Australian Government Rebukes Obama’s Climate Claims

New Science Scandal: Polar Bear Researchers ‘Hide The Increase’

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop criticises US president Barack Obama for a speech in Brisbane last weekend in which he claimed climate change threatened the Great Barrier Reef. It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president. Ms Bishop also said Australia currently had no intention of committing extra forces or resources to the mission against Islamic State, even though the White House had discussed it with the Abbott Government. —Radio Australia, 20 November 2014

Why did the Southern Beaufort polar bear population survey stop in 2010? It’s clear that the recently-published and widely-hyped new study stopped before the population rebound from a known decline was complete. The researchers of the recently-published paper knew before starting their mark-recapture study in 2007 that the population decline had taken place. They also knew why the numbers dropped and that previous declines, caused by similar conditions, had been followed by a full recovery. In fact, a US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) fall survey of Southern Beaufort polar bears in 2012 found numbers were higher than they had been in a decade. –Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, 19 November 2014

polar-bears-disappear-APChemicals giant Ineos is to announce plans to invest up to $1bn (£640m) in shale gas exploration and production in the UK, the BBC understands. The company plans to use the gas as a raw material for its chemicals plants, including Grangemouth in Stirlingshire. Grangemouth is currently running at a loss but Ineos believes shale gas will transform the economics of the plant. BBC industry correspondent John Moylan says the move will be seen as a significant vote of confidence in the sector, and will position Ineos as one of the major players in the emerging industry. —BBC News, 20 November 2014

The UK government’s plan to build a new nuclear power station is in danger of collapse amid turmoil at the French group which designed the reactor, experts warned today. Areva, the crisis-torn nuclear company, could be forced to pull out of the consortium set to build the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Hinkley Point as its losses escalate, it is feared. The difficulties come after Areva, which is state controlled, admitted that with losses escalating, it was unable to set financial targets for the next two years. Le Monde, the French daily, said its failings had plunged the entire French nuclear industry into ‘torment’. –Adam Sage & Tim Webb, The Times, 19 November 2014

I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won’t face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me.  But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don’t want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt. –Bernard Donoughue, Bishop Hill, 15 November 2014

h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser from The GWPF

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 20, 2014 7:48 am

Obama: And so begins the desperate scramble for “legacy”.
Just as Bill Clinton did for the Middle-East, so to Obama for Climate. God save us from lame-duck presidents 🙁

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 7:56 am

God save us from self-appointed emperors in new clothing.

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 8:25 am

Seems a President’s weaknesses have been more exposed during the second term, if my memory serves me.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 20, 2014 8:33 am

Duh… weak 1st terms don’t get them re-elected too often… (sometimes the obvious eludes me)

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 20, 2014 8:50 am

When they lie like this president has repeatedly done and the MSM is complicit, it’s not easy for an honest challenger to win.
The current president’s “strength” was his lies. Just ask Jonathan Gruber how excited this guy was to channel his belief that American voters are stupid.

Tom O
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 20, 2014 10:34 am

The only thing that is wrong about your comment is that it implies what your reply says – that they had a strong 1st term. Wrong when you think “bad policy” during a 1st term will cause a President to not have the chance to have a second term. As long as the MSM keeps your eyes off the glaring mistakes, they get reelected, just as this one did. Not saying that voter fraud might not play into that as well. mind you. But you can’t look at Obama’s first term and see anything that deserved reelection. He broke every promise – including affordable healthcare for everyone.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 21, 2014 10:53 am

Don’t forget. Prior to the last ,the US Gov’t gave away 5 million cell phones with free minutes.
5 million phones and Obama won by 3 million votes.
Many voters it seems, didn’t want their minutes to run out,

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 10:30 am

Clinton did his crimes outside of the role as president. Obama is doing them within.

Non Nomen
Reply to  philjourdan
November 20, 2014 12:25 pm

“A Dead Statesman
I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?”
Rudyard Kipling: Epitaphs of the War

Reply to  philjourdan
November 23, 2014 1:35 pm

Very good point! I hadn’t looked at it that way.

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 2:29 pm

Mr. Obama could learn from Bill Clinton’s Final Days:

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 6:09 pm

Climate Capitalism in Chains….

November 20, 2014 7:57 am

OT but it’s time to run the Climate Prat of 2014 competition. It’s now open for nominations. Have your say.

Reply to  Pointman
November 20, 2014 4:16 pm

Where do you start? There are so many candidates.

Craig Moore
November 20, 2014 7:58 am

As to the PB’s, the grant dependent money Grubers are at it again.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Craig Moore
November 20, 2014 8:35 am

Ok Peter: now so you claim CAGW is REAL science; put up or shut up:
(1) What testable predictions does CAGW “science” make?
(2) How do you explain CAGW model failures to accurately track/predict real climate temps for (at least) the las 20+ years?
That you can’t do either means CAGW is simply a political con-game; politicians play it to claim more power & generate tax revenue, academics play it to get funding, and non-scientifically educated citizens get swept up in all the excitement.
Keeping the con-game going is what we call Grubering. Get used to hearing the term.

Reply to  Craig Moore
November 20, 2014 9:10 am

P. Grace:
You’re just upset because you’re one of the stupid voters that fell for Gruber’s lies.
“Mexicans do not and will not vote in US elections . The Parents of illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty next week will not be allowed to vote nor will they be allowed to benefit from ACA benefits. They will however be allowed to work and pay taxes and start 405.1s.”
Where’d you hear that?
From Obama?
Or have you been Grubered again?
Did you forget about Obama’s utter hate and contempt for the US Constitution?

Ronald Hansen
November 20, 2014 8:00 am

re obama falsa in altera falsa in omnibus

November 20, 2014 8:11 am

Unfortunately, Tony Abbot is suffering because he’s the nasty-tasting medicine after years of Labor Party sugar overdose. Not that Labor was smart; but their unseen overspending defines imagination. Source: Triumph and Demise: The broken promise of a Labor generation.

