Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Hunt is at least prepared to accept the science of climate change. His unambigous support for the science of climate change is in stark contrast to his vacillating leader who, as Australian Greens leader Christine Milne reminded us yesterday, has previously labelled the science of climate change as 'crap'. As a potential future leader, Hunt can't afford to be on the wrong side of History.

Unfortunately, Hunt is led by an incompetent. While right wingers play lip service to the importance of our entrepreneurs, they have tied themselves to a man who seems more interested in the fealty of rent seekers than in the fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. Abbott's direct action policy is an abomination of a policy. It's a prohibitively expensive policy built on corporate welfare at the expense of the tax payer. While it will certainly concentrate the mind of rent seekers depicted by our good friend Andrei, it's doesnt unleash the power of entrepreneurs and innovators. It doesn't harness the cummulative power of millions of consumers looking for low CO2 alternatives. Quite simply it doesn't give us a price signal and is economically more closely alligned to a Stalinalistic five year plan than true economic liberalism. Handing out tax payers money to polluters is an incredibly inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions.

So, Greg, thanks for living in the real world, but you know what you can do with that dog of a policy you are trying to sell us.

Thankyou Tony Abbott for keeping it real with climate science that is far from settled and not just going with the people who obviously like to control every aspect of our lives. Usually the progressives.

You get my vote.

MOTR wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:08am:

Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism,

Still trying to smear Abbott I see

He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier

Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that

i'm not a climate denier.
sir richard attenborrough says its real and thats good enough for me.

i am however a denier of the ability of government to do a smacking thing about it.

so , its up to individuals to reduce their carbon footprint.  governments around the world cant agree on trade agreements for apples and bananas ;) ;)
do you really think they will co operate on this.

if you do you are a certifiable lunatic

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:14am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that

He also said it is crap and that the reson the Liberals need a pretend solution is just because of the politics, apparently most people think something needs to be done even though he thinks it's all crap.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:14am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that

MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies.

He has a very "channelled" view on good/bad and this sort of view hinders action as opposed to helping.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:50am:

Thankyou Tony Abbott for keeping it real with climate science that is far from settled and not just going with the people who obviously like to control every aspect of our lives. Usually the progressives. You get my vote.

Glad to see you've climbed down off the fence at last, progs.  ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:14am: MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies. He has a very "channelled" view on good/bad and this sort of view hinders action as opposed to helping.

Exxon Mobil for example has spent enourmous amounts of money funding climate change denial scientists and organisations in order to muddy the water as much as possible and stem the tide of public opinion for as long as possible, then to delay action for as long as possible.

I can't speak for what XOM are doing but I would also point out that 80% of the top pro-climate change scientists have invested monetarily in renewable energy start up projects.

In financial market terms, that can land you in a jail cell in a different situation.

Speaking out on a subject, whipping up fear, and profiting from that fear by investing in the projects which benefit from the hysteria whipped up?

So don't talk to me about the ethics of some of the scientists.

Quote:

I would also point out that 80% of the top pro-climate change scientists have invested monetarily in renewable energy start up projects

Did you know that 80% of statistics are completely made up?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

Quote: I would also point out that 80% of the top pro-climate change scientists have invested monetarily in renewable energy start up projects Did you know that 80% of statistics are completely made up?

I am sure they are.
But my information comes from a presentation made in Q4 at the American Petroleum Institute in Los Angeles, where the list of names of the scientists and their relevant investments were put up as an example of some of the vested interests of parties not necessarily friendly to Petroleum companies.

Pretty damn sure you can't present to the Institute without it backed up.

80% was obviously a 'rounded' figure.

However back to the point I was making, my company for example spent $700m in one year on R&D into environmental improvement sourcing, newer energy sourcing and process improvements to benefit cleaner air.

$700m.

Most companies in Australia do not even earn that on the top line and we spent it just in R&D on environment.

Listen to MOTR and his ilk though and you'd think oil and gas companies sit on their hands and obstruct.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would argue our CEO and Chairman is more important globally than Julia Gillard.
He is certainly as powerful.

