Is Aussie PM Turnbull quietly dismantling Abbott's Climate Legacy?

Abbott, Lomborg and Turnbull, source Wikimedia
Abbott, Lomborg and Turnbull, source Wikimedia, Abbott picture author MystifyMe Concert Photography (Troy), Turnbull picture Вени Марковски, Lomborg picture free use

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The new Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull may be quietly dismantling former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s climate initiatives. The latest move is the cancellation of an offer to fund Bjørn Lomborg’s Climate Consensus Centre.

According to the Australian ABC;

The Federal Government says it has withdrawn a $4 million offer to help establish a climate change research centre headed by Bjorn Lomborg.

Education Minister Simon Birmingham has told a Senate estimates hearing the proposal was quietly dropped in the week when Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister.

“Certainly, a specific incentive from the Government for such an institute is no longer available,” Senator Birmingham said.

Read more:

Malcolm Turnbull won the leadership challenge against former PM Tony Abbott, by promising to maintain Tony Abbott’s climate policies. An apparent substantive breach of that promise in the first week of leadership is a bit of a record, even for an Australian Prime Minister. So far Turnbull has declined to offer the Australian people an opportunity to vote their approval of this change in direction. Turnbull’s hesitation to obtain a mandate from the Australian people may be understandable, given that Australia voted overwhelmingly for climate skeptic Tony Abbott in the last election.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
michael hart
October 21, 2015 5:30 am

A politician who lies and reneges on ‘promises’? Who’d have thunk it…

Reply to  michael hart
October 21, 2015 6:34 am

When judging a politician, always go by their long held positions, not the promises they are making in the heat of a campaign. Politicians will say anything to get elected, but their long held positions determine how they will govern.

Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2015 1:26 pm

same same…. Julia did say “there will be no carbon tax” we got one. Malcolm Waffle will do the same, a warmist, republican, ex banker….= a progressive.

Reply to  michael hart
October 21, 2015 1:57 pm

Q: How do you know a politician is lying?
A: Its breathing.

Reply to  brians356
October 21, 2015 1:58 pm

“It’s …”

Reply to  brians356
October 21, 2015 3:19 pm

I thought it was, “his lips are moving”, Breathing actually helps the environment.

Reply to  brians356
October 21, 2015 3:22 pm

I think our language is flexible enough to allow both to be right.
It is
Its – possessive – the breathing belonging to the politician; hence it’s – or its (possessive) – lying. . . ..
Don’t stress.
It is about communication – IMHO.

October 21, 2015 5:39 am

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Australian’s voted overwhelmingly for sceptical climate policies when Tony Abbott was elected as Australia’s PM.
Malcolm Turnbull agreed not to water down any of Abbott’s policies as a trade for taking over leadership.
Turnbull is a staunch global warmist and will view all broken climate promises as virtuous and in the interests of the planet. (Gaia and the UN)

Reply to  Climatism
October 21, 2015 8:26 pm

I think the political truth is more “nuanced.” I think Turnbull will stick to the emission cut promises of the former Abbott-led government, but the method may vary. Abbott had his “Direct Action” plan (i.e. pay for emissions reductions via competing projects). I think you’ll find Turnbull changing tack and promising the same reductions but through an ETS. This will be pitched as saving the electorate money and keep Turnbull’s investment banker buddies happy. Politically its a win-win for him.
Paris is now looking particularly dangerous. Here’s hoping for another ClimateGate-like incident in the next couple weeks.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
Reply to  Bulldust
October 21, 2015 9:06 pm

+1 on the ClimateGate idea. I hope Anthony and the others are watching.

Reply to  Bulldust
October 21, 2015 10:18 pm

I am not convinced any further release of “climategate” material will have any impact. What we saw is as good as it get’s.

Reply to  Bulldust
October 22, 2015 5:54 pm

The White House, Oct.19, 2015
‘FACT SHEET: White House Announces Commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Change’
$200 million pledge from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.
The effort launched with research support from the Hewlett Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation and Planet Heritage Foundation.
81 companies have signed this pledge.
COP21 coming up next.

Reply to  Bulldust
October 23, 2015 5:07 pm

Fund size: $28.1 billion NZ Dollars

October 21, 2015 5:42 am

I think we’ll have another change in political direction now that the Canadian voters have shot themselves in their collective feet, by electing another Trudeau.

ferd berple
Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 5:56 am

those that forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 21, 2015 7:41 am

Leftist is as leftist does.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 5:57 am

Trudeau has had some choice words for that climate change numptie, David Suzuki.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 6:21 am

It was mutual between Snoozooki and Poutine Trudeau. Kitchen implements in a race to better besmirch.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 6:27 am

Suzuki called him a twerp, and on this point he is correct.
Within hours of the election result, the CBC enthusiastically trumpeted that Trudeau will be going to the Paris Summit to sign the climate treaty and that a carbon tax will be in place within a year.
Canadians haven’t a clue what they have done.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 8:18 am

Klem, some of us do. If you were watching closely, you may have noticed that Alberta and Saskatchewan did not vote for that guy. Apperantly we are the only ones who can see through the BS.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 8:43 am

