Climategate: Five Aussie MPs Lead the Way by Resigning in Disgust over Carbon Tax

Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy

-–just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

5 Responses to “Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax”

  1. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust … | Australia Today says:November 27, 2009 at 11:13 am[…] Read more from the original source: Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust … […]
  2. Nick Mabbs says:November 27, 2009 at 4:48 pmWill you be joining Nigel Lawson, Prof Ian Pilmer, Prof Richard Lindzen (and me) etc
    on the GWPF ? You seem to be in-tune with their call for a ‘re-count’ on the true facts of AGW
    rather than on the massaged data and guesswork we have had so far.
    The entire electorate of the UK must ask their politicians what their
    revised viewpoint is on Global Warming post Climategate/KiwiClimategate
    They may not have an answer ready, because no one will have told them what to say yet,
    but if enough of their electorate e-mail them they may just get the point that we have been lied
    to far too often on this subject and it’s time one or more of the spineless spongers stood up
    and earned our money; and maybe some respect too !The Science is currently very unsettling. The fact that Al Gore nearly became US President
    is even more unsettling.

    Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [anthropogenic global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.”

  3. Chris Vere says:November 27, 2009 at 7:01 pmReminds me of the ‘fart tax’ that was propsed in New Zealand a couple of years ago. A plan by the then Labour government to excessively tax meat and dairy producers for the byproduct of their produce; methane. In a very Australian-like demonstration an MP drove a tractor up the steps of parliament. The laughable tax was blown out of the window. I must say though, the Aussies could have protested with a little more gusto.
  4. Aqua Fyre says:November 28, 2009 at 6:48 amTo think, that the Australian Labor Party would so willingly abandon its principles of “a fair go for working families” in order to support an international clique of Fraudulent scientists and IPCC hucksters is beyond the pale.They are gleeful over the current Liberal Party (conservatives) tearing itself apart over the ETS scheme; but what they don’t realize, is that it will be the Labor party that will be shaken to its very foundations in the next election if it stays its course on Carbon Trade.

    Rudd & his Ecofascist elite, are seemingly oblivious to the very deep and palpable hatred that is growing in the hearts & minds of Australians from every walk of life. Outside of the cozy cocoon called Canberra (the home of Australian Federal government) there is a growing sea~change afoot and if the current Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd thinks that the Australian people will take this Carbon Trade ETS lying down, then he has another thing coming to him. They now know that every family will be forced to pay over $1500 to the United Nations. They now know, that electricity, water, gas, & petrol prices will jump anywhere between 10% to 20% per year, alongside this new Carbon Tax grab.

    Already, a poll set up on Yahoo shows that if there were an election today, the Labor Party along with their Carbon Tax scheme, would be swept out of office.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup/-/poll_id/50265

    As of today, the Liberals would hold a combined 54% of the vote (with other liberals & nationals) : while the Labor party would barely hold onto 36% (including Greens).

    In anyone’s language, that would be a landslide.

    Little wonder Prime Minister Rudd has backed down on bringing on an election over this issue.

    He is terrified of the fallout.

  5. Con Michael says:January 16, 2010 at 1:26 amThe rigors of scientific discipline demand,inter alia,that a hypothesis or theory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.If something happens that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.In recent decades,global cooling occurred during and after a period of increasing CO2 emissions.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.End of story;game over;the AGW alarmists lose.Interestingly enough,the present widespread freezing temperatures have been deemed to be evidence of global warming.The MSM have not responded to this nonsense.There are encouraging signs that the public has had enough of the lies,cheating,filibuster and obfuscation.

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot Too Chicken to Debate ‘Global Warming’ with an Expert?

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?

A couple of weeks ago, you may have seen, I wrote a piece in the Spectator which drove the  global warming alarmists almost insane with frothing indignation. It was an interview with the Aussie geology professor Ian Plimer whose bestselling book – Heaven and Earth – is being hailed as the great turning point in the debate on anthropogenic global warming.

Methodically, rigorously and above all scientifically, it carefully demonstrates to the lay reader truths that to large swathes of the scientific community are  already quite obvious: viz that “climate change” has been happening for 4,567 million years, regardless of man’s presence on earth; and that “climate” will go on changing regardless of what idiotic, ineffectively and mind-boggling expensive ploys man adopts to try to stop what is in fact a perfectly natural process.

Enough detail: read the piece; then read the book; then make up your own mind.

The climate change alarmists, though, do not even want you to do that. What they’d much rather you did was go onto the internet, find a page of nit-picking quibbles put up by a parti-pris computer modeller from the “man is doomed,  it’s all our fault and we must spend gazillions on windmills now” brigade, write Professor Plimer off as a complete crank.

It’s what they do to Christopher Booker; its what they do to Professor Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia; its what they do to Marc Morano at the marvellous Climate Depot website; it’s what they do to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who exposed the “Hockey-Stick curve”; it’s what they to do anyone who produces inconvenient truths which undermine their cause and threaten their claim that there is any kind of scientific “consensus” on climate change.

It’s a classic ploy of eco-fascists and libtards alike: if the facts are against them – as they usually are – they’ll always try to shut down the debate by taking the argument ad hominem instead.

The response of the Guardian’s resident eco-moonbat George Monbiot was a case in point. He sputtered that I knew about as much about the environment as he knew about F1 racing; and wrote a huffy piece effectively saying that Plimer too far beyond the scientific pale to be taken seriously.

Plimer’s response? To offer to fly from his native Australia at his own expense and publicly debate with Monbiot at the time of his choosing. The event would be conducted under the auspices of the Spectator and would, I’m sure, be informative, exciting and sublimely entertaining.

I say “would” because I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. Here is George Monbiot’s response to the challenge:

“Sir, Ian Plimer challenges me to debate his claims about climate change. I accept.

In fact I accepted a fortnight ago, when I began this debate by taking him to task. Along with other critics, I have laid out a list of specific errors of fact and misrepresentations, which he uses to support his argument.

The ball is now in his court. To participate in this debate, he should answer the points I listed, as well as the other issues raised by Tim Lambert, Ian Enting and David Karoly. Then we can reply.

But Plimer, as far as I can discover, has yet to produce any specific response to the very serious allegations made by his critics, preferring to heap insults on them instead.

These are all scientific matters, some of which are complex. To engage in this debate, we need to establish the facts and provide references. This is why it is better to debate these issues in writing; ideally, as Plimer’s critics have done, in electronic format, so that people can follow the links. Attempting to resolve these issues in person is likely either to become extremely boring or to degenerate into a slanging match. The Guardian’s website is open to him, and we look forward to his responses. Is he up to this, or will he keep ducking our challenge?

The floor is his.

George Monbiot”

Now does that read to you like the letter of a man who is happy to venture his reputation in the cut and thrust of open debate?

Or does it read like the squirmy, weaselly get-out of a no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast loser quite terrified of having the massive holes in his puny argument mercilessly exposed in public by a proper scientist who actually knows his subject inside out?

Plimer, meanwhile, has imposed no conditions on the debate. All he asks is that it be conducted in public and that Monbiot turns up.

The ball’s in your court Monbiot and let’s have no more of that legalistic wriggling. Are you up for this debate?

Or are you – as I strongly suspect – going to bottle it?

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  3. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil