Shareswatch Australia

Australian stock market investing, ASX charts, analysis & market forecasts.

Shareswatch Australia header image 2

Are climate change and global warming dangerous distractions?

July 15th, 2009 · Greg Atkinson · 97 Comments

If you are to believe politicians and movie stars, then planet earth is warming up and it is all our fault. However the real “inconvenient truth” is that all within the scientific community do not all agree that global warming is caused by human activity alone and many climate scientists suggest the planet is not heating up at all.  So is there a danger we are focusing on the wrong threat?

One of the most worrying aspects about the global warming debate is there seems to be a whole army of people around who have suddenly become climate scientists even if they have absolutely no background at all in any science. This leads to debates which are high on emotion but low on facts.

Another concern is that the global warming movement is evolving into almost a cult with Al Gore out and about spreading the message of impending doom like some fanatical evangelist. It seems that losing the election to George W. Bush really messed with Al’s wiring….. he has never been the same since. I wonder if he flies economy class as he jets around leaving his own carbon footprint on the planet?

My own view is that the whole global warming debate is still just that, a debate. The climate change alarmists have scored some major public relation victories, but in terms of science there are a lot of holes in their theory. We should listen carefully to both side of the debate and be wary of being pushed into a course of action based on fear.

Finally there is a least some debate now about the science behind global warming theory in Australia and this account of a meeting between  Senator Senator Steve Fielding and the Minister of Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong, on 15 June 2009 is very interesting.

Maybe our carbon dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm, but what if we are wrong? Could we be focusing on the wrong threat? After all back in the 1970’s many scientists thought we were on the verge of another Ice Age and in fact we are indeed overdue for another big freeze. I wonder what we will do when the next cycle of planet cooling comes along – start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

So what could be possibly worse than the planet warming up? (as it has done before mind you)  Well a few things come to mind:

A Global Pandemic.

I am not talking about a SAR’s or Swine Flu type outbreak but something more on the scale of the Spanish Flu which killed somewhere between 50 and 100 million people.  It is quite amazing that few people actually know much about the Spanish Flu but if we were to have a similar outbreak today, the death toll could be much higher.

Thanks to air travel viruses can spread around the world in just a few days and due to urbanisation we are all living nice and close, making it easier for a virus to be transmitted from person to another.

Just think about how Australia would handle an infection where say one in three people were infected? Our hospitals would be unable to cope, the death toll would be high and the economy would virtually grind to a halt. Our nation is probably not even prepared for an outbreak half as bad as the Spanish Flu, but never fear we are funding a Clean Coal Research Institute! Yes when the next pandemic hits we can all take comfort in the fact that at least when we burn our fossil fuels we hide the emissions underground.

In theory you can migrate and escape much of the impact of global warming, but there is nowhere on the planet where masses of people can hide from a virus.

So maybe we should be a little more worried viruses than CO2?

Further reading:  Where Will the Next Pandemic Emerge? Discover Magazine. October 27, 2008.

Nuclear Weapons.

I might be a supporter of nuclear power but I see absolutely no reason why any country has nuclear weapons. It seems as every year passes another nation gets a nuke and this cannot be a good thing.

Personally the idea of the North Koreans having nuclear weapons is more of a concern to me than the oceans rising a touch. Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere really do not seem to be in the same league as the destruction that would be caused if nuclear weapons were used again. Maybe we should be more focused on getting everyone (that includes the U.S.) to send these weapons to the scrap heap of history?

Further Reading: Current World Nuclear Arsenals. Center for Defence Information.


Far more humans have died as a result of wars than from any natural disasters and in the future, wars are sadly still likely to kill more people than rising temperatures ever will. (well at least until the sun implodes) The only thing that has possibly killed more people is disease. (so this another reason to beef up our protection against viruses!)

I am not living in a fantasy land and trying to suggest that we can stop all wars suddenly, but it seems to me that trying to prevent us from killing each other should be a little higher up in the order of importance than trying to battle the possible changes that human activity MAY be causing to the earth’s climate.

We could start by sorting out the assortment of rebel groups and nut-case rulers in Africa. A little stability in Africa would not only save ten of thousands of lives that would be otherwise lost due to conflict but in addition, people could actually start working the land in these conflict zones and save thousands more by increasing food production.

I know that trying to solve the world’s armed conflicts is a tall order but so is changing the climate, but I guess it is more hip to eat a meal by candlelight during Earth Hour than to tackle anything really serious.

Further Reading: Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia. BMJ. June 19th 2008.


I am not saying that using more renewable energy is a bad thing, it isn’t and it makes perfect sense to me that we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I am also not against reducing pollution or trying to pump less CO2 into the atmosphere as these also appear to be fairly sensible long term objectives.

But I do worry that we are now becoming so obsessed with the climate change/global warming story that we are failing to appreciate there are much bigger problems and that these are potentially a much bigger threat to humankind than a return to the warm old days.

Should cutting back greenhouse gas emissions take precedence over developing our defences against future pandemics , eliminating nuclear weapons or trying to reduce armed conflict across the world? I think not.

97 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Gary // Jul 17, 2009 at 10:07 am

    I think Senator Fielding is doing the right thing in asking questions before he blindly backs an ETS. I wonder how many other Senators have bothered to do the research he has before they signed on to the CO2 story?

    Here are some links: The real reason I’ll fight in the Senate on climate change

    Climate Change: Senator Fielding’s Page

  • 2 Senator13 // Jul 17, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    That is some very interesting reading, Gary. There are a lot more questions that need to be answered. Why can’t these questions be examined more carefully?

    I think the likes of Al Gore are more concerned with selling DVD’s then anything genuine.

    By the way, did anybody see this the other day:

    Maybe Garrett forgot that he was trying to get into the Senate with these guys:

    …and what is their number one policy – Stop uranium mining!

    Maybe Wong has not told Garrett what uranium is used for.

    Poor guy, the Labor party have made him sell out so much. The long standing advocate for everything anti nuclear and he is now approving uranium mines. So funny.

  • 3 Greg Atkinson // Jul 17, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Ah Garrett. At least when he was singing with Midnight Oil he stood for something. Maybe the words from the Oils song “Blue Sky Mine” might be buzzing in his head these days.

    “My gut is wrenched out it is crunched up and broken
    A life that is led is no more than a token”

    Never had much time for his politics, but I have even less time for him now that he has shown he is willing to sacrifice what he truly believes in for the sake of the Labor Party.

  • 4 Geoff Brown // Jul 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    On a blog called share watch, you should be paying attention to the Global warming debate. The completely unnecessary Emissions Trading Scheme will greatly add to the costs of companies. Some companies will go broke, some will move off-shore to countries such as China and India. Both these countries have not been taken in by the sham science and have said that they will not beadding this stupid tax.

    Power companies are finding it impossible to borrow finance for maintenance and expansion and some will close, some won’t be able
    continue operating. Share listed companies will be struggling to get power which will become increasingly costly.

    You ask: “Are climate change and global warming dangerous distractions?”

    No we should all be worried. The costs to households will be at least $4550 (Frontier Economics Modelling.)