Things are not always as they appear.and I am not convinced that Trudeau is enamoured of the fight to change the world’s climate to an unspecified state.
Reading between some lines over the period of the election campaign, I noted that Trudeau pointedly didn’t offer any emissions reduction target, tried to deflect questions about what he was going to do about it onto the Premiers of the Provinces and, yesterday, alluded to the “climate change file”.
In my mind, that is not the language of someone who is passionate about the subject. He had just been talking about the bombing of isil, murders of Aboriginal women, child care and so on and he didn’t refer to them as “files”.
It would be naive to expect him to announce that he has no interest in the Paris thing and doesn’t really care about GW.
As for taxes, I don’t personally care what they’re called, they’re not going to go away.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 10:03 am

mebbe, not wanting to talk about climate change could also mean that he knew that letting his real positions be known, would cost him more votes than it would gain. So he did his best to not answer such questions.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 9:12 pm

The action of getting elected involves letting people think what they want about you and not revealing anything that would create competing polarities. The Libs promised nearly nothing and they will deliver on that. The essence of populism is to be seen doing popular things. How can anyone be ‘against Paris’? Paris in the fall can be quite pretty.
There is a Change/Org petition going round calling for the Green Party leader to be made Environment Minister. That ought to create some polarities!

Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 6:16 am

I’m so embarrassed !!!!

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2015 10:50 am

In the race to the political bottom with respect to the executive branch, I think I speak for most Americans when I say we are well ahead, hands down. My only solace, given the relative ages of my children and myself, is that I won’t have to explain to my grandchildren why their world is turning to cr*p.

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2015 12:49 pm
Mebbe: At 8:43 am, it’s not Trudeau so much that I’m worried about (he’s an idiot, a shiney pony), it’s his main advisor Gerald Butts who used to work for WWF that scares me.

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2015 1:05 pm

D. J. Hawkins – things can change ….. Australia and Canada were the stand-out bastions of sanity while the USA sank enthusiastically into carbon dioxide lunacy and self-destruction. Now Australia and Canada have turned and the world appears doomed unless someone like the NZ PM can firm up and punch way above his country’s weight. That’s not a pretty state for the world to be in. But, at the end of next year, one of the ultra insane-or-incompetent leaders gets removed from office, thank goodness, and there is then a distinct possibility that the USA will elect a republican (pleeeease not Trump) and start us all back on the path to sanity. Mind you, there is still the possibility that self-interest will prevail in Paris, ie, all the mealy-mouthed toadying wimps will still have enough spine to make yet more grand-sounding resolutions that don’t actually commit them to doing anything. (not a very satisfactory outcome as it still allows the propaganda to continue unabated, but a lot better than actual self-destruction). Anyone owning a hole in the ground suitable for storing CO2 might be well advised to sell it now while it still has a market value.

Reply to  Marcus
October 22, 2015 12:05 am

Peter K
You have that exactly correct. Butts is the man behind the throne and it is he that we should be worried about.
For those of us that we’re running companies in western Canada when Jistin’s dad was elected 35 years ago in 1980 and the billions that were lost due to the National Energy Policy that bankrupted many western companies to promote growth in the liberal stronghold in the east, hang on to your hat ’cause it looks like 1980 all over again. Alternative energy projects and carbon taxes will suck the life out of the country just like it did in the 80’s. Welcome to the Trudeau legacy. But it could have been much worse. Think “Mulcair” legacy.
“Forgive them for they know not what they do. “

Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 6:21 am

Apparently there is a push to get Trudeau to appoint Green Party member Elizabeth May as Minister of the Environment. Yikes!

Reply to  PaulH
October 21, 2015 2:02 pm

What appointment awaits Neil Young? Poet Laureate or Deputy Minister of the Environment? Or both.

Reply to  PaulH
October 21, 2015 3:23 pm

Boy oh boy Chris Moncton’s prediction in Sept 2014 sure was 100% right. The money poured into Canada to defeat Harper was astounding but thanks to the CBC and CTV ? Canadians never heard about that. The prediction that Abbott would be “back tabbed” is even more chilling.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 6:25 am

Yes, the Liberal party have won the comfy seats again. Expect to see such stupidities as carbon taxes and green energy initiatives in Canada. The biggest green initiative, of course, is green backs for liberal cronies.
BTW Canadian money comes in many colors.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 7:18 am

Loonies for the Loonies?

John Robertson
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 8:30 am

Yes but the most easily moved note the $20 is green.Brown bags for all.
And for sure the Liberals will sign us up, impose a carbon dioxide tax and manage to retain 95% of those funds as they “administer” saving the planet.
Wardheelers and bagmen will be enriched at the cost of whatever dummies up here who keep producing.
These parasites promised to protect the middle class, tax the rich(both carefully undefined), except the last time they held power we found out, anyone with an income(outside government) is considered to be rich.

Leo Geiger
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 9:04 am

Canada already has carbon taxes and various other green energy initiatives. The provincial governments put them in place to fill the federal void. In particular, the British Columbia’s carbon tax implemented in 2008 been successful and received broad public support. It is also revenue neutral.

Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.
The article from 2014 goes on:

Stephen Harper, the prime minister, remains unimpressed. In June, when fellow centre-right prime minister Tony Abbott of Australia arrived for a visit, the two leaders dismissed the carbon tax as an iffy hedge against climate change and a destroyer of jobs. But the BC experiment makes that line harder to sustain. “There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario, who co-authored the PICS report.

