical care (and his desire to vote by proxy refused)
This is nowhere a landslide that thsi post seem to imply – there is no seachange due to climate gate. There was already liberal internal dissent PRIOR to climategate, and most emails to these mps would have been out of a desire to either delay the ETS to AFTER Copenhagen to avoid having AU the only country in the world to be taxed like this if Copenhagen failed, or out of a desire to avoid taxes.
Climategate’s impact would have been minimal, because if you WERE familiar with AUS politics you would have known that Malcolm Turnbull was already walking wounded after Utegate, where Kevin Rudd kick his ass because Malcolm Turnbull tried to pin corruption allegations on Kevin Rudd BASED ON UNSUBSTANTIATED EMAILS THAT LATER TURNED OUT TO BE MADE UP. After UteGate, do you think any liberal would put their faith on leaked emails ? I bet you most of the grass roots opposition was not due to climategate.
If you are going to imply that Climategate was a catalyst, please do a bit of research on the ground rather then just relying on 1 man’s opinion as the gospel truth (just like many here accuse the warmist side of doing).
and no, I am not a warmist, just smell spin and BS when I see it.
@ur momisugly Pompous Git (23:58:32) :
You say:
“As a long-time Labor voter (and branch secretary of the greenest Labor Party branch in the 80s), I will be voting for the Liberal Party for the first time at the next election.”
Pomp, I was once a member of the ALP, in the very early 1990’s. For one year only, if I recall correctly. My resignation (well, to be precise, my failure to renew) was as a result of a particular person turning up every meeting in a pristine, unblemished boiler suit, and steel-capped workboots.
This person would address everyone as “Comrade!”, and talk about “My Union” and how all the lawyers should be lined up and shot etc etc etc.
I eventually asked someone what union he was talking about, and was told “Don’t worry about that wanker – he represents the Commonwealth Bank Officers’ Association!”.
We all live and learn. This is called maturity.
Barnaby Joyce was well aware of climategate on the 23rd November
http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/Newsroom/MediaReleases/tabid/74/Default.aspx
Unfortunately Bjorn Lomborg is not a scientist himself but an economist and although his economic assessment of C&T is undoubtedly correct, his statements about the science are not. He is, like most politicians, dependent on what he is being told. The correct statement about “climate change” should have been:
“Natural science has shown us that global warming is probably real, but primarily natural while the man-made contribution to it is in the grand scheme of things unimportant”.
Just watching Sky News Australia and our radio got it a bit wrong. The vote was a secret ballot in the Liberal Party room that endorsed opposition to the ETS. It will still be up to the individual Liberal Senators as to how they vote, but they now know that their party at least is fully against it.