    Global warming taxes are dangerous!

  • 5 Greg Atkinson // Jul 29, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    Geoff I agree the ETS is another bad tax and I have ranted on about it before in such blogs as: Actions to stimulate the economy in 2009 and beyond.

    As you say jobs will be lost and many roles will move offshore to places like China and India. We could create new jobs by investing in a nuclear power industry but instead we are just going to tax companies for using energy. Truly bizarre.

  • 6 Geoff Brown // Jul 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    Sorry, didn’t know your history but read your post on the JoNova blog.

    The stupid thing is that this tax will not do what it is supposed to do but will lower our standard of living. For what?

    Thanks, Greg.

  • 7 Greg Atkinson // Jul 29, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Geoff we are singing from the same hymn sheet as they say 🙂 Even if the planet was warming there are better ways to approach the problem rather than just introducing a tax. I wonder what we will do if we face a global plague…raise another tax on business?


  • 8 Senator13 // Jul 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    What stuns me is the ignorance of voters over this issue. I don’t know if any body noticed but in the latest Newspoll people were asked how much they thought the price of energy would rise on average if the CPRS was introduced. 32% thought it would only rise by 0-10% yet only 14% thought it would rise by 11-20% and 45% of people said “don’t know”. YET, 41% said that Australia should introduce the CPRS before the Copenhagen conference. Are these people stupid? They don’t even know what it is and what it will mean for them – yet still want to go along with it blindly. Can anybody explain that to me?

    People can check out the poll results here if interested:

  • 9 Greg Atkinson // Sep 29, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Senator I see climate change got plenty of airtime at the G20 and yet most people don’t even know what they are empowering their politicians to do! Look at Australia for example, we reckon we are concerned about C02 but then spend millions putting up extra school buildings that in many cases were not even needed! I wonder how many tonnes of C02 will be pumped into the atmosphere as a result of the “education revolution” ?

  • 10 Senator13 // Sep 29, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    Good point. Were they carbon natural projects? Did they offset their emissions? Did they use plantation timber? Are they all powered by photovoltaic cells? Maybe they sourced all the supplies from the same overseas company that made a killing supplying pink batts to Australia.

    Actually, seeing what the rest of the world puts up on the table in December is going to be quiet interesting. See if they actually live up to the rhetoric. There are a lot of countries that pollute a lot more then Australia that are not exactly in an economic position to be able to introduce an ETS on their industries at this time…

    Come December we are going to have to look beyond the press releases from the leaders and look at the detail of what they are putting up and then seeing if they actually implement it. I am sure there will be lots of big headlines proclaiming to have cured climate change at one meeting – but the reality will be very different I suspect…

  • 11 Ralph // Sep 30, 2009 at 10:46 am

    I commented about this on another thread but then noticed that this one was going.

    I support an ETS, but more on the grounds of sustainability. I’m genuinely neutral on the science of climate change. It could be true or it could be a lot of hogwash. I’m inclined to believe the so-called majority scientific opinion but I also accept that there are many doubts. As I’ve said on another thread, my take is that we’re taking out insurance for an event that could have catastrophic consequences. If it turns out to be bunkum, we’ve lost a fraction of a percent of GDP and we continue on. We don’t sweat a few hundred dollars lost if we insure our cars but then turn out not to have needed it because we didn’t have a crash. I see an ETS the same way on an economy wide level.

    My real concern is energy sustainability. We’re using non-renewable fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) as our primary sources of energy. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. As it turns out, the so-called solution to climate change could also be a step in the direction for increased energy sustainability. So for that reason, I support an ETS and renewable energy targets. I’m accept that nuclear energy must be considered, but I’m worried about the storage of the waste.

    Then again, on a purely selfish level, we’ll all be long gone by the time any of this really matters anyway. So I suspect that we’ll probably muddle along making token changes here and there until it’s absolutely necessary.

  • 12 Greg Atkinson // Sep 30, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Ralph I am against the ETS is because it is simply a tax. If Australia seriously wanted to tackle global warming we would have not spent money building school halls that were not needed and used the money to encourage the large scale take up of solar power etc. and develop energy efficient technologies. We could have also got moving with plans to set up a trial nuclear power plant.

    I appreciate there are issues with nuclear waste but look at what we are doing instead…developing a way to use coal in a cleaner way by simply hiding the C02 underground? Isn’t this waste as well? At the same time we are quite happy to send coal overseas and let people burn it as they please, how exactly does that help fight global warming?

    But the most interesting aspect of the nuclear power debate is the discussion about where to store the waste, but we all seem quite happy breathing in the waste given off by oil burning engines and coal burning power stations. I would suggest that pollution in our cities due to the use of fossil fuels is a far bigger risk to our health than burying nuclear waste out in the desert somewhere.

    If we really want to reduce C02 emissions then let’s do it is a smart way, not some half baked tax scheme that will end up a mess anyway.

    Maybe we can start by limiting Kev’s overseas trips and asking retired MP’s for their gold travel passes back? 🙂

  • 13 Ralph // Sep 30, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    Good points, Greg. In truth, I’d be happy with any scheme that moves to greater sustainability of resource usage. The current ETS is a dog and I hope that Labor sees sense and puts it away till after Copenhagen. I really wonder what they hope to achieve by having it in before Copenhagen.

    I mean, along with Australia merely being a more developed Angola/Venezuela/Nigeria (touched upon by a few posters in other posts), this all has a feel of Easter Island about it. Forget climate change for a minute.

    Everyone recognises that our economy operates on non-renewable fossil fuels, but no one is prepared to do anything serious to move to a more sustainable footing. You go first. No, you go first. And so on. There is a blind faith that the solution is out there somewhere and that we’ll get to it in just the nick of time. And no economy will be harmed in the process. I have some empathy for Ross Garnaut’s statement that it’s a diabolical policy problem.

    But I agree that Kevvie, Swanny and Wongy aren’t serious about climate change or renewable energy. They are very serious about stimulus, bailouts and propping up house prices.

    And finally, on nuclear power – if the problem of safely storing radioactive waste for many thousands of years can be solved, I’m all for it. And nukes won’t really be an issue for us if we’ve got ’em too!

  • 14 Geoff Brown // Sep 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    G’day Ralph:
    I really wonder what they hope to achieve by having it in before Copenhagen.

    Hevvie Kevvie wants to be head of the free world – before he wanted to be head of the UN, but I think he has given that up to be head of (Peter Costello’s suggested) G20.

    But I agree that Kevvie, Swanny and Wongy aren’t serious about climate change or renewable energy. They are very serious about stimulus, bailouts and propping up house prices.

    The stimuli was about buying votes and I hope I’m out of here before the chickens (interest larger than the economy of NZ) come home to roost.

    And I want to go back to one of your previous comment, Ralph, but before I do I should disclose that I am Treasurer of the Climate Sceptics Party

    You said: “I’m inclined to believe the so-called majority scientific opinion but I also accept that there are many doubts.”

    Well, basically the Political body that everyone refers to is the IPCC and when you get down to climate science I can point you to a paper where their science is supported by only 7 people of which 5 are very politically aligned, whereas, in the US alone, I can point you to 31,000 scientists (including more than 9000 PhDs) who disagree with the so-called “consensus” that support the man-made global warming hypothesis.