WILL SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO MOTR ONCE AND FOR ALL....


LIBS DO BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE......

IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A BILLION  YEARS OR MORE..


ITS THE SCIENCE ON HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE THAT IS THE DEBATE...

that as far  as i can make out no two scientists think alike....and quite a few cheat.Copenhagen told us that..


as long as we as humans are working on cleaning things up I am happy with that.

I really dont need to PANIC> and hypoventilate over every word.

Quote:

But my information comes from a presentation made in Q4 at the American Petroleum Institute in Los Angeles

I see. No chance of bias then?

BTW, why do you think someone might end up in jail just because they put their money where their mouth is? What makes more sense to you - that they honestly believe what they are saying to the extent they will put their own money behind it, or that they put their own money behind something they know lacks a solid basis in the hope that they can bluster their way to a profit? It's not exactly like the petroleum industry where they had already sunk billions of dollars before the issue came up, and it hardly paints this petroleum industry propaganda in a good light that they are accusing scientists of doing what everyone knows they have been up to.

If you are an individualist, and a libertarian who has a problem with submission to authority and advocates self rule...then get out of the conservative party you Marxist twit...

cods wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

WILL SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO MOTR ONCE AND FOR ALL.... LIBS DO BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE...... IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A BILLION  YEARS OR MORE.. ITS THE SCIENCE ON HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE THAT IS THE DEBATE... that as far  as i can make out no two scientists think alike....and quite a few cheat.Copenhagen told us that.. as long as we as humans are working on cleaning things up I am happy with that. I really dont need to PANIC> and hypoventilate over every word.

Thats not what Abbott says ....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:14am: MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies. He has a very "channelled" view on good/bad and this sort of view hinders action as opposed to helping.

Thats like saying Hitler was a humanitarian

Hitler would not submit to any authority greater than himself...proof he was an atheist rebel...

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Quote: But my information comes from a presentation made in Q4 at the American Petroleum Institute in Los Angeles I see. No chance of bias then? BTW, why do you think someone might end up in jail just because they put their money where their mouth is? What makes more sense to you - that they honestly believe what they are saying to the extent they will put their own money behind it, or that they put their own money behind something they know lacks a solid basis in the hope that they can bluster their way to a profit? It's not exactly like the petroleum industry where they had already sunk billions of dollars before the issue came up, and it hardly paints this petroleum industry propaganda in a good light that they are accusing scientists of doing what everyone knows they have been up to.

Because its called 'stacking the deck' and you are directly profiting from warnings made and influencing the market.

When analysts make calls on stock or industry changes, they need to declare their interests.

1. "Scientist" makes alarming calls relating to climate and processes which hinder (coal, shale gas, oil) and that renewable energy is cleaner.

2. If said individual is a direct 'innovator' or monetary beneficiary of a green product or process, he will see a benefit to that directly as a result of his own comments or warnings.

EG,
If an analyst has shares in JP Morgan and then as a 'leading industry commentator' hangs crap on Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo - he stands to benefit from frightened investors running to JP.
It's exactly the same process.


The conference having an hour to have this data presented, merely served to highlight that some of these individuals are not mere by-standers but direct profiteers of their doomsday predictions.

Which is classic stacking the deck.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 9:42am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:14am: MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies. He has a very "channelled" view on good/bad and this sort of view hinders action as opposed to helping. Thats like saying Hitler was a humanitarian

If I thought for a second you knew what you were on about regarding the industry and the work being done I would address any points you made.

But you have no idea and simply follow the crowd on this one.

$700 million on cleaner energy delivery.

Doing nothing?

How many Aussie companies are spending $700m?

As a potential future leader, Hunt can't afford to be on the wrong side of History

Greg Hunt .... potential future leader... REALLY??? News to me, why?

Quote:

The conference having an hour to have this data presented, merely served to highlight that some of these individuals are not mere by-standers but direct profiteers of their doomsday predictions.

Some? I thought it was 80%? What changed? Did common sense kick in?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Quote: The conference having an hour to have this data presented, merely served to highlight that some of these individuals are not mere by-standers but direct profiteers of their doomsday predictions. Some? I thought it was 80%? What changed? Did common sense kick in?