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 9:52 am

Australia was never going to slip into recession. All the pain was coming from the implosion in the US sub-primes and the financial instruments derived from there. The demand out of China was strong, which kept Australia safe. At the time it was thought Labor’s reaction was a vast over-reaction.
Australia is probably going to hit a recession, but you can’t blame Abbot for that: the Labor books were shocking anyway. The huge spending plans (the NBN, the school improvements, the vastly increased civil service; the list goes on) saddled the economy with a classic Labor case of smaller inflow and way too much outflow. Or, to put it another way think of Mr Micawber telling David Copperfield: “My other piece of advice, Copperfield,” said Mr. Micawber, “you know. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and — and in short you are for ever floored. As I am!”. Australia is definitely going to be floored.
And all this forgets that recessions are a necessary part of the economy: recessions sweep away inefficiencies that build up during the “good times”. Recessions allow newer, disruptive technologies to take a foothold and lift productivity, generally during the “bad times”. Australia may not have had a recession for 24 years, but productivity gains have not happened for that long, either. Inflation remains low; wage growth lower. When the recession comes (and it will), there will be pain. Pain that is amplified by the massive debt the government is in, and all the lunatic forward spending plans put forward by Labor (eg. Gonski, NBN etc) that can’t be unraveled in the current Senate.
Australia today is primarily the result of Rudd’s god complex and Gillard’s ineffectuality, coupled with Rudd II’s savior complex. Abbot isn’t helping matters much by the focus on foreign affairs (obviously, you can’t predict an MH-370 and MH-17), and now needs to start showing that he deserves another term.

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 1:49 pm

Really? Labors policy’s kept Australia from falling into a recession huh? For a land of 25 million Peter, thank God our gross debt was ONLY going to be 650 billion by 2016. Whew, im so glad that we ONLY currently pay 1 billion a day in interest now and not a cent more, makes me feel so secure about our fiscal position into the future

Reply to  Neil
November 20, 2014 9:25 pm

@Peter, Australia’s recession was simply delayed by a massive export mining boom driven by global debt.
It was a simple flow: World acquired debt, goes on a spending spree, buys cheap Chinese junk, China demands resources to make said junk, Australia supplies resources to China. World’s debt ends up in China, and a bit in Australia. Australia uses debt inflow to leverage up private debt levels to astronomical amounts.
The boom is over and the chickens are coming home to roost. Currently CPI (which is grossly under-reported) is running higher than wage inflation. That can’t continue for too long before something really bad happens.
Consider also the flight of our manufacturing industry to cheap Asian nations. Our entire car industry has closed up and fled overseas. Export manufacturing is the only real way to increase a nation’s capital, anything else is accounting tricks, inflation, or selling off our assets to foreigners (which is actually happening) to get a bit of cash to pay the bills. The possibility that wages are going to substantially increase in the next decade is quite slim, in fact to regain global competitiveness and attract our manufacturing back from Asia, they’ll have to drop a fair bit.
In short, We are a basket case, hobbled by debt.

Reply to  Neil
November 21, 2014 7:37 am

DB Stealey, are you referring to the James O’Keefe who was arrested for illegally attempting to record conversations, and who selectively and heavily edited his illegal recordings to make them more damning? Is that the guy you are referring to?

Reply to  Chris
November 21, 2014 11:40 am

YOu can be arrested for anything at any time. Conviction is another matter.
And so far, no one has denied that his videos were accurate. The worst that has been said is they have been taken out of context. But then any damning thing would be claimed to be that way by the aggrieved party.

M Courtney
November 20, 2014 8:25 am

I’ll repeat my comment from the Donoughue thread at Bishop Hill because it was on page 4 over there and got very little notice, but I quite liked it anyway:
“The fact that the green policies are not left-wing is a big stumbling block for those who believe in the Crypto-Soviet Conspiracy theory. But the policies do transfer wealth from the poor to the rich – as the article says.
Subsidised bus travel for all – left-wing. (Not offered)
Subsidised wind farms for landowners – right-wing. (You got it!)
As a lefty I think I have something to offer this debate. So far the article and comments have ignored the rise of identity politics in the Left. The narrative went a bit like this.
In the 1980s the right’s greatest abuses of entrenched power was in support for apartheid, oppression of homosexuals and resistance to minority cultures and faiths. Therefore recognition of being oppressed was an important part of countering this oppression. Thus 2nd wave feminism helped to split apart the unified (and socially conservative) class consciousness. It began to recognise the individuals within the class.
So what does this have to do with environmentalism? Well, the losers from this change were the middle-class activists who were growing in number (as industry changed in to a service economy). They couldn’t compete with the “black lesbian in a wheelchair”. They need a surrogate to defend in order to defend their claims (on their own they weren’t needy enough). Who better than the abused Mother Earth?
Thus Green policies were espoused by the middle-class left. The Liberals / SDP / Blairite wing jumped on them as the means to credibility within the left wing debate.
Greens commit to Green because it is the entry ticket to being certified left-wing, if you aren’t working class or otherwise particularly oppressed. Even straight women aren’t particularly oppressed these days.
PS. I’m not a watermelon – I’m openly red all the way through.

Chip Javert
Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 8:39 am

Good grief – who cares. If you have an uncontrollable need to discuss lesbians in wheel chairs, go see a shrink.
What on earth does any of your political rant have to do with the scientific methodology and the question of “is CAGW real”?

Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 9:54 am

This thread is about politics, so MC isn’t derailing it.

Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 11:46 am

Thanks RogerKnights.
Chip Javert, I do engage with science posts in a non-political way. Perhaps with less sophistication but whilst trying to acknowledge and counter my biases.
Here I acknowledge and discuss my biases.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 9:08 am

M Courtney, as someone who has dealt with the (to me hopeless) loss of a social identity in the British far Left (some became the Fat Left) I recognize but do not sympathize with the current lack of direction.
The class prejudice, so stark and clearly defined for centuries in the UK, is slowly beginning to disintegrate and capitalizing on it, as the Left did for so long, is much harder. The root problem for political and climate bogeymen-builders is that Fully Left politicos and their Extreme Opposites (if they exist even in straw man form) are both built on materialism – the ‘materialization’ of social and spiritual issues – turning every social and economic crisis into the absence or presence of a material thing, which crisis can be addressed only by providing or removing that material thing. It is also called by Samer Abdelnour “the technologisation of social problems.”
As environmentalism was turned from responsibly protecting the earth and the things living upon it into a political vehicle for creating social transformation, it lost its honesty. The reason is of course that politics-by-party-manipulation is fundamentally dishonest. The whole point of forming a faction (a ‘party’) is to take democracy away from the individual and hand it to a minority collective to wield power invested (at least theoretically) in the membership of the whole body. When bad ideas are rejected in a democratic process, you create a party and all that that entails.
Are you following thus far? Taking control of the reins of power by forming a faction within the whole group is the lifeblood of the ‘party’. Now we see the result: the reins of economic control have been at least partly taken over by the ‘Climate Party’ and are being used to benefit not the poor, but ‘certain rich’ who are in a position to gain from ‘climate spending’. That one’s ‘lefty credentials’ are established by being ‘environmentally correct’ (as you point out) only shows that the Fat Left has learned to walk on two feet and taken over the farm while the poor are economically still on their hands and knees. “Two feed good, four feet bad.” We all know how that turned out.
By the time the proletariat are finally able to rise from all fours there will be nothing Left in the UK.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 20, 2014 11:54 am

Crispin in Waterloo, good points.
But I think you are too hard on the reasons for Party.
We all have our bugbears and fight for them (or against, which ever). But a Party allows those who share similar aims to moderate them according to the will of those similar. This allows democracy to filter out the unworkable, cruel or irrelevant before the voting starts.
This is good. It is efficient. Until it allows for the debate to be circumvented by such an efficient line of reasoning that cuts out the philosophy with emotion.
I maintain that the rise of Identity Politics caused disaster for the Class conscious Party – the middle class intelligentsia were cut of from “keeping it real”. And that is why the ‘Environmental’ Party was seized upon.

By the time the proletariat are finally able to rise from all fours there will be nothing Left in the UK.

I fear you may be right (ironic pun intended).

Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 9:13 am

Damn, you really are a Communist.

Reply to  mikerestin
November 20, 2014 11:57 am

No, Socialist.
In my defence I’ve never hidden my political alignment. I’m not a sneaky Red under the Bed. 🙂

Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 9:44 am

M Courtney,
Usually I understand your comments. Not this time, though.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 2:22 pm

Wow, MCourtney, just read up the thread a bit for an example of Mr Grace’s civility. I can’t possibly be the only one who caught the irony of the statement from P. Grace…
“dbstealey have you ever thought what this science blog would be like if we all behaved with just one tenth of the civility of M Courtney?”
just a short way down the post from the following ad hominem from P. Grace…
“BTW you gutless supplicant, what took you so long to answer the call?”
Pot calling kettle black? hmmm.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 5:43 pm

What is readily apparent in this thread (and other recent threads) is that the left leaning cannot seem to stand the fact that the right have a place to voice their opinion. MSM does not even bother to pretend to be non-bias anymore. They cannot even seem to allow this forum to share opposing views. It seems very insecure to me. Finally there are some conservatives who are not putting up with the left’s misguided folly, It seems these past elections in both Canada and the US indicate the public is becoming aware of the left’s failed economics, foreign policy, and leadership roles (to name a few ), and are not having it anymore.
Neither am I. Nothing personal, only logical.
MCourtney, I am saddened by the ignorance in your posts. Dat acorn done fall far from dat tree.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 10:07 am

Yeah, one of the reasons that Republicans (at the presidential level) keep shooting themselves in the foot is the typical attitude of Romney’s comment about the 47% of Americans on the dole. Now this is true if considering FAMILIES that pay no income taxes. However ~29% of that 47% do pay a payroll tax, which means that they work but make too little to pay income taxes (which in itself is a black mark AGAINST the economic system) bringing that number down to 17%, but wait he is also including people on Social Security which drops the number even more (unless you consider people in that program on the dole). I personally DON”T want the Republicans of today in charge of my pension or Social Security, especially someone like Romney. Least anyone forget, it was that hardcore Republican idealist Greenspan at the Federal Reserve who was primarily responsible for 2008. The problem is the choices involved, the ones above, or a Greenie president with delusional visions of carbon taxes & regulations. I personally will chose a Democrat in this instance.

Newly Retired Engineer
Reply to  BFL
November 20, 2014 10:33 am

Sorry, many of us on Social Security most assuredly do pay Federal income taxes.

more soylent green!
Reply to  BFL
November 20, 2014 2:56 pm

Judging by the election results, Romney was just about right. Not quite — not everyone who’s not working wants to not work. Not yet. But give us more socialism and we’ll be there.

Reply to  BFL
November 21, 2014 8:32 am

To emphasize Newly Retired’s point, not only do many of us retirees pay federal income taxes, but we pay federal income taxes on our social security income as well, money that was already taxed when we earned it.
I think everyone should pay taxes, even if it’s just a dollar. Raise welfare a dollar a year, then take it back in taxes. Tell them they are paying for the public infrastructure, and if it is vandalized, we may have to raise taxes. Their net income will be the same, but the will feel money has been taken from them, and many would no longer tolerate abuse of things they think they paid for, or may have to pay to replace. As it is, they know they don’t have to pay for anything, so they don’t care.

Reply to  Jtom
November 21, 2014 11:53 am

I do like your idea of taxing everyone. However, while great in theory, the problem is who is doing it. Do you really expect a government that spends millions on finding out why butterflies fly to be able to do anything effectively or efficiently? The end result of your suggestion will be more government waste.
AND Idiots like Pelosi will start crowing about how more welfare payments mean more money to the government!

Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 5:58 pm

M Courtney,
You write:
…green policies are not left-wing …the policies do transfer wealth from the poor to the rich
That is hugely debateable. There are few more unaccountable, über rich organizations than Greenpeace and similar ‘green’ organizations. But they do serve a purpose: they separate the stupid from their money through dues, proving Darwin right.
Subsidised bus travel for all…
And why, exactly, should one particular service be paid for by productive folks? Is it to help the unproductive? In the West thewre are not starving masses. Some folks just have less than others, and the Socialists — at least in America, and I suspect in Europe, too — play on class envy. Nothing like green-eyed jealousy to stir up antagonism and resentment.
Subsidised wind farms for landowners – right-wing.
We are on the same page here: eliminate all subsidies: wind, solar, oil, etc.
…the rise of identity politics in the Left.
That has morphed into Tribalism. Tribalism is pure racism as practiced by Obama and Holder. They both hate Caucasians, make no mistake about that.
In the 1980s the right’s greatest abuses of entrenched power was in support for apartheid…
May I remind you: that was then and this is now? How far back do we go to try and make a point? If you’re arguing that way, then Obama is just as guilty supporting modern Apartheid; just look at Detroit…
…2nd wave feminism…
Oh please, Matthew. Feminists are a bunch of man-hating lesbians. <–[check out the 'surrogates'].
Greens commit to Green because it is the entry ticket to being certified left-wing, if you aren’t working class or otherwise particularly oppressed.
Probably true.
Even straight women aren’t particularly oppressed these days.
The truly opressed are hated by the Left: Christians in the Middle East, the Koch Brothers, who made their money honestly, as opposed to Obama, Gore, and a thousand others who game the system, and the middle class working people, who the Left believes are not taxed nearly enough.
Your dad convinced me that not all Socialists are bad. You, of course, are a chip off the old block. But in America, Socialists are either losers or opportunists. The average American is still repelled by the label.
Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 6:46 pm

“Socialists are either losers or opportunists”

[Snip. Another ‘beckleybud’ sockpuppet. ~mod.]

Reply to
November 21, 2014 7:48 am

Yet under a socialist president (he is a card carrying member), it has gotten worse. It always does.

M Courtney
Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 12:42 am

dbstealey, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I hope that the views I put were of interest if only because they are not views you encounter very often in polite conversation.
1) Yes, my whole comment was debatable. But the fact that Greenpeace et al act commercially for revenues is not a sign they are left-wing.
2) Subsidised bus travel for all…was an example of a green policy that would be left wing. I could try to justify it on the grounds that we live n spread out communities and not in walking distance of the big factory anymore. So transport is essential for the right to work and society ought to provide that (like literacy). But you are not left wing and wouldn’t agree, probably. Still as an evidence that Green policies can be left wing – just aren’t – I think it stands.
3) the rise of identity politics in the Left… has evolved differently on either side of the Atlantic. Over here in the UK we have communities and multi-culturalism. This led to a valuing of different tribes equally (although not greatly) amid a decline in respect for the dominant culture – Christianity. NOt endorsing anything; I’m just reporting.
4) In the 1980s… I was saying how things evolved. You have to go back to see the origins of this. In the 1980s Labour was for coal and Maggie Thatcher was for AGW alarmism. That changed and you have to go back to find out why.
5) 2nd wave feminism… bit harsh there I think. Indeed, a bit tribalist even?
6) The truly oppressed are hated by the Left… not true. The Left is always pushing for more help to be given to the World’s poorest – at the expense of the Western middle class, usually. Both Left and Right have engaged in military interventions for humanitarian reasons (Labour and the Republicans have been military partners). Corruption is not a uniquely left wing phenomenon; if you think right wing is immune to corruption you would be naïve.
7) Your dad convinced me that not all Socialists are bad. You, of course, are a chip off the old block…. Thank you. But I fear many here would disagree with that on principle.
8) But in America, Socialists are either losers or opportunists. The average American is still repelled by the label… Words matter. The label is damaging to me here. But hiding my affiliation would be deceitful. So I will stand openly and honestly.
Of course, I may be a loser. I may be an opportunist. But I am not an American.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 2:47 am

Hello M,
My replies:
1) Maybe Greenpeace is actually just a pecuniary organization. But they still attract mostly leftists. Darwin appears in more places, no?
2) Taxpayer-funded bus travel can’t be justified any more than taxpayer-funded barbershop quartets. There are rights enumerated, but “the right to work” isn’t one of them. Neither is literacy; rights are not compulsory (unless it’s the new ‘right’ to medical care, along with the ‘right’ to be forced to pay for it…)
3) People who value different cultures equally are crazy! Should I have the right to collect shrunken heads, if it’s my culture? (It’s 2:30 am here. Give me time, and I’ll think of lots more examples.) Also, I see how well multi-culturalism is working in the UK. Please keep it, we don’t want any part of that fiasco. Truth be told, UK citizens would send every Islamist packing if the government was the least bit responsive to their desires, or to basic common sense.
4) No argument here, because I don’t have the energy. How far would we have to “go back”? Resurrecting Thatcher sounds very much like ‘blame Bush’.
5) “A bit harsh”?? You have no idea of the total contempt with which I view modern ‘feminism’. They are a collection of spoiled, self-absorbed, despicable crybabies. Don’t get me started…
6) The Left ‘helps’ the poor (always with other peoples’ money, never with their own) in the same way that Obama “helps” illegal immigrants: with the expectation of a quid-pro-quo. And wars are never ‘humanitarian’. What gave you that idea?
8) Good for you! You stand up for your beliefs. Whether right or wrong… ☺
Some really bad examples there.
1) Social Security is set up badly. It is not Socialism, it’s just an actuarial nightmare. It is paid out to people who never contributed. Better if everyone had an account they could put money into, and withdraw it upon retirement.
2) Medicare: same-same.
3) Progressive taxation = punishing the most productive. Stupidity squared.
4) The “1%” in your example is really the 0.01%. And they are workers, too. Again, it is the politics of envy. For shame.

M Courtney
Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 3:01 am

My last word (which I doubt you’ll see as you’re hopefully abed by now) , Point 4: It wasn’t Blame Maggie.
There is lots I do blame her for but persuading the Left to take up Greenery isn’t one of them.
I went back to the 1980s because that was when things last weren’t as they are now. I “cherry-picked” now and went back to when it was different… then looked at what was going on with the Left at that time.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2014 8:00 pm

Has your political philosophy EVERsuceeded anywhere. Socialism is a miserable failure in economic processes, although many of my socialists friends have great hearts…just not very practice.
Socialism is why the E U is headed to sure extinction

Reply to  M Courtney
November 21, 2014 7:07 pm

M Courtney. You great screaming pinko lefty. If I ever get the chance I owe you a drink. That is one of the most interesting things I’ve read in ages as to why there are middle class activists and what their motivation is.
Thank you sir.

Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 8:26 am

This is one of many reasons we don’t let Australians vote in American elections. Mexicans, yes; Australians, no.
In 2 years you will be able to put your money where your mouth is and elect Obama as your prime minister (actually, I’d support Obama resigning & moving to Australia today).

Chip Javert
Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 8:48 am

Plainly being so far away from the USA you have missed the various videos of non-citizen Mexicans being coached how to vote in US elections (technically, a crime).
However, it is comforting to get your assurances that illegals will not vote and will not get ACA benefits. The current US government also says this, and hardly anyone actually believes it.

Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 8:55 am

Are you also a fan of Jonathan Gruber, Peter?
You know–the guy who was paid almost $400,000 by this administration to “sell” the abominable ACA because American voters are “stupid” (direct quote).
You can’t find a Democrat now that will admit even knowing Mr. Gruber.
That’s not surprising because the only American officials stupid enough to vote for the ADA were Democrats.

george e. smith
Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 12:50 pm

Well sorry to bust PG’s bubble, but today 5 million illegal invaders are about to lose their jobs. you see those jobs at Home Depot and similar places, are ONLY available to people with that star on their forehead that says “I am illegal.” “So I will work for less than minimum wage, and you don’t have to deduct and pay social security taxes for me, nor do you have to provide me with medical insurance or any pension plan.”
So once these invaders are amnestasized, they will have to be paid minimum wage (going on $15 an hour in California) plus social security and on and on. Their current employer simply is not going to pay them any more than they get now, so they will be gone.
So they now will all get laid off to make their job available to a new illegal invader, who is willing to work as a slave under the table.
You don’t think Zuckerberg really wants to pay those people a living wage do you ??
Those sub par jobs have ALWAYS been available to illegal persons ONLY; never to legal residents or citizens.
When I was stupid enough to ask Americans, if It was ok for me to come to America 54 years ago, I accepted a job at $550 per month, when the going rate for that job and my “assumed” skill level, was $750 per month.
I did so gladly, because the company had just tripled the salary, I could have got digging holes in the road in New Zealand.
And I had written to that company, and told them that I was coming over to work for them. So somehow they figured out that I wanted that job, so I would settle for less.
But I haven’t had to ask anybody for a job ever since either.
So now EmperObama, how are your new amnestees going to pay their bills, with no job. Oh I understand that during your six years as our leader, you have created just enough jobs for those 5 million people; but sadly they will go to new illegal invaders.

more soylent green!
Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 2:51 pm

@george e. smith November 20, 2014 at 12:50 pm
I wonder what people think will happen with a worker who is illegal now but legal tomorrow. Will the former illegal alien work for the same wage? Will the employer now have to pay market wages? Or will new illegal aliens (or still illegal aliens) take the place of those now working off the books?
Most likely, those jobs aren’t going to magically start paying market wages just because the workers are now safe from deportation.

David S
November 20, 2014 8:30 am

Fortunately Australians don’t get to vote in US elections. But we’ll make you a deal. We’ll give you Obama. We ask nothing in return, just take Obama. And if you like your Obama you can keep your Obama.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  David S
November 20, 2014 8:43 am

That is a Henny Youngman moment:
“Let’s discuss climate policy of G20 leaders. Take President Obama. Please!”

Reply to  David S
November 20, 2014 4:12 pm

No thanks! I’ve always thought him insincere and a pseud.

Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 8:40 am

I could care less about your “watermelon-ness”, I only care about your science.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 9:33 am

Chip, I care about your English, and about this American “I could care less about…” which is a total reversal of the proper English usage, and is a travesty, no less. “I could not care less about X” means that I care so little about X, i.e. zero, zilch, nada, that I could not possibly care less. The “not” is thus very important in that phrase.
I hope that Americans, whilst reserving their right to change the American version of our language, will not choose to do it in such a way as to make the meaning totally wrong (to someone who reads the words rather than thinks “Oh I know what he means”).
P.S. I expect you couldn’t care less about my comment here 🙂

Owen in GA
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 20, 2014 11:44 am

Both are common usage in the US. The “could not” variant for a blunt statement, and the “could” variant with the unspoken add on “but it would be difficult”.

Chip Javert
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 20, 2014 1:23 pm

See – owe to Rich:
I am pretty rigorous about data quality, scientific methodology, and process integrity. However I have to admit I’m not as concerned about gaps between “standard American English” and other variants.
Sorry; just not a priority.

Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 12:05 pm

Chip Javert, sadly my science-fu is weak by the standards of this blog (although, I dare say, not the weakest).
It’s just when the article quotes a Labour peer talking about politics I thought my unusual perspective – for this blog – would be novel. Feel free to ignore me if you want. I truly just want to be stimulating to the mind.
As for the science, there will probably be another Leif and Vuk row about numbers that can’t be distinguished from noise (in less than a century) very soon.

Chip Javert
Reply to  MCourtney
November 20, 2014 1:24 pm


Chip Javert
Reply to  MCourtney
November 20, 2014 1:29 pm

I don’t mean to ignore you; just your politics. Like religion, nobody ever really changes anybody else’s mind, so why use up band-width trying?
Reminds me of the observation about teaching a pig to sing: you just get muddy and the pig gets irritated.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 20, 2014 1:35 pm

Chip, quite understand.
But if this comment wasn’t for you then I am really not offended if you ignore it. Truly , I’m not.
There many things that would be more worth your time.
Solar epicycles and their impact on the aether, for instance. 🙂

george e. smith
Reply to  Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 2:06 pm

Well if See-owe to Rich is concerned about English meanings getting messed up there’s a never ending list of those.
Americans say “see you momentarily” meaning I’ll see you soon. To English speakers it means I’ll see you FOR a moment; not IN a moment.
And then there was the famous Steve Jobs gaffe “Think different.”
And all English speakers seem to use the word “sophisticated” quite willy nilly. Which leads me to observe that persons who think they are sophisticated, usually are.
And the English say shed-yule, where Americans say sked-yule. That’s because the English have a better shool system.
I do say “I could care less.” and I mean it. I really could care less; but not too much less.