    Which “majority” are you talking about?

    I don’t know if this blog is sensitive to posts full of links, but if you are truly interested in discovery, send me an email (scepticATdalmatianDOTcomDOTau) and I will send you details of the above facts.

    Thanks to Greg for the opinion avenue.

  • 15 Greg Atkinson // Sep 30, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Geoff you are welcome. The whole point of this site is to encourage alternative views and look at issues not covered my the mainstream media. Cheers!

  • 16 Senator13 // Oct 1, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    I think Australia should focus on energy innovation. I think this would be a better insurance policy then a tax. Alternative sources of energy production is a very worthy cause and one that can be extremely profitable for Australia and assist other nations to pollute less and also assist with their power needs.

    However, Australians have to come to terms with the fact that we physically can not have a significant impact on global emissions even if we cut them to zero. We would still be left with 98% of global emission. Wrecking our economy with a dodgy ETS with out knowing what everybody else is doing does not help anybody. That is just foolish and Rudd is trying to position him self for more grandstanding.

    Everybody loves the idea of saving the world with an ETS until it starts to hit their hip pocket. Let’s see how popular emissions trading is when it starts to cost jobs and dollars and does not do a thing for the environment.

    As for the IPCC, they are about as dodgy as they come. Especially when you go back a few years and have a look at what they were projecting things would be like right now… They are a little sensitive about that…

  • 17 Ralph // Oct 2, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Good points. It is true that we only make up 1% or so of global emissions.

    But let’s assume for a minute that we do get an international agreement involving US, China, India, Europe, Russia, Brazil etc. I know, it’s hard to imagine, but let’s just dream for the moment. I wonder whether Australia will still seek an exemption on the grounds that we make up only 1% of global emissions and that it wouldn’t matter if we didn’t participate anyway.

  • 18 Greg Atkinson // Oct 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Ralph let me put things another way. Why is it we are only talking about an ETS as a way to reduce CO2 emissions? I mean do you recall a vigorous debate about the alternatives? Are we seriously suggesting that the cornerstone in our strategy in the fight against climate change should be a tax?

    It is a flawed way to approach the problem anyway and we already know that because the Government is talking about compensation for certain industries. What the heck does that mean….that for some companies it is cool to pump out CO2 and for other it isn’t?

    What I would have liked to have seen is a focus on results and how these would be achieved in practical terms, then a discussion about how to fund the measures. We seem to have started with a high level goal, then a tax, but I am still none the wiser regarding how in practical terms, we plan to meet our CO2 reduction targets.

  • 19 Senator13 // Oct 3, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Just out of curiosity Greg, how are the Japanese tackling the problem. Are they pushing for an ETS or have an ETS or want an ETS? Have they been apart of the international climate talks? All this talk of America and China – I would have thought that Japan would play a significant role being a large, technologically advanced economy?

  • 20 Greg Atkinson // Oct 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Senator I am not quite sure yet how the new Government (DPJ) will tackle the problem in detail although some form of carbon trading system will be used. However the major focus has been on the use of technology so far and I expect that will continue.

    For example Japan is pumping research dollars into such areas as the next generation of nuclear reactors, electric vehicles, solar powered cargo vessels and of course wind, solar and geothermal technologies etc.

    The major difference I see with Australia is that Japan is focused on developing the solutions not just installing them. So not only are they aiming to reduce their C02 footprint with technology, but they’re also positioning themselves to make a lot of money exporting their solutions.

    Another difference is the former government did actually use much of the economic stimulus money fairly wisely, not that many western commentators bother to mention this. For example they allocated funds for the widespread installation of solar panels at schools. Not only did this pump money into the economy but it will also help reduce their C02 footprint in the years ahead.

  • 21 Senator13 // Oct 3, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    I would think that is a much more logical way of going about it. This is where I think that Australia has taken its eye off the ball. I would much rather see Australia focus on developing solutions to export to other nations instead of just being end uses and content with the ETS. I would have thought that Australia would be in a prime position given our resources of uranium, surrounded by oceans and endless sunlight to be developing these alternative energy solutions?

  • 22 Greg Atkinson // Oct 4, 2009 at 8:06 am

    Senator I am sure if you head out to a wind or solar farm in Australia you will find few Australian developed or manufactured components. Even “our” clean coal solution is actually being developed with largely Japanese technology see:

  • 23 Pete // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:45 am

    I very much like this article from the ABC:
    In Praise Of The Sceptics

    I think you might like it too Greg

  • 24 Senator13 // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:40 am

    Good article Pete!

    The climate change debate has been hysterical for many years now.

    With out even touching on the science – I think for a lot of Australians to realise that the Governments CPRS does not work will be after it has been introduced and nothing changes except their electricity bills… All year there has been information that people do not understand what an ETS is.

    I don’t like to sound cynical but my feeling is that all Australians wanted was some form of “action” on climate change. If that action was a “put your rubbish in the bins” campaign or another type of “earth hour” gesture then they would be happy and think that they have done their bit and saved the planet. I know it sounds really cynical but that is where I think the level of comprehension is at with the vast amount of people.

    People think that the ETS will eliminate pollution. When really you can still pollute but it just will cost you money. Or you move offshore and it does not cost you anything…

    Now forget about climate change and if it is man made or not – the trend for countries around the world is one of moving towards low emissions sustainable energy for whatever reason. Now, Australia is in a prime position to take advantage of this given our geographical location yet I fear we are going to miss the boat. A potential export industry for us yet we seem to be going down the track of just buying foreign made energy solutions.

    Greg, it is a sad state of affairs that our technology and components is all developed overseas. This should be the outrage of the people – not the ETS. Yet no one seems to care about it…

  • 25 Greg Atkinson // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    Pete you were right, I like the article 🙂 When I see any debate shut down by branding people “deniers” I get worried. This is sort of the modern day equivalent to burning witches.

    The science behind what causes global warming is not settled. Theories run for a while, seem almost proven and then hey presto they get shattered and people start thinking again. This is what science is all about, trying to find answers while always asking questions. Science is not about shutting down alternative views and making everyone follow the same path. Remember this simple fact, back in the 1970’s scientists were actually warning of a new global ice age!

    It was also not that long ago that people believed dinosaurs were cold blooded reptile like creatures and yet today there is plenty of evidence to suggest they were the warm blooded distant relatives of birds. In fact some may even have had feathers!

    Anyway as I mentioned in the blog above, I don’t reckon climate change is the biggest threat to our survival at the moment, so we are probably focused on the wrong threat at the wrong time. Why? Just to be “hip” I suspect and allow governments to sneak in another tax.

    P.S I love “earth hour”. This is where people get in their fossil fuel burning cars to travel to “earth hour” parties so they can watch the lights go off. But heck, it makes them feel in touch with the planet…nothing like washing down a four course meal with some fine wine to combat global warming hey?