80% is a fair number of the leading scientists that have directly invested into alternative energy projects.

Of that figure "some" will make comment with the intent of pushing their own projects and profit from them.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 11:04am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 9:42am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:14am: MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies. He has a very "channelled" view on good/bad and this sort of view hinders action as opposed to helping. Thats like saying Hitler was a humanitarian If I thought for a second you knew what you were on about regarding the industry and the work being done I would address any points you made. But you have no idea and simply follow the crowd on this one.

as if I care what the puppet says .... you seriously think your puppet masters want to move away from fossil fuels?

No of course not, we just spend $700m of shareholders money to be fashionable.

You realize most Aussie companies don't even earn what we spent on climate beneficial R&D in a single year?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

No of course not, we just spend $700m of shareholders money to be fashionable. You realize most Aussie companies don't even earn what we spent on climate beneficial R&D in a single year?

You spend $700 m because they know the fossil fuel industry is in for a big wake up call. They know that if they don't get ahead of the ballgame they'll soon not make any profits ... Doing nothing will cost them more in the long term ... don't pretend its because of some sort of desire to do good.  They couldn't give a crap how much they pollute .... it's only about prolonging there own shelf life.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

I can't speak for what XOM are doing but I would also point out that 80% of the top pro-climate change scientists have invested monetarily in renewable energy start up projects. In financial market terms, that can land you in a jail cell in a different situation. Speaking out on a subject, whipping up fear, and profiting from that fear by investing in the projects which benefit from the hysteria whipped up? So don't talk to me about the ethics of some of the scientists.

"MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies."...andrei.

Must have been this bit made me think you were speaking for the whole industry.

;)

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:14am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that

No, Maqqa, no one is denying that. I'm sure like the rest of us, Abbott believes that there have been ice ages in the past. He probably even believes in AGW. My beef with Abbott is that he's not prepared to lead. He'd rather dog whistle the deniers of AGW, than show true leadership on this issue. When a bipartisan approach was desperately required, Abbott sold us all out.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

No of course not, we just spend $700m of shareholders money to be fashionable. You realize most Aussie companies don't even earn what we spent on climate beneficial R&D in a single year?

How much does your company pay for the right to pollute our atmosphere, Andrei.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:00pm: Quote: The conference having an hour to have this data presented, merely served to highlight that some of these individuals are not mere by-standers but direct profiteers of their doomsday predictions. Some? I thought it was 80%? What changed? Did common sense kick in? 80% is a fair number of the leading scientists that have directly invested into alternative energy projects. Of that figure "some" will make comment with the intent of pushing their own projects and profit from them.

;D

Fair? Let's start with honest shall we?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 9:42am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:14am: MOTR wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:08am: Kudos to Greg Hunt for at least keeping it real. While Abbott's utterances on climate change seem intent on fostering an attitude of denialism, Still trying to smear Abbott I see He said the science is not settled and you want to label him as a climate change denier Climate have been changing for over 4 billion years - no one is denying that MOTR refuses to recognize the good, hard work on climate change being done by oil and gas companies. He has a very "channelled" view on good/bad and this sort of view hinders action as opposed to helping. Exxon Mobil for example has spent enourmous amounts of money funding climate change denial scientists and organisations in order to muddy the water as much as possible and stem the tide of public opinion for as long as possible, then to delay action for as long as possible.

of course they might also be trying to fund TRUTH. I remember reading McKintyre describe reading how he was being funded by oil companies and deciding he should send them a bill since he had never received a cent.

Quote:

of course they might also be trying to fund TRUTH.

No they aren't. They are buying mouth pieces to parrot their agenda.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

Quote: of course they might also be trying to fund TRUTH. No they aren't. They are buying mouth pieces to parrot their agenda.

which is not an argument that they arent supporting the truth. It is merely a statement by you that you dont like them.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 4:50pm:

Quote: of course they might also be trying to fund TRUTH. No they aren't. They are buying mouth pieces to parrot their agenda.

http://youtu.be/IaKm89eVhoE