November 20, 2014 9:07 am

Lucifer posted this at Judith Curry’s page . I thought it was relevant. And true.

Reply to  Mick
November 20, 2014 9:47 am

@P Grace:
Any numpty who demands “supporting evidence” for what is discussed here every day has a problem. It’s like demanding supporting evidence that the Antarctic is cold.
[Oh, and Mick: I posted that cartoon here a couple days ago! GMTA & all that…]

Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 11:17 am

Typical. If it isn’t pal reviewed it isn’t funny or true.
Good god you warmists are prickly when it gets cold.
Even if I provided supporting evidence, you would say that its not peer reviewed.

Reply to  Mick
November 20, 2014 12:26 pm

Thanks Mick, a perfect summary of our current understanding of climate.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Mick
November 20, 2014 1:39 pm

Please accept this as certification that I have “pal reviewed” your cartoon posting, and I hereby state it is ready for prime time (and I thoroughly enjoyed it).
My qualifications are that I am absolutely unqualified to be a cartoonist, but I know what I like when I see it. In my review, I assure you I either rigorously conformed with all generally accepted practices for reviewing this class of material, or pretty much did what ever I wanted.

November 20, 2014 9:20 am

Here are the known causes of damage to the Great Barrier Reef. NOTE: Warm water is not the only cause of coral bleaching. I will post below this comment.

Abstract – 2 October 2012
The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes
Tropical cyclones, coral predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%, and 10% of the respective estimated losses, amounting to 3.38% y-1 mortality rate. Importantly, the relatively pristine northern region showed no overall decline. …


“The Great Barrier Reef has lost half its coral cover in the last 27 years. The loss was due to storm damage (48%), crown of thorns starfish (42%), and bleaching (10%) according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today by researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) in Townsville and the University of Wollongong.”
“”There are three main sources for the coral decline, one is storms, however 42% is attributed to Crown of Thorns Starfish – and just 10% due to bleaching.”

Reply to  Jimbo
November 20, 2014 9:21 am


Abstract – 2003
Effects of hypo-osmosis on the coral Stylophora pistillata: nature and cause of ‘low-salinity bleaching’
Abstract – 2004
Exposure to solar radiation increases damage to both host tissues and algal symbionts of corals during thermal stress
Abstract – 2011
Catastrophic mortality on inshore coral reefs of the Florida Keys due to severe low-temperature
Abstract – 2012
Unique nucleocytoplasmic dsDNA and +ssRNA viruses are associated with the dinoflagellate endosymbionts of corals
Abstract – 1992
Eutrophication and coral reefs—some examples in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon

Abstract – 2009
Sewage impacts coral reefs at multiple levels of ecological organization
Letters to Nature – 2002
Coral record of increased sediment flux to the inner Great Barrier Reef since European settlement
Abstract – 1996
Coral bleaching: causes and consequences
Elevated sea temperature, Solar radiation(including ultraviolet radiation), decreased sea surfacetemperatures and reduced salinity,%201997.pdf

Reply to  Jimbo
November 20, 2014 12:43 pm

John, I’m sure that Peter is referring to what Obama was thinking. As with all true believers, he can know the truth without it needing to be said.
Peter, given that BoM has just elevated the ENSO watch to alert and your ability to know the unknowable, could you let me know what temperature and rainfall patterns to be expecting in southeast Queensland? BoM has been predicting hotter and drier, yet we have had hotter and wetter the last week or so, and El Nino seems to be on or off depending on the week. Is it possible that BoM’s models are not that reliable?

Reply to  Jimbo
November 21, 2014 12:35 am

By far the biggest threat to the GBR is the King Starfish.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 20, 2014 9:51 am

I have a hard time believing that a 1º change in ocean T causes any ‘coral bleaching’. Those organisms have been around for millions of years, through warm and cold times, and they are found in widely varying latitudes; both warmer and colder. Surely they can endure a degree or two of temperature change.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 11:28 am

Furthermore, I have to question the sensitivity of corals to low-salinity conditions. When corals are some of the oldest fossils to be found on Earth, it would stand to reason that they evolved in an ocean with much lower salinity than we currently have.

Owen in GA
Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 11:50 am

I have problems with people equating bleaching with dead. Bleaching is what corals do when they change out symbiots. Many times if a diver comes back to a bleached coral several months later it looks normal. Sometimes however, it does mean death.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 3:29 pm

It feels like a beat up on dbstealey day.
What the heck did you say ?
Just so I might avoid saying the same thing in the future 🙂

Reply to  dbstealey
November 20, 2014 7:56 pm

And then of course the is the ‘Damaged Barrier Reef coral makes ‘spectacular’ recovery ‘ from bleaching as reported

Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 3:39 am

In Australia, in the Kimberlies if I recall correctly, there are fossillised reefs…dozens of feet above sea level. Even Tim Flannery knows this.

November 20, 2014 9:51 am

Bernard Donoughue, Bishop Hill, 15 November 2014
“[. . . ] my Labour colleagues [. . .] want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don’t want a moral vacuum [. . .] For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.”

That sounds like the cry of an existential crisis moment for some supporters of socialism. Will they vomit out the residual rotting corpse of Marxism from their chthonic collect intellect? It would be a needed catharsis.

Reply to  John Whitman
November 20, 2014 10:30 am

{NOTE: to correct misspelling, here is an edited version of John Whitman onNovember 20, 2014 at 9:51 am}
That sounds like the cry of an existential crisis moment for some supporters of socialism. Will they vomit out the residual rotting corpse of Marxism from their chthonic collective intellect? It would be a needed catharsis.

Coach Springer
November 20, 2014 9:57 am

“It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president.” Also for a US President to be so single-mindedly alarmist, exploitative, power hungry, pessimistic, hostile to mankind and dishonest.

Reply to  Coach Springer
November 20, 2014 11:31 am

Pessimistic? But he’s President Hope and Change! He even has the Nobel Peace Prize to prove it!

Rhoda R
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 20, 2014 11:49 am

Not pessimistic, but opportunist. Also, his biggest donors are pushing for this. Think the Solyndra boondogle.