But things haven’t gone very well for Harper and Abbott.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 10:04 am

And then they will blame greedy businessmen, who ship our jobs overseas, when the businessmen respond to the higher taxes and move production elsewhere.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 1:03 pm

A carbon (dioxide) tax is the least worst option because the costs are easily identified and, although taxes are rarely repealed, they can be; on the other hand carbon (dioxide) trading establishes an artificial property right artificial government-controlled market and a vast dependent industry which would be politically impossible to be rid of.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 8:31 pm

I don’t think the carbon emissions permit property right issue is a valid argument. If the permits are valid for a stipulated period (presumably a financial year), then an ETS could be unravelled with, at most, a year’s prior notice. If people are silly enough to gamble on derivative markets on the side, that’s their problem, not that of the permit issuing authority. Sure it would take more political gumption to eliminate the permits, assuming the knowledge of such side markets, but I don’t think there would be a resulting liability for the government of the day.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Shijiazhuang
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 9:22 pm

Well said Chris Hanley.
The reason Goldmann Sachs promotes carbon trading is they speculate on it. Basically it is opening a huge international trading forum with no rules. All the banned activities such as levered and speculative derivatives, bundling of emissions projects, ratings, futures and so on will be allowed because there is no mechanism to prevent it. They will make a fortune and that fortune comes from somewhere. It is not like printing money, it is like taxing transactions at speculative and uncontrollable rates.

Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 8:37 am

It is quite clear that Canadians have rejected the notion that pipelines should not be built. For example the Simon Fraser University professor Lynne Quarmby who was involved in the Burnaby Mountain Kinder Morgan pipeline upgrade protests only received 5% of the vote.

Reply to  Perry
October 21, 2015 6:12 pm

Financial Post, Canada, Oct.20,2015
Scroll down to: Renewable Energy
Trudeau promises to commit ~ $6 billion in green spending over 4 years and ramping it up to ~ $20 billion in 10 years.
Posted some information under “Elizabeth and Sheldon Torquemada” article on who some of the parties are that are involved in climate change in Canada and their international ties.

Reply to  Barbara
October 21, 2015 8:02 pm

Chicago Climate Exchange Board included: Now closed.
Richard Sandor
Maurice Strong, Canada
Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC
Joseph Kennedy ll
Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Canada & now Lt. Governor of Ontario
+ others
Different group than Posted under “Torquemada”

Reply to  Barbara
October 21, 2015 8:53 pm

International Institute for New Economic Thinking/INET
Co-Founders include:
Jim Balsillie, Canada
George Soros
Advisory Board includes:
Ottmar Edenhoffer
Jeffrey D. Sachs

Reply to  Barbara
October 21, 2015 8:59 pm

Northland Power, Canada
Board of Directors includes:
John N. Turner, Former Prime Minister of Canada
Northland Power in the wind and solar business.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 21, 2015 6:19 am

Things are going to shytte very quickly prior to COP21. The Aussie is doing it under the table. Canada’s brand-spanking-new Far-left puppet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is promising to lead a delegation from Ottawa that will likely include another far left Provincial Premier, Rachel Notley, of oil-patch Alberta. I’m sure it’ll be with all the glitz and glamour of a sophomore frat house weekend, and just as wasted. Siome of the agenda will no doubt be loud proclamation of a death-grip on the Western Canadian petroleum sector.

Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 6:21 am

Turnbull is a back-stabbing not-Conservative. He hijacked the Australian Liberal party and is a warmista and socialist.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 6:51 am

There is also one of those running the country south of your border.

4 eyes
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 21, 2015 2:40 pm

Robert, A rich socialist.

October 21, 2015 6:47 am

Turnbull is not a real conservative. He’s what Americans know as a progressive liberal. It’s just that he is in the wrong political party… everyone knows that. He should really be a member of the opposition Labor Party… but had he been so, there was never any chance of him ever becoming its leader let alone becoming a Labor prime minister.
Typical of progressive liberals, Turnbull is bewitched by the IPCC mantra. He worked closely with Australia’s former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd back in 2009 on an emissions trading scheme they both believed Australia just had to have. That’s why Turnbull was replaced with conservative, Tony Abbott. Now that Turnbull is back in the driving seat, he will go down the green road. He doesn’t fool me.

Edmonton Al
Reply to  Mervyn
October 21, 2015 7:30 am

The same for Justin Trudeau. His father Pierre E. Trudeau was a socialist/Marxist of hi order and became a LINO [Liberal In Name Only] so that he had a chance of becoming Prime Minister, which he did. It was a the beginning of the end of responsible government.
Justin is far left and an immature, poorly educated nitwit. I think that his background was an assistant drama coach.

Reply to  Mervyn
October 21, 2015 9:34 pm

In his effort to create a Broad Church he runs the risk of breaking up the Coalition, but considering his popularity among Green and Labor voters (as illustrated in a recent poll) it may come to fruition before the next election.
Uncharted waters.