  • 26 TG // Nov 1, 2009 at 12:06 am

    Chris Uhlmann hit “the nail on the head”. That’s the problem with this “quasi” debate; anyone who questions the so called scientific evidence is labled a sceptic and an enemy of the environment. It’s completely irrational given the evidence to the contrary, which is plentiful. Christopher Monckton provides some interesting information. This chap is worth listening to if you are interested in an entertaining delivery of a different point of view…. He’s a big fan of Al Gore as you’ll see.

    There are links to the graphs and data he mentions if you do a search.

    It’s just plain politics here in Australia. Rudd and his flock have campaigned hard on this climate change thing and spun it like crazy so as to prey on peoples environmental conscience. If they were to objectively analyse the “sceptics” point of view and consider the “other” facts available, instead of discrediting the alternative science etc, Rudd might have to eat humble pie and end up looking a Goose.

    So off we go, full steam ahead with a poorly thought out tax. I’m sure it’s a case of “Hurry Hurry and get this passed cos they might work out it’s bollocks soon!!!”. What about the actual benefit to the environment of this tax? What about the real impact on households? What about the compensation being offered to big polluters?

    I don’t think the Labor Party really cares about the true impact of the ETS or CPRS on “Working Families”, they just need to be seen to do something to “buy” their votes (with a tax???). I guess intoducing a tax is easier than tackling and funding the real issues head on.

    Oh, did anybody notice that Peter Garrett fellow getting stuffed into a cupboard out of sight whilst Ms Wong does the dirty work? Peter who I hear you ask? He might have something different to say if he didn’t have to toe the party line.

  • 27 Geoff Brown // Nov 1, 2009 at 9:11 am

    The Lord Monkton youtube is good but the really frightening revelation is in the last few minutes when Lord Monkton reveals that signing the Copenhagen treaty will mean giving up our country’s sovereignty to a world government:

    and he expanded the explanation in an interview with US talk show host Glen Beck:

    On a shareswatch blog, note that signing the treaty will impose a 2% tax on all our financial transactions.

    More Monkton interviews on my blog:

  • 28 Greg Atkinson // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    TG thanks very much for the link. No matter where people stand in terms of the global warming debate they should at least be made aware that the “science” behind the theory is not fixed and beyond question.

    Australia’s position on the issue is so twisted and confused that is makes no point on all. On one hand we seems prepared to sign a treaty that will put a drag on our economy while happily exporting coal to help other economies compete with ours whilst they add even more C02 into the atmosphere. If our government really believed C02 was a problem then why not stop using coal here and stop exporting it? Why not also embrace Nuclear Power? Isn’t the threat of mankind being devastated (and the alarmists claim) out a good enough reason to put in a few nuclear power reactors? It seems not.

    If Rudd really believed in saving the planet why did we just spend hundreds of millions on schools halls we did not need and on community projects that will do nothing to reduce or C02 footprint?

    Of course Rudd and other world leaders like the global warming issue because it puts more power in their hands and allows them to implement social policies without people being aware.

    Geoff, thanks for the additional links, The 2% tax on financial transactions is a worry but the whole ETS is a worry. None of the people promoting an ETS have any idea how much damage it will do to the economy and I suspect by the time we find out, it will be too late.

  • 29 Geoff Brown // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Hey Greg

    Away from the threat of the above, what about the PM wanting to greatly increase our population?

    Forget about where are we going to get the water and infrastructure, what about the increase in the Carbon (Dioxide) Footprint?

    Does he know something that we don’t know?

  • 30 Greg Atkinson // Nov 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Geoff I agree, that is just another example of the conflicting approach taken by the Government. We seem to have people in power talking excitedly about the Australian population racing towards 60 million people while at the same time saying we need to reduce our national C02 emissions. I wonder how they plan to triple the population and bring our C02 emissions down to levels below when we had a population of 20 million?

    If this isn’t a tough enough challenge the Government has committed the nation to reducing C02 emissions by 25% compared to 2000 levels by 2020!

    How are we going to manage to create millions of jobs while drastically reducing emissions?

  • 31 Pete // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Thanks for the links about Copenhagen.
    Doubt it will get off the ground, but that is besides the point. It is a bit of a worry that something like that even exists.

    Haha guys, it’s getting funnier (masochism?) by the day how fk-ups are adding up in this country.

    – immigration
    – ETS
    – property bubble/FHOG
    – tax reform
    – stimulus packages
    – infrastructure spending (but on home insulation and school libraries?)

    These are all things that have a significant effect on a country, but were not voted for. Some of them have been disguised as something else altogether(ETS, FHOG, stimulus, infrastructure spending), others have been put in place on the sly (immigration, possibly some tax reforms to come).

    Is the Rudd Government acting within the best interests of Australia and its inhabitants?

    *We have a treasurer who is completely pathetic.

    *We have a deputy Prime Minister/education minister who holds herself well but is equally pathetic when it comes to actually having decent policies

    *We have a finance minister (Tanner) who is pretty good, but is muted by the pathetic (and conflicting) policies of Rudd and Swan

    *Then there is Garrett who is a popular band member. And happy to go with the status quo without having his own policies

    *Penny Wong is a climate change puppet. She is also the minister for water. I wonder if she has considered the impact of increased immigration on our water supplies? Drought? What drought? Oh, that one we’ve had for years now. Well, it can only get better, right?

    * and last but not least, the puppeteer himself – Kevin Rudd. It clearly seems that he is busy jet-setting around the globe trying to make a name for himself and to seem important. And back home he is pretending everything is okay – but it isn’t. Is this a leader? Or just someone with some agendas who is in an important position? I suspect he expects things to be named after him in the future. Hows the “KRudd Crisis” or the “Rudd Recession” or “Kevin Rudd memorial to screwing up a country as much as possible”.

    Lastly, and pretty off-topic, I love this quote by Leigh Sales on lateline to Swan:

    WAYNE SWAN: …The Opposition, for example, put up signs for their investing in schools program and you didn’t hear a peep about that from those on our side of politics at the time. They are so embarrassed …

    LEIGH SALES: Well, the argument that everyone else is doing it, so I should be allowed to do it is one that I couldn’t get away with it when I was 10 years old. Is it really an argument that adults in the Federal Government should be making?

    WAYNE SWAN: No, I think that’s a silly argument that you’ve just put, Leigh.

    LEIGH SALES: You saying the other side did it so we should do it. You’re the one making that argument.

    (taken from that transcript about the school signs here)

  • 32 Senator13 // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:34 am

    These are some very interesting links TD and Geoff – thanks.

    Lord Christopher Monkton reminds me of our very own Professor Ian Plimer. They both put their argument forward based on facts. Not alarmist over exaggerations and fiction – but actually go and look at the numbers.

    It is a sad day when the arguments of pop stars and actors are pumped up yet there is an attempt to shut down the people who have the facts and the data and have actually done their research.

    Just in today’s Australian news paper there is an article that just goes to show how exaggerated and sensationalised this debate has become:,25197,26290477-5015664,00.html

    When it gets to this point you really have to question their motives…

    Pete, that is a very good summary of the Government but don’t forget Sen Conroy! And where is their “razor gang” these days? Where is Krudds efficiency dividend these days? Where is the cost benefit analysis of all government expenditure? Now he has grand visions of becoming a city planner… What next… I would like to see him finish just ONE of his projects that are up in the air at the moment. Talk about do nothing Governments. They are a do nothing Government in the worst way – it is costing billions to do it!