November 20, 2014 11:33 am

“If Australians could vote in the United States presidential election,…….”
Sweet dreams…

Balance Required
November 20, 2014 12:06 pm

You quote a severely left leaning paper that is currently going gangbusters to whip up support against the current elected government and a blog run by independent, severely left leaning journalists who hated the current government from day one and would prefer the Greens to be the government.

Chip Javert
November 20, 2014 1:16 pm

You are correct – this is a science site.
Before you humiliate yourself with further ad hominems about dbstealey, I would ask you to do two things:
(1) remember your first post on this thread was purely political (i.e.: you knowingly & deliberately started it);
(2) go crawl back under your rock.
Moderators – I for one would appreciate it if we could eliminate the purely political & stunningly juvenile bilge wash.

November 20, 2014 1:37 pm

Well aren’t we getting testy.
Did you expect he would come unarmed ?
Its not personal.

November 20, 2014 1:37 pm

i thought the Gruber jokes would have ended by now:
15 Nov: John Dickerson: CBS: Why GOP anger over Jonathan Gruber’s Obamacare comments is justified
In the 2012 campaign, Obama’s camp was claiming that the Massachusetts health care plan was the intellectual model for Obamacare, just as Romney was trying to disavow it. Gruber was essential to this case.
In a video produced by the Obama campaign celebrating the anniversary of “Romneycare,” Gruber says, “I helped Gov. Romney develop his health care reform or Romneycare, before going down to Washington to help President Obama develop his national version of that law.” The spot includes old footage of Romney thanking Gruber for his work on the Massachusetts health bill. “The core of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare and what we did in Massachusetts are identical,” Gruber says…
as for Obama in Australia, he also told the Uni of Qld audience:
Obama: “In fact last year, I even tweeted one of your studies to my 31, uh, to my 31 million followers on Twitter. Just bragging a little bit. I don’t think that is quite as much as Lady Gaga, but it is still pretty good. It is still not bad,” he said with a smile…
Gaga is the perfect reference point for the UQ celebrity-mad students. MSM reported the quote, but no-one bothered to remind people what that study actually was:
17 May 2013: WUWT: Anthony Watts: The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions
Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie.
I had to laugh about the breathless headlines over that tweet, such as this one from the Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet…

November 20, 2014 1:41 pm

Julie Bishop is one of the few politicians with any balls in that government.

Reply to  Truthseeker
November 20, 2014 3:22 pm


David A
November 20, 2014 1:58 pm

Peter, Grace has a brain with stuff in it. He says he has a brain. He repeats it often.
If he does he would ask for links to read about voter fraud in the US

November 20, 2014 2:49 pm

well! here is one Australian who would never vote for this prat. And, as a Queenslander, and as a graduate (in the 1960s) from the University of Queensland in Engineering, I am appalled at his use of ignorant (Arts and Social Sciences) undergraduates as cannon fodder for his self-aggrandizement.
I recognised this prat during his first election campaign, so please do not include me in your vaporous ravings. Abraham Lincoln had some valid comments on fools like this; “you can fool …..”.
It has been very hard to avoid the use of profanity in this response; I think that I made it … just.

Reply to  johnrmcd
November 20, 2014 4:15 pm

Hear hear! +1 to your comment. Exactly my feeling .

November 20, 2014 3:26 pm

It’s also unusual for a U.S. President to visit a democracy and start telling them how to run their policies. In fact, it’s downright rude. No wonder Americans are embarrassed about Obama.

November 20, 2014 4:27 pm

Hi Peter
You are quoting from an online poll which are known to be as reliable as climate models. The people who voted in this poll are readers of the Sydney Morning Hamas who are typically extreme left wing intolerant sectarian bigots who are not representative of main stream Australia. In fact the press council in Australia has received numerous complaints about a racist cartoon run by this newspaper about the recent Gaza conflict.

David Larsen
November 20, 2014 4:55 pm

I probably said this before but, I used to hunt moose up at the arctic circle some years ago. The polar bears would mosey into Churchill and just start camping in houses on the edge of town.

November 20, 2014 6:40 pm

With refernce to the Great Barrier Reef and how it will be destroyed by climate change and specifically Abbots Point, *ALL* of the environmrntal studies and approvals etc etc were all obtained under the previous ALP/Green coalition Govn’t, and yet, Tony Abbott and the LNP get the blame for the projects approval. Sure, Hunt singed off on the project, but all of the approvals for the peoject were obained by the ALP/Greens. Protesters may as well blame Bush.

November 20, 2014 7:38 pm

After reading thru a series of the posts, I decided I had hit the wrong bookmark on google chrome. WUWT is no longer about climate science, its about snarky politics and snarky people. Time to reactivate the moderators.

November 20, 2014 7:46 pm

Well then Peter, that just shows that Austrailians are dumber than Americans that voted for him 5 to 4. No surprise who you would vote for. With his lies he could have been a good climate “scientist”

November 20, 2014 8:18 pm

it was only a matter of time before Ove popped up!!!
21 Nov: SMH: Peter Hannam: Great Barrier Reef will be ‘slaughtered’: scientists dismiss Julie Bishop’s claim reef not at risk
While Ms Bishop and other Coalition leaders have criticised the US President’s intervention, leading scientists have come to his support…
President Obama was “right on the money”, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the university’s Global Change Institute, said. “He was stating a fact.”
“We have one of the jewels of the planet in our possession and we should care a lot about climate and he wasn’t getting that from our leader [Prime Minister Tony Abbott],” Dr Hoegh-Guldberg said…
The reef has already shrunk by half in 30 years, he added, with climate change a factor in its retreat…
Charlie Veron, a former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, went further saying the Abbott government was downplaying the dire future facing the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs everywhere.
“In the long term, that is the whole of this century, we are going to have the Great Barrier Reef slaughtered,” Charlie Veron, a world authority who has scientifically named about one quarter of all known corals, said. “There’s no doubt about that at all, if carbon-dioxide emissions keep on tracking as they are.”…

Reply to  pat
November 21, 2014 12:32 am

Oh I read that. Hannam, what a joke of a writer. Constantly posting alarmist drivel. What he, and all other alarmists fail to recognise, is that *ALL* of the environmental studies/approvals and sign-offs were done under the ALP/Green coalistion. Hunt, LNP, just approved the whole project.

Keith Minto
November 20, 2014 8:22 pm

Obama’s speech was a gross insult to Australia as the host country of G20,as well as being scientifically incorrect. Julie Bishop was at her diplomatic best in describing his gaff as “poorly informed”, but it came as quite a shock to the government ,and, I admire Tony Abbott for being restrained in not tearing shreds off Obama. But, he had his hands full dealing with Putin.
“snarky politics and snarky people”…..well, they started it.

November 20, 2014 8:31 pm

That is absolute rubbish. You might as well ask if they would prefer Kim Kardashian.
An ACTUAL Australian election has occurred since this was published. And Australians overwhelmingly rejected a party which clings to global warming as a policy platform. Australians overwhelmingly voted for a party to remove the carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, and to remove mining taxes.
As for the claim that the borrow-and-spend-a-thon that the previous government undertook, which is still damaging business confidence – Australia was the only OECD country with no net debt when they took the reigns. The currency dropped, iron ore and coal prices spiked, and the profits rolled in. This is what prevented recession, not blowing a measly 10 or so billion on handing out cash. The tiny bit of government handouts and make-work schemes were a drop in the ocean compared to the cash pouring into the resource sector.
But, the clay-footed government couldn’t even get that right and instituted a tax to take all of a mining companies profit over a ‘natural rate of return’ – naturally set by the government. They couldn’t wait to get their greedy socialist mitts on that cash. So the mining companies up and left, and wound down the investment pipeline. About now is when that effect is hitting home, killing the economy.
All because a bunch of climate-obsesseed marxists lied their way into office by promising one thing and doing the exact opposite.
You know nothing about Australian politics. Nothing.

November 20, 2014 9:48 pm

Lord Monckton is best informed to respond to this nonsense from Yeo, Deben, etc:
21 Nov: Age: Paolo Totaro: UK Tories slam Tony Abbott on climate policy
The attitude of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the global challenges of climate change is “eccentric”, “baffling” and “flat earther”, according to a group of senior British Conservatives.
The group, including Prime Minister David Cameron’s Minister for Energy and a former Thatcher Minister and chairman of the Conservative Party, says Mr Abbot’s position on climate change represents a betrayal of the fundamental ideals of Conservatism and those of his political heroine, Margaret Thatcher.
According to Lord Deben, chairman of the independent Climate Change Commission and a minister in both the Thatcher and Major governments, Australia will come under increasing market pressure to respond to the global shift toward renewable energy.
A former chairman of the British Conservative Party, Lord Deben said Mr Abbott has betrayed the fundamental tenets of conservatism itself…
Tim Yeo, chairman of the UK’s parliamentary select committee on energy and climate change and a former environment minister under John Major, likened those who question the existence and the science of climate change as “the flat earthers of the 16th century”…
“If I was Australian, I’d be concerned if my country’s economic future and prosperity became dependent on continued coal export.” …
Mr Abbott declined to comment.
James Delingpole: ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
also check Bishop Hill’s “Why does Lord Deben misreport the science of extreme weather?” on 17 November.

Reply to  pat
November 21, 2014 12:27 am

We know Cameron’s family has vested interests in renewables, what of the others in the article? Abbott is trying to repair the disaster the Rudd – Gillard – Rudd 6 year pantomime left behind. Abbott is being blamed for manufacturing industries going off-shore. Now, if memeory serves Holden (GM) and Ford announced they are pulling out of Australia in 2016 and they announced that under the Rudd – Gillard – Rudd Govn’t citing costs in labour and ENERGY (After the carbon tax was installed) were major drivers in the decision.

Chris Thixton
November 21, 2014 1:07 am

I like Julie Bishop. She has that calm self assured reasoning with deference to the facts that truly good politicians have.

November 21, 2014 1:32 am

I give up. Where’s the “rebuke”? How is “We are working with the UN to keep the reef healthy” a rebuke for “The great barrier reef is threatened by climate change.”?

November 21, 2014 2:18 am

Must have been a bit of a shock for Tony. He was following the standard pattern for Australian politicians of all parties, being a good little poodle for the Americans, yapping at Putin and so forth. (Canberra is supposed to be a minor branch office of Washington.) And then the Big Boss gives him a slap in the face.
But it is still astonishing to see the Australian Government have the guts to stand up for Australia. Doesn’t happen often.
(Last time that happened was when Rudd rebuked Israel for misuse of Australian passports. He got bounced out do office immediately afterwards, of course.)

November 21, 2014 7:45 am

Here is an article that mentions the poll. Strange, the commenter here didn’t find it bogus.He noted that Australia is a much more left leaning country than the US as one reason voters there would have a strong preference for Obama. Do you have evidence the poll was bogus?

November 21, 2014 7:46 pm

The speech by Obama was not only diplomatically rude, and probably “unprecedented” in the context of being given at a function in a friendly host nation, but was also directly against the advice of the American Embassy in Canberra.
Two speeches were given by foreign Presidents that week and to any unbiased outside observer, the Chinese President is more a friend to Australia than the American one is. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider who our friends really are? For a start the Chinese will sell us their equivalent of the F 22 (which America will not sell to friends) for about 1/2 the price we will pay for the F 35.
I say this in all seriousness. The actions of Obama while here is leading many Australians to wonder exactly how much of a “friend” the USA will be when Democrats have control. We expect consistency in the foreign policy of our friends towards us and cannot allow ambivalence in this. A friend that changes from “good friend” to “sh*tstirrer” every few years is no friend at all and something we can do without.
“Standing together” doesn’t just mean that we stand with you, but also that you stand with us. Your President has forgotten this and if the attitude continues America will find that it stands alone.

November 21, 2014 7:49 pm

P.S. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Julie Bishop finishes up as our Prime Minister and she won’t be a lightweight like Gillard was.

November 21, 2014 10:04 pm
November 23, 2014 5:04 am

I have to admit, that doesn’t say much for Australians. I’m really disappointed.

%d bloggers like this: