Tony Abbott denies climate change and advocates carbon tax in the same breath

Posted on 7 June 2011 by John Cook

On Sunday, Megan Evans pointed me towards a 2009 interview with Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott. It's 13 minutes long but what grabbed my attention was an answer towards the end where Abbott throws out a few climate denier myths then seamlessly transitions into arguing that a carbon tax is the best way to put a price on carbon. Yesterday morning, I uploaded the one minute answer onto YouTube:



Later that day, Aussie climate scientist Matthew England passed the YouTube clip onto Tony Jones, host of the popular and influential ABC television show Q&A. And sure enough, last night, the clip was featured on Q&A. You can watch the whole episode here (the clip airs at around the 34 minute mark).

The clip began appearing in the media today. The Sydney Morning Herald led with Abbott dogged by old carbon comment (a Channel Ten clip is embedded on the SMH article). The Australian labelled it the Abbott Carbon Debacle. Abbott was forced to defend his words as were Abbott's fellow MPs George Brandis and Christopher Pyne. Channel Ten's 7pm Project covered it tonight.

The media focus was understandably on the fact that Abbott was advocating a carbon tax as the best form of putting a price on carbon, while he currently describes it as a "toxic tax". But I must confess (which should surprise noone here), I was quite interested in his climate denial myths. In just a few sentences, he managed to hit "the science isn't settled", "it's cooling", "it hasn't warmed since 1998" and "there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature". Now that's some concentrated myth making!

As a climate denier, Tony Abbott is most famous for his statement that climate science is "absolute crap". However, that's just the tip of the iceberg - he actually has a long history of denying climate change science. Skeptical Science have been steadily extending our database of climate myth quotes beyond just U.S. politicians and here is what we have so far from Tony Abbott.

Just for reminders cause i know ya'll have seen it of course. ;).Watch Tony telling more lies here..The youtube he wishes would go away..  ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPpQisoZqx4&feature=player_embedded

Read  a list of Tony Abbotts lies and myths about climate change..Be informed NOT lectured by corporate owned mouth pieces aka Alan Jones. Tell tony to come up with some real policies NOT just his constant running around the countryside like a manic egomaniac on speed telling LIES to vulnerable Australians!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

We love you Julia!!! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 12:10am:

We love you Julia!!! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

Now here is someone in denial who has no grip on reality whatsoever.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 7:32am:

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 12:10am:       We love you Julia!!! :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* Now here is someone in denial who has no grip on reality whatsoever.

OMG, I know, how could anyone take this person seriously and the clip in question has been done a few times and been found wanting.

The clip has been bunked atleast twice that I know of.

I agree with Truck Stop Tony Abbott..a simple carbon tax is the best way to combat carbon pollution  :D

It's all too hard for them huh. ;)

They can't even admit their demi god Abbott/Murdoch is a lying swine. :o

Here is a very important point.  An industrial  road we will not go down under a Liberal Government because of the faceless men behind the liberal party. Ofarrell has just killed solar and now wind farms...so thats open proof for what the liberals stand for and what a shame.

Mr Beattie warned Australia risks being left behind as the global economy shifts towards renewable energy

"I know most Queenslanders don't support it, but if we don't do this we are going to be left behind," he said.

"If we don't do the necessary research in a whole series of key areas, particularly in energy, we are going to be left behind.

"Biofuels and alternative energies, solar, geothermal; they're going to be significant drivers of the world economy by 2020 and the major driver by 2030."


so, get your kids ready to work for peanuts in the mines as there will be no other work-force soon.

People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost.
How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme.
I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne.

Australia didn't discover mines, they didn't even discover electricity. We have done well though. How is that, when you have garbage about having to be on the forefront of new energy.

~ if they show a little common sense ~

AND there lays the problem adelcrow , its easier to vote Liberal than to have any commonsense. and we all know the easy way is the best way.

wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 3:08pm:

~ if they show a little common sense ~ AND there lays the problem adelcrow , its easier to vote Liberal than to have any commonsense. and we all know the easy way is the best way.

27%  NUM NUTS ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

SPOT ON!!

Australians throughout the country need to WAKE UP to Tony Abbott and his useless archaic no idea policies that will destroy our country and only make his rich mining buddies richer.

He will let public education fall to an all time low grade waste land and send all of our young uneducated men to the mines. See the pattern?

How stupid are these Abbott sycophants?

What is their problem? Why are they supporting the billionaire mates of tony Abbott and Alan Jones?