  • 33 Ralph // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Well summarised, Pete and Senator. This government is staggering all over the place. They don’t know what they’re doing. Also, no need to apologise for having another dig at Swan – he’s pathetic and deserves to be ridiculed.

    Come the next election, all K Rudd will be able to say is that he borrowed and spent a lot of money to avoid a technical recession. And that there is no real plan to get out of the mess he’s put us into. So vote us in again so that we can borrow and spend some more so that we can avoid having to face up to reality. Sadly, people seem to buy it.

  • 34 Greg Atkinson // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    Yes well said Pete and Senator. To be honest I am not sure if we humans are causing the planet to warm or not, but what I am pretty sure about is that a tax ain’t going to help. I also question if global warming really is the biggest threat we face.

    Even you take a leap of faith and say the science proves we are heating the planet you then get into another debate about what the actual impact will be..and again this is not something we know a lot about.

    Frankly I see the whole issue being manipulated by people as part of a power grab..but then again maybe I am just too cynical?

  • 35 Ralph // Nov 3, 2009 at 9:22 am

    I’ve previously said on this blog that I was in favour of an ETS. But over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been doing some rethinking and I now agree with several of you that it’s a dog. The intent of the scheme has been watered down so much as to render it a useless exercise in churn and bureaucratic paper shuffling. As some have said, a tax on everything to benefit nothing.

    I’m not sure it’s a power grab – I think many of the world’s governments are convinced that they need to act on the perceived threat of climate change for the benefit of future generations. But they’ve got themselves into a situation of groupthink where the ETS is the only way of doing that. And on top of that, they are also hostage to the many vested interests that don’t want an ETS. So we have the dog’s breakfast of a system that is currently before the parliament. And I can’t see it getting through either. The Coalition will vote it down and I reckon Labor will be secretly relieved too.

    And I also agree with Greg that climate change is not the biggest issue anyway. For me, that’s got to be peak oil and general energy/resource sustainability. That’s a fairly simple problem to get one’s head around – our entire model of economic growth is based on cheap non-renewable fossil fuels.

  • 36 Greg Atkinson // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:31 am

    Ralph I am not against global action to combat global problems but I would like to see focus on all threats to humanity not just the latest “hip” one. Give me a few hundred million dollars and I guarantee you I can come up with research and a computer model that will show humankind will be devastated by a mystery disease within a hundred years. But don’t ask too many questions, we need to take action now 🙂

    Anyway I am pleased our ramblings have at least influenced one person. If global warming is a serious threat then let’s deal with it in a serious way, not via some compromised piece of legislation.

    Having said all that we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anyway and if we simply just focused on that we would go a long way towards reducing C02 emissions anyway.

  • 37 Greg Atkinson // Nov 6, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    By the way, I am not concerned what side of the global warming debate people are on but I found this this comment on Twitter by the MD of the ABC Mark Scott disturbing:

    “Just left Lowy Institute after blistering attack by the PM on climate change deniers and sceptics. A very punchy speech.”

    This looks very much like the head of the so called independent national broadcaster taking sides in a public way in the climate change debate. How can anyone expect ABCTV for example to present to the public fact based and balanced reporting on the subject if this is what the MD is thinking?

    Heck he even uses the word “deniers”!


  • 38 Senator13 // Nov 6, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    It is lines like that from the likes of Scott and the rest of the ABC that just goes to show how shallow the argument of some of these people really are. Rudd’s words may have been “punchy” but that is about it. He used some strong rhetoric in that speech but no actual facts. Nothing substantive. Just a catch phrase. Nothing more. Then you get all these sheep in the media that jump on the band wagon and you have an entire day of wasteful coverage on some hallow rhetoric instead of reporting on something with a bit of substance.

    Anyone with a level headed approach and who is reasonable would not see any problem in wanting to see what the rest of the world is doing for something that supposedly requires unified global action. I mean are they really saying they don’t want us to speak with the rest of the world to find a unified solution?

  • 39 Greg Atkinson // Nov 7, 2009 at 7:39 am

    Senator I would think the head of the ABC would at least leave comments like this for reporters. Can you imagine the reaction if the head of a major media organisation wrote something like this:

    “Just left xxxx Institute after blistering attack by the xxxx on Refugees and Asylum Seekers. A very punchy speech.”

    The PM’s speech is aimed at shutting down debate which is scary since I doubt Rudd even understands what he is supporting.

  • 40 Geoff Brown // Nov 7, 2009 at 9:46 am

    The ABC has to give balanced reporting. Our Climate Sceptics Party has continually asked them to give some balance on their Anthropogeinic global warming reporting and they say that they are reporting the opinion of the mainstream?!?!?

    BTW, how many times do you see Bob Brown (no relation) who represents less than 10% of Tasmanians on ABC TV – mainstream opinion?

    Here is a speech by our leader Mr Rudd condemning Climate (Change) Sceptics and Climate (Change) Deniers:

    And to show some balance re the ABC, here is a column by Chris Uhlmann:

    Einstein wasn’t as arrogant as Lord Kelvin. He was to say of his theories, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.

    and –

    So Popper would argue that to say any theory is “settled” means that you are not talking about science but pseudo-science.

    “Denier” is one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate. And what is wrong with being a sceptic? The Greek root of the word means “thoughtful” or “inquiring” and that used to be a virtue.

    Perhaps my 20c a day is not misplaced!

  • 41 Greg Atkinson // Nov 7, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    Geoff thanks for the links. I guess what is annoying me is that Kev07 went around for weeks setting himself up to be the big man in Copenhagen and now it looks like an agreement will not be reached there, he is spitting the usual.

    I thought this press release from Barnaby Joyce on 6th November shows just how far Rudd will go to impress the U.N.


    Leon Byner (5AA): The Copenhagen Treaty – have you read it entirely?

    KEVIN RUDD: Well, I can say that A. there is none at this stage, B. there is a draft and the draft is a very thick document and it has in the parlance of the people who work on negotiations literally hundreds of square bracketed sections which means where there’s no agreement, so when you ask is there a Copenhagen Treaty at this stage, no there isn’t. Are there massive areas of disagreement within it? Yes there are.

    Australia has to be very disturbed and confused by the lack of diligence currently being shown by the executive of our nation headed by Mr Rudd in his negotiations with the now infamous Copenhagen Treaty.

    Mr Rudd, here is a simple piece of financial advice from your little old bush accountant.

    A. If you don’t understand the contractual requirements as stipulated in the Copenhagen agreement, B. you should not sign it.

  • 42 Greg Atkinson // Nov 12, 2009 at 7:46 am

    Good article in the SMH/National Times today by Miranda Devine: Science cooks the books, driving sensible people to screaming point

    Well worth a read I think.

  • 43 Senator13 // Nov 15, 2009 at 6:33 am

    It will be an interesting week in Parliament this week to see if the Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill gets passed.

  • 44 Ralph // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:22 am

    I reckon it’s going down, Senator. And Rudd won’t be too unpleased either. I reckon we’re looking at a double dissolution election with the ETS/climate change as a convenient excuse. The real reason will be that Rudd will need to keep borrowing, printing, stimulating and spending to keep the economy going. And he’ll want to get re-elected so he can do that. Additionally, with Rudd and Swannie being the political cowards they are, they won’t want to have to bring down a genuinely tough budget – so better to go to an election before they have to tighten the belts.

  • 45 Geoff Brown // Nov 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    The pendulum is swinging away from the CO2 is guilty or we feel guilty because we caused this warming.

    As the COP15 treaty has revealed, this is just an excuse to get world government.
    See my posts: and the two following.

    The pendulum is swinging on the “science” also.

    NASA and the goracle have given a partial reprieve to CO2:

    The more the pendulum swings, the less likely a DD election fought on a tax on CO2.

  • 46 Ralph // Nov 17, 2009 at 9:02 am

    Yes, it’s looking likely that the whole thing is going to fall in a heap. I have come to the conclusion that the ETS being proposed has been bastardised so much that no one is capable of supporting it. It would be a disgrace if it is passed. I’d be surprised if Rudd really wants it passed anyway.

    I still believe the world has a big reason to act in favour of energy sustainability and less reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels (i.e. note peak oil). But that is an entirely different matter to climate change.

    On another matter, I think a DD election is still a possibility. Or even just a vanilla early election. But not because Rudd wants his dog of an ETS to pass. It will be to avoid having to deliver a ‘tough’ budget (something this gov’t doesn’t have stomach for) and provide Rudd with the justification to introduce more borrowing, spending and stimulus that he can’t justify in the current political climate of the ‘new boom’.

  • 47 Greg Atkinson // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Ralph I reckon the ETS is dead as it stands today and hopefully world leaders will relax a little and not sign anything in Copenhagen. The GFC has done more to reduce CO2 emissions than Al Gore so we probably won’t need to be racing for higher ground for a while 🙂 I also reckon an ETS triggered early election is on the cards. Why not go for the polls when you know you can win?

    Anyway if anybody thinks China will cut emissions if their economy starts to slow then they are in fantasy land. Besides the tonnes of dust that blow across to Japan from China every year reminds me that there are bigger issues to deal with than global warming. We don’t need CO2 to mess up the environment, we can do that quite well ourselves. Just look at the Murray-Darling river system for example.

  • 48 Geoff Brown // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    Perhaps it all is dead.

    Have Sharewatchers blog caught up with the latest?

    Some-one from Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the Uni of East Anglia has leaked a great bulk of e-mails from many of the IPCC lead authors talking about “tricking up” evidence like Mike (Michael Mann) did (with the disgraced hockey stick graph.;) adding stuff to make results look better; supressing info that would give sceptics a lever; deleting stuff that is subject of Freedom of Info Enquiries; etc

    Suddenly, there is a major doubt over the “science.” And Yet, Malcolm Turnbull still believes in the “science.” Mr Rudd, must be worried that this frauding of the “science” will become general knowledge because he is now becoming more strident and saying that his offer will only apply for this week. (Presumably, next week the truth might be known)

    Google hadley cru and e-mails and you will find stuff like this:

    Just imagine if we learned we were about to be landed with the biggest bill in the history of the world – simply on the say-so of a group of scientists. Would we not want to be absolutely sure that those scientists were 100 per cent dependable in what they were saying?

    Should we not then be extremely worried – and even very angry – if it emerged that those scientists had been conspiring among themselves to fiddle the evidence for what they were telling us?

    Read more:

    When do the treason trials begin?

  • 49 Ned S // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:58 am

    I loved Rudd’s “climate change deniers” accusation – To cash in on the “holocaust deniers” guilt trip obviously – The manipulating little grub has no shame! 🙂

    He might be well advised to recall that there was a time not so long back that those who weren’t convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction could have been called deniers of the only acceptable “truth” as well? But then probably not as it’s just an excuse to gather more tax – Which is why Turnbull is a true believer also.

  • 50 Ned S // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Interesting read:

    In truth a bloke should buy a house in Tassie (or Russia?) in case they are right; And keep one in QLD in case they are wrong.

    I do like the Russian attitude to it though – So if we keep polluting the Earth it will be warmer and we will have a longer growing season for our crops and we’ll not need to spend as much on heating our houses and the ice will melt so it is easier to get at the mineral resources we need to pollute the Earth some more – And you say this is bad??? Plus as we aren’t a big polluter by global standards anyway (well not in relation to CO2 emmissions – Smile!) the silly buggers in the West want to pay us lots of money for our spare carbon credits – Ho Ho Ho!!!

    No wonder Putin had to have a bit of a think about whether to tell the West to get stuffed or whether he’d play along with their silly games. But at the end of the day he reckons he’ll play which will give him the money now AND the nicer climate when the West actually achieves nothing – Now that’s a Win/Win!!!

  • 51 Senator13 // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    The entire debate has been a farce.

    I don’t hear the Prime Minister giving a guarantee his CPRS will prevent the so called destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. I don’t hear the Prime Minister guaranteeing his CPRS will prevent the so called melting of the ice caps. He can’t give that kind of guarantee and he knows it because the science just is not there yet to prove it. He is just going on “the majority consensus”.

    Even the Prime Minister doubts that anything will get up at the UN conference yet all this week has been demanding that his Bill be passed this week. There is no reason for this hysteria.

    Ned – I like the Russian take on it all!

  • 52 Ned S // Nov 24, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Yeh, if nothing else the Russkies have got a sense of humour Senator – I recall the joke about little Igor peering in the keyhole of his mamma and pappa’s bedroom door to see if they were awake one morning and standing back aghast after an hour and saying And these people tell me not to pick my nose???

  • 53 Greg Atkinson // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Ned that article you provided the link for pretty much sums up my view if the ETS/Global Warming circus. All we will get out of Copenhagen will be some good shots of world leaders and a statement that will ramble on and not say much.

    Maybe they should all agree not to fly across the planet with the media in tow and that alone will do more to reduce CO2 emissions than any meetings they have had so far.

  • 54 Ned S // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:08 am

    Yes Greg, the article was spot on. We have our leaders engaging in a exercise to collect more tax – And we knew it was coming – The stuff on the Henry review to date has told us that while increasing the GST rate is “bad”, that environmental taxes are “good”! Aussies are just too bloody stupid to connect the dots and realise that if they can’t increased taxes out of us in a politically unacceptable way then they’ll find a politically acceptable way so we can all have warm and fuzzy feelings about saving the environment while they stiff us. Rant over! 🙂

  • 55 Geoff Brown // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Ned sed: “I loved Rudd’s “climate change deniers” accusation – To cash in on the “holocaust deniers” guilt trip obviously – The manipulating little grub has no shame!”

    No shame and no accuracy. Not one of the man-made global warming sceptics deny that climate changes – it has always changed.

    Do you know who were the climate change deniers. The charlatans from the IPCC who published the disgraced “hockey stick” graph saying that climate had been the same for 1000 years and then man-made emissions of essential-to-life CO2 caused a change of climate.