Reply to  Mervyn
October 23, 2015 1:29 pm

He’s another version of Al Gore, there to make a ton of money out of CO2 trading for either him or his wife Lucy

October 21, 2015 7:12 am

“So far Turnbull has declined to offer the Australian people an opportunity to vote their approval of this change in direction.”
Ruling by fiat, eh? Sounds like a certain president in America.
(oops – almost said American president)

John Robertson
October 21, 2015 8:41 am

Lord Monckton had mentioned the possibility of a push to topple both Abbott and Harper.
Well right or wrong they are both gone.
And here in Canada there is no chance that any of our official media will investigate the money flows that financed the haters up here.
The Canadian Media Guild, I believe thats what they style themselves, registered as active campaign opponents of our government.
Then they pretended to report the election.
That said 60% of our voters support the takers agenda.
As with Turnbull, the things politicians do are beyond contempt so we just ignore them until they hurt to much.
Possibly government is like a boil , grows under the skin for ages, causing minor discomfort,grows to be a major pain then has to be lanced.

Reply to  John Robertson
October 22, 2015 10:10 am

If money comes from foreign counties, an election can bought by foreign interests.

October 21, 2015 9:29 am

if anyone is under any misaprehension over Abbotts recent ‘demise’, see what Lord Monckton predicted in the following video…… seriously disturbing…..

Village Idiot
Reply to  Dave_G
October 21, 2015 12:50 pm

“….end of the Christian way of life..”
Yep….”seriously disturbing….”

Evan Jones
Reply to  Village Idiot
October 21, 2015 4:09 pm

As an atheist-agnostic, I tremble in fear at the thought of an “end of the Christian way of life.” Because of what would almost certainly replace it.
I’ve studied a lot of history, and I’ve heard all the moaning and groaning over the excesses of Christianity (and, yes, there were many excesses). But what if it had been the gentle druids instead? Does anyone imagine life would have been more humane? Think, “Lottery in June. Corn be heavy soon.”
Islam in the Mideast was, of course, far more humane and reasonable than Christianity for a number of centuries. But does that mean that Islam in the hands of Northern Europe would have been equally so? I don’t think so.
When we atheists dis Christianity, we bite the hand that feeds us. Do we atheists imagine that we are morally superior? No, I don’t have an “invisible friend”, but, speaking personally, I feel the lack. And furthermore I respect the ones that do. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

sysiphus /
Reply to  Village Idiot
October 21, 2015 7:35 pm

We agree on this point, evanmjones.

Reply to  Village Idiot
October 21, 2015 10:22 pm

“No, I don’t have an “invisible friend”, but, speaking personally, I feel the lack.”
Don’t be too sure. . I’m extremely glad I wasn’t . .
“For he that is not against us is on our part.
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.”
~You know Who

Mickey Reno
October 21, 2015 9:38 am

I dearly hope that a lot of alarmed, low-information voters will finally vote for common sense after their utility bills shoot skyward and for all that extra expense from “free” energy, are rewarded with blackouts and brownouts due to intermittent energy.
After Abbott and now Harper have lost their seats, it’s frustrating to see our utility money, still visible, but circling around a central vortex, too late to save it because the flush lever has already been tripped. Maybe now the only thing to do is to watch our money and treasure go down the sewer, till enough people realize how stupid we’re being, and vote differently from their new found positions of greater poverty. Of course, increased poverty doesn’t mean leftists will promise LESS government control, LESS government spending. Just look at the recent Democrat debate. They ALL wanted to give away even more free stuff, when our US government faces huge entitlement budget deficits. They all want us to pay MORE for electricity, to travel, for food, and this they pretend is a boost to our economy. What a bunch of brainless numpties (h/t Alan Richardson, above, who I shamelessly mimic).

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 21, 2015 9:40 am

(sorry, Alan Robertson, not Alan Richardson, is the previous poster)

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 21, 2015 9:51 am

After Abbott and now Harper have lost their seats

Just to clarify, Harper retained his seat. He just will not be Prime Minister any more. And by the looks of it, there will be a leadership review for the conservatives.
It is worth noting that even though Justin Trudeau is much greener than Harper was, he is nevertheless in support of the Keystone pipeline.

sysiphus /
Reply to  Werner Brozek
October 21, 2015 10:19 am

But not the oil sands. I know, it doesn’t make sense to me either.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Werner Brozek
October 21, 2015 1:37 pm

But not the oil sands.

You cannot have one without the other. Here is how Graham Thomson puts it:
“The good news for her and for Alberta is that she and prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau see eye to eye on important issues such as the need to get more pipelines built, while also doing more to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and consult with First Nations.”

Evan Jones
Reply to  Werner Brozek
October 21, 2015 4:17 pm

He just will not be Prime Minister any more.
Hey-Hey! Ho-ho!

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 21, 2015 10:08 am

That depends on whether the voters make the connection between higher energy prices and the new green taxes.
Here in the US the leftists have done an excellent job in teaching the low information voters to blame the evil oil and utility companies any time prices rise.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 21, 2015 3:03 pm

Harper did not lose his seat, he received 63% of the vote in hid riding.

Don G
October 21, 2015 9:45 am

We should stop using the term ‘warmist’, because it is ambiguous. There are 3 positions on climate change:
1) IPCC position (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming).
2) Denier (zero anthropogenic climate influence)
3) realist (mostly natural, nothing alarming).
The consensus truly is for position #3, but the jumble of terms and dogma hides that. Historically the debate was #1 (alarmist) vs. anti #1 (skeptic). We should consistently use precise terms like “alarmist”, “realist”, and “denier” to properly frame the debate.

Reply to  Don G
October 21, 2015 11:29 am

From the beginning I’ve been a critic. The science is so bad, so flawed, and it looks like fraud that simply being a denier or realist isn’t enough. They used a couple of warm years in the US during the last el nino to push the CAGW agenda. Remember the headlines Winters last hurrah… in January? Then they started naming snowstorms…

Evan Jones
Reply to  Don G
October 21, 2015 4:19 pm

Does “mostly anthropogenic, but nothing even vaguely alarming” get a separate category?

Charles Nelson
October 21, 2015 10:23 am

Abbott was trying to cut back on debt and wastage on climate alarmism. The media hated him.
Turnbull is borrowing like hell and ramping up the wastage on climate alarmism. The media love him.
Turnbull was chairman of Goldman Sachs. Go figure.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
October 23, 2015 1:46 pm

The press hated Abbott for several reasons
1) He was an ex Journalist and knew exactly how they operate. He was disliked because he wasn’t “one of the boys” while he was a journalist. Anything he did that was a bit out of the ordinary was blown up out of all proportion eg skulling a beer at a pub
2) He was seen as basically a good person (He was a volunteer Firefighter and a Surf Lifesaver and also a very physically fit person) by most of his supporters
3) He was a practicing christian and held strongly to his beliefs. He supported his friends which ultimately lead to his downfall.
4) He was once a member of the Labor party at University, but decided he didn’t like how the Unions influenced policy within the Labor party and left. Most journalists I know are staunch members of Unions. I would have thought that educated people would understand how corrupt unionism is, but I guess its like religion, you only believe what you want to believe.

Reply to  Aussie
October 25, 2015 3:53 pm

Re point 3. Abbott was a practicing Roman Catholic with close affiliations to a corrupt archbishop who assisted during his campaign for PM and who he allowed to flee to Rome in return. Hardly proper Christian behaviour.

October 21, 2015 11:27 am

Agenda 21 is alive and well. How the sheeple can be so blind is beyond me.

Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 11:40 am

Australian politics is a remote mystery, being impossible to comprehend why they would return to a Gillard without a skirt.

John Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 21, 2015 12:01 pm

Sorry Alan but how is that any different to the Canadian mystery, of returning to a Trudeau without a clue?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  John Robertson
October 21, 2015 12:37 pm

Well John, the thread was about Australian politics, so thought I’d go there, but explanations for any of this are beyond my pay grade. With the politics in ostensibly free western nations being as it is, and with recent musings from POTUS and heir- designate (only by hook and crook) Hillary Clinton both making statements recently about employing presidential edicts to force a mandatory gov’t “buy back” program of civilian firearms, Lord Monckton may be right; that mankind’s short- lived grasp on freedom from tyranny may be about to end. There is no lack of speculation in certain quarters, that the US might not have a 2016 election, that the internationalist usurpers of power have stuck their fingers in the wind and have judged conditions favorable to set the fire…

Reply to  John Robertson
October 22, 2015 12:39 am

Australian politics? Surely you mean Australian political Pantomime that we have been subjected to since lovvy dovvy kevvywevvydonttouchmyhair747 took us from politics to pantomime in 2007?

Village Idiot
October 21, 2015 12:42 pm

So, no more government hand-outs for Bjørn Lomborg. He’ll have to get a proper job like most of the rest of us

Evan Jones
Reply to  Village Idiot
October 21, 2015 4:24 pm

I wasn’t aware he was unemployed.
Quip: When FDR cranks out an old joke.
One Liner: When Ronald Regan makes the same joke.
Grant: Money given by government in a cause with which you agree.
Handout: Money given by government in a cause with which you do not agree.

Reply to  Village Idiot
October 22, 2015 12:21 am

To be replaced by gubmint handouts to the likes of Flannery. Where have you been Idiot?

October 21, 2015 2:01 pm

Turnbull is a strong believer that man can change the temperature (Climate) of the atmosphere to create weather changes. Here’s the last thing he gave the Australian people
This needs to be addressed in a court of law. Was this running weeks before, to fill southeast Queensland Dams.

Reply to  jmorpuss
October 21, 2015 5:04 pm

“Turnbull is a strong believer that man can change the temperature”
Wrong! Turnbull is a strong believer in the money to be made by from trading in hot air. His only loyalty is to himself and Goldman Sachs. He will impose an ETS by hook or by crook.

Reply to  nipfan
October 22, 2015 12:29 am

Spot on! And anyone with the slightest sense, and background knowledge of Turncoat, sees and recognises this.

Reply to  nipfan
October 22, 2015 12:42 am

And I repeat he is not nicknamed “Turncoat” for nothing!

October 21, 2015 2:33 pm

Turnbull, darling of the mad Left, has also reversed Abbott’s opposition to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which dreams up new ways of wasting taxpayers’ money to make no difference to climate.
Furthermore, Turnbull and his fellow swampies have heaped fulsome praise on the ABC’s chairman Mark Scott who has nurtured the hysterically alarmist and partisan groupthink at that debauched broadcast toilet. Reading the latest on the “independent” investigation of the ABC’s alleged bias is at least good for a laugh.