Media..the tool of the devil.

Media..Murdoch the american criminal nightmare.

Watch out all you young Howard battlers..Abbott has your life already planned for you after he takes your 'stupid' vote he'll kick your guts and send you down the mine shaft while he sips champagne with Rupert and Alan.

VOMIT! >:(

adelcrow wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 3:05pm:

People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost. How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme. I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne.

No actually you CAN'T 'tell' them that.....you only THINK it is so....

There is NO, repeat NO, historical experience that will justify that idea....
You're basing that idea on the belief that the current climate change IS manmade.....if it isn't, then the 'cost of doing nothing' is.......nothing.

Abbott seems to hold every possible position on the important issue. The idea that he actually supprots a tax has come up many times before. Then it seems to disappear into the ther again.

For example:

Coalition has their own carbon tax?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305806618/0

I predicted a while back that the coalition might go into the next election as the only party with a tax as the core of their policy. Both Labor and the Greens currently plan to ditch the tax.

Meantime...

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/09/02/elsewhere-the-guardian-excoriates-the-australian-media/


Quote:

The Guardian excoriates the Australian media on climate September 2, 2011 – 12:00 pm, by Jeremy Sear Australia’s climate scientists expose shock-jock distortion tactics    Academics catalogue the deluge of spin and misinformation of climate science by various Murdoch-owned papers    …The resultant “debate” about the carbon tax has turned into a fact-free brawl that is sufficiently devoid of ethics to make football hooligans blush. Segments of the media, alas, do not blush…    In response to all this, and in the absence of politicians with sufficient courage to take on the hate-mongers, some Australian academics have started to provide a platform for accountability by shining a light on the media’s practices. Stephan Lewandowsky at The Guardian.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 3:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:05pm: People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost. How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme. I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne. No actually you CAN'T 'tell' them that.....you only THINK it is so.... There is NO, repeat NO, historical experience that will justify that idea.... You're basing that idea on the belief that the current climate change IS manmade.....if it isn't, then the 'cost of doing nothing' is.......nothing.

So we have to wait until it's history to be able to make your style of old fashion judgement?

Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science.

Quote:

Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science

By azulene


Oh I see so you climate change zealots have such an understanding of science that you lot feel compelled THAT BIG BROTHER CAN TELL US WHAT TO DO ALL OF A SUDDEN, DICTATE HOW GUILTY WE SHOULD FEEL ABOUT IT AND BE PUNISHED WITH A TAX THAT WILL DO NOTHING


Typical lefties, No wonder the majority of australians depise your guts over this issue, ;D ;D ;D ;D

azulene wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 1:46am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:05pm: People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost. How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme. I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne. No actually you CAN'T 'tell' them that.....you only THINK it is so.... There is NO, repeat NO, historical experience that will justify that idea.... You're basing that idea on the belief that the current climate change IS manmade.....if it isn't, then the 'cost of doing nothing' is.......nothing. So we have to wait until it's history to be able to make your style of old fashion judgement? Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science.

Yes that's about it....After all, there's no way to tell YET if there are natural balances that control the upper limit on temperatures vs Co2 levels, or even if it's only Co2 that controls temps...Maybe Henrik Svensmark is right after all....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 8:14am:

azulene wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 1:46am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:05pm: People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost. How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme. I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne. No actually you CAN'T 'tell' them that.....you only THINK it is so.... There is NO, repeat NO, historical experience that will justify that idea.... You're basing that idea on the belief that the current climate change IS manmade.....if it isn't, then the 'cost of doing nothing' is.......nothing. So we have to wait until it's history to be able to make your style of old fashion judgement? Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science. Yes that's about it....After all, there's no way to tell YET if there are natural balances that control the upper limit on temperatures vs Co2 levels, or even if it's only Co2 that controls temps...Maybe Henrik Svensmark is right after all....

be careful not to debate science on here. that's only allowed if you support the orthodoxy.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 8:32am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 8:14am: azulene wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 1:46am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:05pm: People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost. How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme. I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne. No actually you CAN'T 'tell' them that.....you only THINK it is so.... There is NO, repeat NO, historical experience that will justify that idea.... You're basing that idea on the belief that the current climate change IS manmade.....if it isn't, then the 'cost of doing nothing' is.......nothing. So we have to wait until it's history to be able to make your style of old fashion judgement? Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science. Yes that's about it....After all, there's no way to tell YET if there are natural balances that control the upper limit on temperatures vs Co2 levels, or even if it's only Co2 that controls temps...Maybe Henrik Svensmark is right after all.... be careful not to debate science on here. that's only allowed if you support the orthodoxy.

I know, that's why I challenge the orthodoxy every chance I get.......Because that is what science is about...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 8:34am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 8:32am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 8:14am: azulene wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 1:46am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:05pm: People are whinging about a $23 a tonne carbon tax despite the fact that most people will end up with more money in their pockets if they show a little common sense and the longer we wait the greater the damage and the higher the financial cost. How much did the Queensland floods cost this country and how much did the decade of drought cost? Now think of those events being more frequent and more extreme. I can tell the Tea Baggers..the cost of doing nothing is going to be far greater than $23 a tonne. No actually you CAN'T 'tell' them that.....you only THINK it is so.... There is NO, repeat NO, historical experience that will justify that idea.... You're basing that idea on the belief that the current climate change IS manmade.....if it isn't, then the 'cost of doing nothing' is.......nothing. So we have to wait until it's history to be able to make your style of old fashion judgement? Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science. Yes that's about it....After all, there's no way to tell YET if there are natural balances that control the upper limit on temperatures vs Co2 levels, or even if it's only Co2 that controls temps...Maybe Henrik Svensmark is right after all.... be careful not to debate science on here. that's only allowed if you support the orthodoxy. I know, that's why I challenge the orthodoxy every chance I get.......Because that is what science is about...

I know that and you know that, but most of the wankers on here treat science like a policy document and defend it from a partisan political position. very few of them have any real idea what science even is - and they are the loudest voices.

Al 'I invented the internet' Gore??

stryder wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 1:52am:

Quote: Climate change deniers can only demonstrate they have a shallow understanding of science By azulene Oh I see so you climate change zealots have such an understanding of science that you lot feel compelled THAT BIG BROTHER CAN TELL US WHAT TO DO ALL OF A SUDDEN, DICTATE HOW GUILTY WE SHOULD FEEL ABOUT IT AND BE PUNISHED WITH A TAX THAT WILL DO NOTHING Typical lefties, No wonder the majority of australians depise your guts over this issue, ;D ;D ;D ;D

The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so.

Crikey Howard gave us the Ansett levy, gun buy back levy, sugar levy, milk levy, Timor levy, the GST and on top of that he led the highest taxing govt in this countries history. Labor gave us 30 billion dollars of tax cuts, maintained employment, lowered interest rates and kept our standard of living as one of the highest on the globe and all this throughout the Global Financial Crises.
And all the Tea Baggers can do is complain about a revenue neutral carbon tax, gay marriage and a few thousand asylum seekers (our annual migration target is 180,000)..kinda says alot about them  ;D

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53am:

The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so.

how you figure?

Labor tells us they will compensate us fully for the tax so there's no driver to cut emissions

Maqqa wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 10:42am:

freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am: The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so. how you figure? Labor tells us they will compensate us fully for the tax so there's no driver to cut emissions

Well Maqqa Im sure you are intelligent enough not to need the whole thing explained to you yet again.
Simply put, you can change the way you use energy and pocket the compensation to offset the tax or spend on your mortgage etc or you can be stubborn and keep chugging down that carbon intensive energy and save nothing.
The money collected will also go to research and development and  helping carbon intensive industries change to renewables.
This has only been explained to you a few hundred times.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 10:48am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am: freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am: The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so. how you figure? Labor tells us they will compensate us fully for the tax so there's no driver to cut emissions Well Maqqa Im sure you are intelligent enough not to need the whole thing explained to you yet again. Simply put, you can change the way you use energy and pocket the compensation to offset the tax or spend on your mortgage etc or you can be stubborn and keep chugging down that carbon intensive energy and save nothing. The money collected will also go to research and development and  helping carbon intensive industries change to renewables. This has only been explained to you a few hundred times.

I am talking about the 10.20/week Gillard was talking about

As for Industries they just pass it onto consumers

Maqqa wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 10:42am:

freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am: The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so. how you figure? Labor tells us they will compensate us fully for the tax so there's no driver to cut emissions

Sure there is. Do you really think they are so stupid? You need to stop parroting Truss.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#warren-truss-carbon-tax-wont-work

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 11:00am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am: freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am: The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so. how you figure? Labor tells us they will compensate us fully for the tax so there's no driver to cut emissions Sure there is. Do you really think they are so stupid? You need to stop parroting Truss. http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#warren-truss-carbon-tax-wont-work

As I said - it's all about context

No scientist have EVER been able to provide context around how much (in percentage terms) do humans contribute to carbon emissions

If we contribute 1% then changing our habits will have at best 1% impact

Its called can't see the forest for the trees

In the above example you are telling us 1 tree constitute the whole forest

Quote:

the tax will reduce our emissions

By freediver



;D ;D ;D Freediver HOW DO YOU MEASURE IF IT WORKS OR NOT, HUH


what instrument is there to measure that THIS TAX WILL DO SUCH A THING

Doesnt those who are going to be forced to pay this ridicolous tax HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ???