    Indeed, the manipulating little grub has no shame. Nor in fact does Malcolm Turmol!

  • 56 Greg Atkinson // Dec 7, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Does anyone remember the “Ice Age” scare of the 1970’s? If not then have a read of this article from The Fiction Of Climate Science

  • 57 Geoff Brown // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Time Mag March 74:

    Lokk at the same doom and gloom predictions for an ice age and for global warming:,9171,944914,00.html

    The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth’s surface receives from the sun.

    Now they are saying that it can’t be the Sun – it’s colour tasteless life-supporting CO2…hmmmm

    Also from Newsweek a year later:

    The Cooling World
    Newsweek, April 28, 1975
    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

  • 58 Ned S // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Climate science is starting to sound like it might be about as rigorous (and free of things like vested interest groups) as the science of economics!

    Thanks for that link Greg – Quite an entertaining read.

  • 59 Greg Atkinson // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    If the media were really up to the task they would be looking at where all the government funding is going and who stands to profit from the rush to cut CO2 etc.

    I am sure there are groups who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars and so we should be looking to see where the money leads us.

    If people like Rudd really believe the planet is in danger then why the heck is he clocking up more time in his VIP jet than Led Zeppplin? Why doesn’t he set an example and get a smaller plane?

    In fact why aren’t the talks in Copenhagen handled via video conference? I wonder how many tonnes of CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere just so we get one of those G20 like statements that says basically nothing.

    All looks like a big “earth hour” to me where people get to feel good about themselves but fail to actually doing anything to address the problems at hand.

  • 60 Ned S // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Assuming there even are any problems?
    Don Quixote comes to mind.

  • 61 Geoff Brown // Dec 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Greg says: “If people like Rudd really believe the planet is in danger then why the heck is he clocking up more time in his VIP jet than Led Zeppplin? Why doesn’t he set an example and get a smaller plane?

    Doesn’t he look a bit like John Denver?

  • 62 Senator13 // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Good links Greg and Geoff. They were an interesting read. Its funny how Rudd and Co are so adamant that they are right and nothing possibly could be wrong with the science and their way of thinking… It is as if the earth is still flat.

    I just figure if their CPRS bill was so good for the environment the Greens would have at least voted for it. They didn’t. If the Greens don’t even vote for it that just goes to show what a joke this Bill really is.

    There are more immediate problems right in our own back yard that we need to worry about I feel.

  • 63 Greg Atkinson // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:19 am

    You just have to love how much C02 is being released by the people who claim to be trying to reduce it. This story in The Australian today shows just what a farce the whole Copenhagen circus is: Aussie footprint 1817 tonnes, and counting

  • 64 Geoff Brown // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01 am

    G’day Greg

    Here’s the official list of all attendees.

    I think I counted 127 from Australia. Penny Wong says she’s not sure how many.

  • 65 Senator13 // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Oh no no no, but Rudd says this is not his fault. He blames the States. Nothing is ever Kevin’s fault.

    The hypocrisy at this conference is rampant.

    And all the journalists absolutely love it. They would trade their Toyota Prius to be on the next flight to Copenhagen if they could. It is just a media circus and it is getting out of control.

    The Government just fudged more “outcomes” from COAG regarding Health yet the VIP jet has been on stand by to dash to Copenhagen as soon as Obama sets off. I think Kevin needs to refocus and fix our hospitals instead of bringing in another tax that will do nothing for the environment. I thought he was the one who said he was going to stop the blame game?

  • 66 Greg Atkinson // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Geoff/Senator..I think the term “Monty Pythonesque” comes to mind. This is the problem when you start giving government’s too much power, they simply create layers of bureaucracy. I can just imagine there will be a whole range of departments created that will make the “Ministry of Silly Walks” look totally rational.

    Can you imagine what Rudd or Wong would say if the private sector did anything half as crazy as the Copenhagen Circus? They would be lecturing them about the immorality of CO2 etc…

    Kev07..people are still dying waiting for you to fix the hospital system as you promised.

  • 67 Senator13 // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    Taking that many people is just out of control and ridiculous. You would only need maybe Kevin and Wong and a few staffers and departmental people. I don’t see why any more then 10 would be needed. It makes it look like it is just a lot of grand standing. To see who brings the biggest delegation to claim that they are the most serious about tackling climate change.

    Sounds like excessive greed and waste to me… Didn’t Kevin write an essay about that once???

  • 68 Greg Atkinson // Jan 15, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Kevin is always writing essays..or children’s books now also. By the way have a look at these video clips. Pretty interesting I think:

  • 69 Geoff Brown // Jan 16, 2010 at 7:45 am

    G’day Greg and gang,

    I don’t know if you have heard, but we have Lord Chris Monckton and Professorr Ian Plimer touring around Australian capitals at the end of the month.

  • 70 Senator13 // Jan 16, 2010 at 11:25 am

    “Announcing that climate change is the `great moral challenge of our time’, as if war, injustice, poverty and man’s inhumanity to man are somehow second-order issues, is typical of the Prime Minister’s rhetorical overkill.” – Tony Abbott.

  • 71 Ned S // Jan 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    To put it in the Australian vernacular: “Kev’s a whanker.” 🙂

  • 72 Senator13 // Jan 16, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    hahaha, you got it Ned!

  • 73 Ned S // Jan 16, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    I try hard to ignore all his noise these days Senator and just listen for the important bits and pieces that are likely to outlast him. Think he’s good for two terms but three would really surprise me.
    How are you finding home ownership?

  • 74 Senator13 // Jan 16, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    I am really enjoying home ownership so far thanks Ned! I know it is early days so far but am getting by quiet well. I have made some additional repayments while rates are low as I expect them to keep going up again in Feb. Unfortunately I had three rate rises from the time I looked at the place and said I would take it to the time I made my first repayment but that’s life…

    I still have not made up my mind if I want to do the move back home after 6 months thing and rent it out yet. Or if to keep living in it as I really like the place. So much for keeping emotion out of it… I still have a little while to make up my mind and am in no rush. I am guessing the RBA will be a big factor in making that decision. Though, with rents increasing and the job market looking better then expected it might be a smart time to rent it out and really try and knock the loan down quickly.

    It is a good idea to try block out all the noise. There certainly is a lot of it on all kinds of topics. If everybody listened to it all – no one would do anything or get anything done. On the other hand it does get hard sometimes especially when it comes to your own money for things like shares and buying a home.

    How have things been with you?

  • 75 Ned S // Jan 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    G’day Senator – Great to hear you are enjoying the joint.

    Yes, having the run of your own home can get to be a habit. If I was young I’d be having similar thoughts to you though – Do any renos (myself if at all possible) that might help maximize rental income and head back to the folks once the necessary conditions/period was up to keep the policy makers happy.

    It’s just such a heck of an opportunity to get the mortgage down – All the advantages of a negatively geared property without the downside of a capital gains tax bill in the future – For 6 years without having to move back in anyway as I understand it. (And hopefully if you keep an eye on Ken Henry’s stuff, you’ll know if that’s how it is going to continue to work.)