Bob in Castlemaine
Reply to  Graham
October 21, 2015 4:59 pm

Andrew Bolt has also helped out with an interesting list of Australia’s latest unelected PM Malcolm “Labor Lite” Turnbull’s fairly predictable lurches to the left to date.
First his lurches to the Left:

– giving in on Lomborg’s Centre, opposed by warming extremists.
– dropping support for amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act that would allow more free speech.
– softening the Government’s opposition to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which invests public money to make no difference to global warming.
– softening the cuts to middle-class welfare.
– raising discussions on increases taxes on superannuation.
– running for a seat on the discredited United Nations Human Rights Council.
– praising the partisan leadership of ABC chairman Mark Scott.
– initially describing the Islamist murder of Curtis Cheng as “politically motivated”, not religiously.
– signalling that the 12,000 refugees to be taken from Iraq and Syria may not be predominantly Christians, after all.
Against that:
– Flagging changes that loosen the grip of union-backed superannuation funds on workers’ savings
– Agreeing to demands from the Nationals to retain the Abbott Government’s policies on emissions target and a gay-marriage plebiscite.

October 21, 2015 2:34 pm

I certainly hope Turnbull is cleaning the stables. The build up of manure started in John Howard’s time when he set up a Joint Venture between our CSIRO and BoM as the “flagship office” on Climate Change. All the while there was an Australian Chief Scientist who prevaricates and failed to give good advice. Abbott took his lead from his mate Cardinal Pell and was too loyal to the Pope whose opinions are now out there.
Currently Turnbull is playing it a bit close to his chest and leaving Minister Hunt to carry the ball to the Paris party. Our local MP has throughout stayed on the fence to avoid the trogdolyte label and advises he is happy with the Party plan for Paris whatever that plan may be.
There are more stalls in the stables to be mucked out yet. Go you good thing! Get this one right and with Shonky Bill Shorten digging his own grave you will be a shoo-in at the next election.

Reply to  grumpyoldman22
October 21, 2015 5:08 pm

Turnbull, as Environment Minister, was driving John Howard reluctantly towards action on “global warming”. He also has the distinction of being the person who banned incandescent light bulbs in Australia.
What an achievement!

Reply to  nipfan
October 21, 2015 5:36 pm

And someone in the know got the big lighting manufacturers to replace incandescent lamps with the CFL that we know did not live up to the green mark. Philips spent over a billion on that one only to wake up and sp[end another billion on the LED replacement therapy. Like most of the other money-driven technologies that global warming and climate change has spawned, all have cost users dearly. I agree however that incandescent lamps, like candles, are inefficient combination heating and lighting devices and we really only want one or the other.
Would have been a few windfalls there for the ones in the know. Every post-war PM in Australia has left office a millionaire, goes with the job. Turnbull is just ahead of the pack for now.

Reply to  nipfan
October 21, 2015 6:07 pm

grumpy, I was being sarcastic. It was an achievement only for statist autocracy – Turnbull’s natural environment.

October 21, 2015 2:52 pm

The climate-BORG has taken over 2 more countries recently, Australia and Canada. What is left is the US Congress and House of representatives.
Dark times indeed.

October 21, 2015 3:06 pm

Establishment Republicans are also edging their way back to the center, with the “I’m not a scientist” line. And China and India have moved as well. As a political force, climate skepticism is pretty much dead. But, hey, there’s always Putin.

Reply to  John
October 22, 2015 3:08 pm

” climate skepticism is pretty much dead.”
It seemed so in 2008 when even the Republican candidate wanted ‘cap-n-trade’ boondoggles, but then 2009 was a dud.
On the other hand, another 7 years of not-much-warming has virtually destroyed the actual scientific basis for alarmism. The case for alarmism is weaker than ever.

Geoffrey Preece
October 21, 2015 3:37 pm

The “Climate change” in your original quote that is the premise of this discussion is an invention, is a lie, of the author. The proposed centre was a consensus centre according to the proponents. It was not a policy of Tony Abbott, it was a bunch of government money being spent on a think tank.

Dr T G Watkins
October 21, 2015 4:25 pm

Check out the Goldman-Sachs connections – see Tallbloke’s Talkshop blog. Scary.

Steve from Rockwood
October 21, 2015 5:04 pm

I know this is an Australian story so I would be interested to know whether electricity and resources are controlled at the federal or state (territory?) level.
In Canada the power generators are provincial as are the resources (ownership wise). The federal government would have a tough time implementing a carbon tax other than “if you (the province) won’t then we (the federal) will.
This would ultimately limit what Justin Trudeau could implement.
Not sure how it works in the US either. Can the President realistically dictate a carbon tax to every state?

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 21, 2015 6:18 pm

The U.S. president has no authority to levy federal taxes but the Congress has the authority. All tax legislation must originate in the U.S. House of Representatives which in turn stands for re-election every two years.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 22, 2015 3:10 pm

The better question is ‘Can the President LEGALLY dictate carbon usage to every state?’
That is exactly what the EPA is trying to do, and it is very far outside the bounds of the real authority of the President or his agencies under the Clean Air Act. But mere laws are just ‘bumps in the road’ for Obama.
A carbon tax OTOH could be done federally, just get it through Congress. Thanks to a GOP Congress, it wont happen anytime soon.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
October 22, 2015 6:06 pm

Resources are owned by the States, who levy royalties. The Feds have many lawyers and 115 years’ practice overriding State rights.

Reply to  Andrew
October 22, 2015 8:35 pm

Unfortunately leaving things to the States allowed the iniquitous daily price slot system in to the Market 15-16 years ago. The one designed by Enron Economics Inc where every one is a winner if suppliers can price gouge and consumers still get savings. I attended seminars on the scheme run by the Snowy Mountains Hydro Authority and came away wondering if or how anybody could be conned into accepting such a scam. Clearly remember one Power Engineer gushing over such an elegant pricing scheme.

Anders Otte
October 21, 2015 6:41 pm

In a way it’s good Lomborg has been kicked from this job.
He isn’t really anti AGW, he’s mostly just criticising the measures taken for being inadequate or too expensive.
His education is in political science and statistics. Not in anything related to climate.
Basically he’s always just saying that we have to think it through before we spend money fighting AGW.
Denmark has more relevant AGW critics like Henrik Svensmark !
It’s sad losing Abbott, but it’s good losing Lomborg !

John in Oz
October 21, 2015 7:08 pm

For the background on Turnbull, see
A Labor wolf in Liberal sheep’s clothing

October 21, 2015 10:09 pm

I have been saying this would happen soon after the 2013 election and when pool results started to turn negative for Abbott as Turnbull was waiting in the wings just biding his time. Abbott and the LNP took their climate change policies to the voting public, and won. No-one voted for Turnbull’s (Read McQuarrie Bank and Goldman Sachs) change policies and we’re told, apparently, Australia is a democracy.
The LNP will lose in 2016 to be replaced with another ALP/Green coalition pantomime to take over. Watch Turnbull’s poll rating plummet after COP21 when nothing is agreed (Again).

October 21, 2015 10:47 pm

He’s a red in blue clothing.

October 22, 2015 12:19 am

Since when has a chaotic global system, been stable?
Since aCO2 driven climate change of course. I didn’t check for the “M” word…but I am sure there would be many!

October 22, 2015 8:23 am

“Is Aussie PM Turnbull quietly dismantling Abbott’s Climate Legacy?”
He probably is but he had this to say in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s accusation that allowing the people to vote on a plebiscite to change the definition of marriage like Ireland would unleash nasty homophobia-
“I am very disappointed at his lack of faith in the Australian people. He thinks so little of the people of this country that he does not believe we are capable of having a civil debate on a matter of this importance. He is so frightened of public debate that he wants to shut the people out…
I have great faith in the decency and the common sense, in the humanity, in the wisdom of the Australian people and if there are unruly voices heard, they will be drowned out by the common sense and the respect and the general humanity of our people….
When the Australian people make their decision, that decision will stick. It will be decisive. It will be respected by this government and by this parliament and this nation.”
To which many of us digusted by the previous Govt’s Section 18C of the Racial and Religious Discrimination Act whereby it makes it an offense to ‘insult’ or ‘offend’ someone on such vague grounds, want to know just when he will repeal it and trust us all again with the absolute right of freedom of speech. What sayeth our new Messiah to that after such fine and lofty words to the Opposition Leader?
I’m offended and insulted being called a CAGW denier so can I have the caller prosecuted? Yeah right! Some insults and offence are more equal than others naturally and unlike the US there is no Constitutional protection against the vagaries of the State as to what’s insulting and offensive.

Gerry, England
October 22, 2015 11:53 am

There can be no such thing as democracy until right of recall is introduced so that politicians who lie and cheat – I know, doesn’t narrow it down much – can be held to account by the electorate. If Turnbull breaks his election promises then he should have to stand up in front of the electorate and explain why. There needs to be a system where it is the individual on trial so that the only way to remove them isn’t just to vote for the other party. That would be the problem of getting Turnbull to call a new election – chucking him out means bringing in the left. No different here between red labour and blue labour and no conservative party.

Reply to  Gerry, England
October 22, 2015 3:21 pm

I agree Gerry. Politicians should be accountable in real time. There is a push getting up again to increase life of parliament to 4 years and 4 years is much too long a gap to let politicians get away with their deceptions. It gives the electorate time to forgive and forget their stupidity.

Reply to  grumpyoldman22
October 22, 2015 10:26 pm

On a parallel tack I reckon the ALP is regretting Shorten’s recent moves that gave him tenure in the shadow PM job. He’ll be in gaol before he makes PM now.
At least if Turnbull turns out to be a red wolf in sheep’s clothing his party will have no trouble kicking him out. They will have trouble finding a good replacement. Hopefully Turnbull has more sense than to pursue many of his former tenets and public statements and gets his feet back under the conservative table.

October 22, 2015 6:03 pm

Offloading Lomborg is a symbolic gesture (except if you ARE Lomborg). If that was the worst thing Lord Malcolm does, I will breathe a big sigh of relief. It won’t be.

October 23, 2015 12:40 pm

More blocks falling in place, eh? In the space of a week, both Canada and Australia have removed their AGW-sceptic prime ministers, by fair means or foul, just before COP21. There’s even a small but strongest-evah hurricane about to hit Puerto Vallarta in Mexico, plus what I’m sure they’re already labelling The MegaNino. I’m sure the words of Pielke Jnr will be ignored in the next week and all the way to Paris.