Maqqa wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 11:07am:

freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 11:00am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am: freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am: The government has always had a mandate to tax. This was not invented recently. Furthermore, the tax will reduce our emissions and is the cheapest way to do so. how you figure? Labor tells us they will compensate us fully for the tax so there's no driver to cut emissions Sure there is. Do you really think they are so stupid? You need to stop parroting Truss. http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#warren-truss-carbon-tax-wont-work As I said - it's all about context No scientist have EVER been able to provide context around how much (in percentage terms) do humans contribute to carbon emissions If we contribute 1% then changing our habits will have at best 1% impact Its called can't see the forest for the trees In the above example you are telling us 1 tree constitute the whole forest

I notice you changed the topic from economics to science pretty qucikly. Is this your way of admitting you were completely wrong on the economics?


Quote:

Freediver HOW DO YOU MEASURE IF IT WORKS OR NOT, HUH

I don't, but economists have ways, so I leave it up to them. Though if you understood the economics you would see it is merely an excerise in proving the obvious.

Quote:

I don't, but economists have ways, so I leave it up to them. Though if you understood the economics you would see it is merely an excerise in proving the obvious.

by freediver


Thats a striking point what I highlighted dont you think freediver ??



VAST MAJORITY OF THESE ECONOMISTS COULDNT SEE THE GFC HIT THE GLOBE THAT WAS BACK IN 2008 BUT YOU TRUST THEM ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THERE FUTURE PROJECTIONS WHERE A CARBON POLICY LIKE THE CARBON TAX WILL GO IN 10 YEARS TO 50 YEARS ????  ;D ;D ;D



Yep, that speaks volumes about it, freediver.

stryder wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 1:16pm:

Quote: I don't, but economists have ways, so I leave it up to them. Though if you understood the economics you would see it is merely an excerise in proving the obvious. by freediver Thats a striking point what I highlighted dont you think freediver ?? VAST MAJORITY OF THESE ECONOMISTS COULDNT SEE THE GFC HIT THE GLOBE THAT WAS BACK IN 2008 BUT YOU TRUST THEM ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THERE FUTURE PROJECTIONS WHERE A CARBON POLICY LIKE THE CARBON TAX WILL GO IN 10 YEARS TO 50 YEARS ????  ;D ;D ;D Yep, that speaks volumes about it, freediver.

But they could see it stryder and they said so loud and clear to anyone who understood economics. It was front page news over and over again. It's always funny to see people claiming they saw it coming and rpetending no-one else did. Mainstream economists even took appropriate action that significantly lessened the impact of the GFC.

Quote:

But they could see it stryder and they said so loud and clear to anyone who understood economics.

By freediver


Well freediver, I guess you have evidence googled up your sleeve, TELL ME WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF ECONOMIST BACK PRIOR TO THE GFC CRISIS OF 2008 SAW IT COMING AT ANY TIME THEN AND WARNED US THAT A GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS GOING TO HIT LATE 2008 ???, ??


Im not talking about a few people in a mnority, Im talking about the majority here,

No need to google. Everyone is even aware of it. They just may not know what it meant.

Quote:

No need to google. Everyone is even aware of it.

By freediver


Oh that simple huh,


Well TODAY we have some of these scientists get together and say yes human beings are reckless and are destroying the planet and to save ourselves, we have politicians run on the idea from the scientists about it, PRESTO A GOVERNMENT SOLUTION TO SAVING OURSELVES TO EXTRACT MORE TAX OUT OF TAXPAYERS, WE SHOULD SUBMIT AND NOT QUESTION IT ,DISPITE   A SHADOW OF FAKERY WHICH CAN BE SEEN BY THE ELECTORATE??

Quote:

No need to google. Everyone is even aware of it. .

By freediver


So you have no evidence what so ever, freediver, ???


Thats no surprise

We were talking about economics and economists stryder, not the science.

Do try to keep up.