    Yes things are fine here too – I got a bit of work early this financial year. Plus with the interest rates having stabilised and even moved back up a bit the income from my cash is starting to look healthier. (Although I’m not expecting especially high rates again anytime soon.) And I have a mortgage free rental that brings in a bit more income. So no grizzles here.

    The noise HAS been distracting lately. Glad everything is shaping up well for you! Cheers … Ned.

  • 76 Senator13 // Jan 17, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Hay Ned, glad to hear everything is going well for you too. All great points – your right – paying off the loan asap will save literally tens of thousands or more in interest repayments and I could almost do it in 10 years or so with rental yield going towards it. It is most likely the course I will take. Thanks.

    Also, great links Greg – very interesting!

    Geoff, it will be interesting to see how Lord Monckton’s tour goes. It would be good if he could do a TV interview too. That would be good to see.

  • 77 Geoff Brown // Jan 17, 2010 at 8:34 am

    He will be doing a studio interview with Alan Jones on Syd2GB.

    We’re hoping to get him on the National Press Club Luncheon which is televised on Ch2

  • 78 Greg Atkinson // Jan 17, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Geoff if the ABC or National Press Club really interested in hearing the other side of the global warming debate?

  • 79 Geoff Brown // Jan 17, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    G’day Greg

    Nat Press Club confirmed for the Wednesday – will be interested in the questions after his address.

  • 80 Senator13 // Jan 17, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Thanks Geoff – I will I will defiantly tune in!

  • 81 Greg Atkinson // Jan 17, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    I hope the visit by Chris Monckton will help balance the global warming debate in Australia. Will Rudd have the courage to debate Monckton or call label him a “denier” to his face? Me thinks not.

  • 82 Geoff Brown // Jan 18, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    Sorry about a little incorrect info.

    Lord Monckton has been bumped from above from the main (TV) interview but will speak to the National Press Club from 3pm.

    Probably the only press left will be in their cups.

    Such is the power of the Gorian Movement.

  • 83 Greg Atkinson // Jan 19, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Maybe the press are ducking for cover after helping support the global warming fear campaign which is now starting to fall apart. Thankfully The Australian newspaper has been one of the few voices of reason and has been highlighting the IPCC’s very deniable science.

    So Kevin Rudd reckons the science behind global warming is undeniable hey? Well not only is it deniable, but aspects of it have be proven to be based on no research at all!

    Kev07 might like to throw insults at “deniers” but as least they are not as gullible as he appears to me.

  • 84 Senator13 // Jan 19, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    I think Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are the only ones in denial.

    Denial about COP15, denial about the science, denial about the solution.

  • 85 Ned S // Jan 19, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Maybe Krudd and Pwong could coauthor a book on it – In Mandarin to help convince the Chinese impending holocaust recalcitrants?

  • 86 Greg Atkinson // Feb 4, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Here an an interesting article on climate change issues that focus more on some facts than on hype.

    As I have been saying for years now, technology is the way forward not taxes. We need to adapt if global warming is a problem and I can’t think of a single event in world history where humankind has advanced because a new complicated tax was introduced.

  • 87 Senator13 // Feb 6, 2010 at 11:55 am

    This was a good interview on the ABC a few days ago:

    I think it goes to show that the Government can’t explain the cost of its ETS and that it is a do nothing policy. It has been years coming, but people are finally starting to ask how much will it cost.

  • 88 Greg Atkinson // Apr 25, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Amazing how what Rudd called “the greatest moral challenge of our time” seems to have dropped off the radar. Maybe health reform is now a dangerous distraction?

  • 89 Geoff Brown // Apr 25, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    When you least expect it, it will be back. If Rudd wins a double dissolution, it will be re-inreoduced and probably, this time, the Green will support it. The rates ere not in the bill but in the regulations. After it is through the rates can be jacked up to Green levels.

  • 90 Ned S // Apr 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Geoff is probably right. Although it’s not the vote getter it was before Copenhagen I guess. With health obviously being the big issue that Rudd reckons will win him lots of brownie points and not upset anyone. Curious one though – In that it’s possible that’s why he’s having to release the KHR – The states wanted to know about that before agreeing to the health funding stuff. And he’s pretty much just said the plan is to get the loot from the miners.

  • 91 Greg Atkinson // Apr 25, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Here is an interesting piece by Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US.

    Of course you will still get plenty of journalists with no science background at all saying that the scientific community support the science behind AGW, but the reality is that this is simply no true.

    Let’s keep the debate alive I say!

  • 92 Ned S // Apr 25, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Remind me again Greg, what are the catastrophic effects of all of this – Something along the lines that the planet gets warmer so bad arsed places like Siberia become nicer and Oz maybe goes back to the dinosaur days when lifeforms larger than marsupial mice could inhabit the interior. But if you’ve bought a canal block on the Gold Coast you’ll be pissed because the sea level is gunna go up. So you’ll have to try to be as smart as the average Dutchman if you want to continue to live there?

  • 93 Greg Atkinson // Apr 25, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    That’s it Ned 🙂 The seas will rise and gloom will grip the planet. Of course the planet has been warmer before like during middle ages and humankind did just fine, but apparently this time the warming is all caused by nasty CO2 and we will be unble to cope.

    So you either sign up to Al Gore’s version of events (a man who has no science background at all) or you are an evil, planet hating, global warming denier. (although these days the term is “climate change” as that pretty much covers anything, including the option to revise the story if temperatures actually fall)

    It’s a funny world 🙂

  • 94 Ned S // Apr 25, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    If I was trying to look ahead to the end of the century to find things to worry about Greg, I’d probably be thinking more in terms of possible overpopulation problems and becoming resource constrained than worrying about the possibility the climate may change and that could make some people sad and others happy.

    I think we agree we agree on this one! 🙂

  • 95 Greg Atkinson // Apr 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    Well it looks like the ETS is on the back-burner. It seems global warming is not so urgent now in Rudd’s world? See:

    Amazing, a few years ago people like me who questioned the science behind global warming were told we were endangering the planet and action has to be taken now. But today it seems that when Rudd said in 2007 that urgent action was required, that was only for election purposes. Or maybe in Rudd’s world urgent means action in 5 years? (that would make sense, as his urgent health reforms promised in 2007 also seems to be years away from seeing the light of day)

    The whole climate change/global warming scare campaign is in complete tatters.

  • 96 Ned S // Apr 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    A good result I’d say!

    PS: A somewhat introspective chap who was wrong on WMD in Iraq, pink batts and climate change, might be starting to feel he was an embarrassment to himself. Wonder if Rudd has an ounce of introspectivity in his bones?

  • 97 Greg Atkinson // May 23, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Ned…it seems Rudd and his G-20 mates have forgotten all about the promises they were making. So I wonder where global warming is now on Rudd’s list of things to do?

Leave a Comment



This site is not intended to act as any form of financial or investment advice.  © 2008–2017 Shareswatch Australia — DisclaimerCutline by Chris Pearson


The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. Whilst we endeavour to keep the information up-to-date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. Please seek professional advice before making any investments.