October 23, 2015 3:49 pm

Many commenters on WUWT lament that on a particular topic the scientist or commenter involved has failed to do his/her homework on the topic. This comment string about Lomberg is an almost perfect case in point. It deals with Lomberg’s consensus centre which it incorrectly describes as a ‘Climate Consensus Centre’ The term ‘Climate Consensus Centre’ is nonsense.
Wiki tells us that Lomberg’s consensus centre is the ‘Copenhagen Consensus Centre’ as follows:-
“Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics, using cost–benefit analysis. It was conceived[1] and organized by Bjørn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and the then director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute. The project is run by the Copenhagen Consensus Center,[2] which is directed by Lomborg and was part of the Copenhagen Business School, but it is now an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation registered in the USA. The project considers possible solutions to a wide range of problems, presented by experts in each field. These are evaluated and ranked by a panel of economists. The emphasis is on rational prioritization by economic analysis. The panel is given an arbitrary budget constraint and instructed to use cost–benefit analysis to focus on a bottom line approach in solving/ranking presented problems. The approach is justified as a corrective to standard practice in international development, where, it is alleged, media attention and the “court of public opinion” results in priorities that are often far from optimal.”
It is always painful for fantasists to have a fantasy contaminated by facts but here goes:
1. Lomberg is a strong believer in the phenomenon known as ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’. He almost as strongly believes that it is not nearly as serious a global problem as many other global problems. He has arrived at this view through his knowledge of the range of global issues which require attention and the application of benefit/cost analysis. I for one agree with him.
2. A flavour of the Lomberg approach comes from his third International consensus which involved
“gathering economists to analyze the costs and benefits of different approaches to tackling the world‘s biggest problems. The aim was to provide an answer to the question: If you had $75bn for worthwhile causes, where should you start? A panel including four Nobel laureates met in Copenhagen, Denmark, in May 2012. The panel’s deliberations were informed by thirty new economic research papers that were written just for the project by scholars from around the world.”
10 challenges (thought to be capable of economic solution) were identified –
Armed conflict
Chronic Disease
Climate Change
Hunger and Malnutrition
Infectious Disease
Natural Disasters
Population Growth
Water and Sanitation
‘Corruption’ and ‘Trade Practices’ were also researched but considered to be capable of
political solution rather than by economics.
3. Lomberg apparently conceived the idea of extending his network of Copenhagen Consensus Centres to Australia – an idea with which I wholly concur.
4. The Abbot government offered a $ 4.0 Mill AUD grant to any University which would find a home for such a centre. Another idea with which I wholly concur.
5. The University of Western Australia (the former academic home of Lewandowsky) accepted the dosh.
6. In an outburst of madness prompted by the Guild of undergraduates the academic staff of UWA objected overwhelmingly to the University administrators about accepting the dosh thus allowing the malevolent introduction of the rational analysis of Lomberg to their campus. UWA gave the dosh back to the gov’ment.
7. Flinders University in South Australia then gave serious consideration to accepting the gov’ment money to set up a Lomberg Consensus Centre. Like proverbial addle brained sheep the Flinders academic community promptly repeated the madness of the UWA academic community. An excerpt from their letter to the University administration demonstrates the Flinders version of the nonsense:
” We, the below signatories, object to controversial Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg being offered $4 million to set the Australian Consensus Centre at Flinders University. We are students, teachers, academics, alumni, and the general public. We are concerned that Flinders would consider such a reputationally risky and academically damaging appointment.”
8. Faced with this further example of collective academic stupidity the Australian gov’ment has sensibly withdrawn the offer of support for a Lomberg Consensus Centre in Australia.
Speaking as a lifelong supporter of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) may I say that I am pleased that the liberal and economically adroit Turnbull successfully rolled the economically illiterate Abbot (which led to the resignation from Parliament of the hopeless former Treasurer – Joe Hockey). The USA may shortly enjoy the services of Hockey as the our Australian Ambassador. He will be a pale shadow of our current Ambassador Kim Beasley (a former leader of the ALP) who is about to finish his term. Meanwhile the hopeless Bill Shorten, the current leader of the ALP, will be no match for Turnbull.
Turnbull is likely to reign for as long as he pleases. That will be a good thing for Australia following the dud (ALP) Prime Ministerships of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd. It will also ensure that Shorten never becomes Prime Minister.

October 23, 2015 8:17 pm

Turnbull is reasonably good looking, but I don’t trust him one bit. Look into his face, he drops his eyes a lot. 4 million for Bjorn is nothing. But with UWA refusing his attendance was not surprising. I had a letter from Chris Pyne who said some months ago they were finding another venue. Tough love to keep the warmists alive and well, eh?

John Brookes
October 24, 2015 6:26 am

Abbott, like Harper, was a complete waste of space. It would be almost impossible for Turnbull to not improve. I’m not on his side of politics, but since Abbott’s demise, the mood in Australia is greatly improved. Turnbull is hostage to the right wing of his party (i.e. the climate change denialists). But I think he will outwit them soon.

Reply to  John Brookes
October 25, 2015 9:43 pm

John Brookes, could you tell me what it is that climate change denialists go about denying? There are not too many right wingers in Turnbull’s party who have ever denied climate is changing, has changed and will continue to change. There are a few who argue that global warming is not caused by man. But they are politicians. What would they know?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights