Finally, the Liberals object to religious lobbyists dictating to ordinary Australians.
A member of Tony Abbott’s front bench said religious representatives were entitled to their views, but they weren’t shared by most Australians…
Coalition frontbencher Kevin Andrews said the issue was not as clear-cut as the religious representatives suggested.
“In my movement about Australia, that’s not the view that the great majority of Australians have at this stage,” Mr Andrews said.
Discovering the existence of separation of church and state, and realising that support for discrimination against gay people was now a minority view, Kevin then agreed to support marriage equality.
No, not really.
Moved On 
This is a pleasing development. It is absolutely correct that right thinking muscular christians such as Kevin Andrews put this non representive radical left clergy under proper scrutiny and hold them to account.
Hells bells, most of them arn’t even Christians, let alone Jesuites. Of the five in the photo, one has a head shaved and looks like a drug addict (can’t be 100% sure if he is homosexual from the photo but robe gives a clue), another is a suspicious looking Indian wearing a turban, another looks like an arab loving self loathing jew. The only christian looking chap looks to be one of those limp wristed Anglicans who probably didn’t play footy at school and in any case is anglican so not really a christian. Oh, there’s a negroe as well who should be shipped off shore in any case.
Why would anyone take the slightest bit of notice of what these gollywogs have to say on climate change? It beggers belief. We should look Jesuites, and preferably Riveriew educated Jesuites. Barnaby Joyce for instance who ticks all the boxes and has his head screwed on on climate change as is Tony Abbott. Cardinell Pell although not Riverview was a fine footballer in his youth and likes his christianity on the muscular side, and surprisingly also happens to be a renowned climate change scholar.
“Why would anyone take the slightest bit of notice of what these gollywogs have to say on climate change? It beggers belief.”
Indeed. They should stick to more important things like the best sexual positions, or their take on bestiality. But hey the hypocrisy of the Liberals as usual stands out like the proverbial dogs nurries. If they had come out against same sex marriage, the likes of Abbott and Andrews would be nominating them all for a Nobel prize, of some description.
They, that’s Abbott and Andrews have more front than a block of flats. No bloody shame, what so ever. The sad part is, the wing nuts who support these cretins will not see the slightest bit of irony here. SB is no doubt self flagellating at this very moment with a damp, but crisp lettuce leaf in atonement..
If it wasn’t so bloody serious Joyce, Abbott, and Andrews could run their own comedy company.Oh btw golliwog is not P.C. Mc Robertson’s (Jam) had to remove the caricature of a said golliwog from their jam products many years ago.
This is wonderful to see. In the true spirit of ecuminism more established religions are recognising Gaia worship as a legitimate religion. No doubt they are eager to learn the secret of this new cult’s power to gain fanatical followers among the elite classes, not to mention its ability to extract massive funding from the state.
Trololololol.
Um, troll … Every single one of those religions already “extract massive funding from the state” by being exempt from the company taxes paid by every other business in the country. Switching to Gaia worship is hardly going to increase that. If anything they’ll spend years in court trying to establish the Church of Gaia as a tax-exempt religion. Why go to that much bother? State funding is hardly a motivating factor. Maybe instead it’s that pesky “morality” that you seem to have a problem with, troll.
Leonore Taylor absolutely nailed liberals hypocrisy re. their climate change policy on Insiders this morning.
Speaking of Insiders, is barry cassidy a dope? He went on ad infinitum about the ‘meo’ Jenny Wong episode. I hit the channel changer and watched something else for 5 mins, turned back and he was still going on about it. He fits perfectly into Tanners description of journalists who can only talk about politics as a sporting contest with zero capacity to analyse policy.
Hey SB.
Maybe all these religious leaders, unlike yourself, are respectful enough of their Gods creation to want to take proper care of it?
Or maybe they, unlike you, care deeply about the fate of future generations?
Feel free to keep shitting all over the garden of Eden SB. Im sure your God will thank you for it, and reward you in kind when you meet him..
“No doubt they are eager to learn the secret of this new cult’s power to gain fanatical followers among the elite classes, not to mention its ability to.”
In that case, id suggest they have a chat with Pell.
Not only would they learn the secrets of extracting massive funding from the state, but they could learn how best to protect all the child molesters within their organisations too.
Win-win, eh SB?
Damn that’s just what I was about to say, Duncan.
Oh shit, I said “Damn”!
Oh fuck, I said “Shit”!
Oh damn, I said …
Maybe SB could tell us “who would Jesus BOMB?”
(that’s a quote from Michael Moore. A very good quote)
Duncan: “Maybe all these religious leaders, unlike yourself, are respectful enough of their Gods creation to want to take proper care of it?”
Destroying an economy on a whim and a wank is not “taking care” of anything except the metastisised egos of those involved. Unsurprisingly the proposed solution is one that has absolutely no prospect of achieving the stated goal.
You dismiss the collective scientific wisdom of a very large group of very intelligent and dedicated people far too easily SB.
I am sceptical of many of the predictions and self-interested nonsense emanating from parts of the AGW movement, but to describe global warming as “a whim and a wank” driven solely by ego is to oversimplify to the point of rank stupidity.
You may be having fun on the merry-go-round, but eventually you’re going to have to get off if you actually want progress.
“Destroying an economy on a whim and a wank”
Not what anyone’s proposing.
RM, Jesus wouldn’t bomb anyone. His was a personal spiritual revolution directed at changing individuals. Similarly he wouldn’t tax or imprison anyone. He left those things to Ceaser.
Mondo: “a very large group of very intelligent and dedicated people”
These are indeed the wankers of whom I speak – so in love with their own “intelligence” they can only find fulfillment by saving the world. They have hitched their wagons to a cause that is neither scientific nor wise. And like all religious fanatics they demand utter unswerving obeisance to their ridiculous god.
“Destroying an economy on a whim and a wank is not “taking care” of anything”
I agree SB.
The attempts of people like Tony Abbott to impoverish future generations “on a whim and a wank”, and for entirely political reasons, is truly pathetic.
The thing that disgusts me most about the current batch of conservative politicians is their willingness to damage Australia’s economy, environent and international reputation in the pursuit of power.
They should want to make Australia great, and work hard to serve their country. Instead they serve their corporate masters, and stuff their corpulent snouts at the trough.
Power is no longer a means in Australian politics, it is now an end in itself.
So yeah, Tony can keep on wrecking, keep on undermining the credibility of treasury and the CSIRO, keep on lying and smearing the Greens until he wins power.
But what then?
False. I calculated a very conservative upper bound on the worst case scenario of damage to the Australian economy from a Carbon tax here:
https://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/terrify-me/
You never justified in what sense a 0.1% loss of GDP would “destory the economy”, SB, because it is in fact an indefensible piece of hyperbolic bullshit.
False. If – as per all major political parties in this country and every major scientific body in the world – you accept that AGW is real, then there are at least three direct benefits to Australia that a Carbon price will in fact achieve, as I mention here:
https://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/terrify-me/#comment-23863
Now you may want to argue it is not the most cost effective way to achieve any of these aims (direct cuts to our own emissions, increased political pressure on other emitters to cut, and increased local investment in carbon free technologies), all of which assist the overall global effort to reduce total emissions. And you may want to argue the costs outweight the benefits – in fact that much is obviously true if you buy into the conspiracy theorist view that AGW has no scientific basis.
But its completely wrong to say it will have absolutely no prospect of achieving its goal, because it will in fact lead to quantifiable progress on all three fronts.
RM, it looks like we are in roaring agreement here. The Labor government is debilitating the CSIRO by cutting its funding and appointing a trendoid investment banker as its head.
“These are indeed the wankers of whom I speak – so in love with their own “intelligence” they can only find fulfillment by saving the world.”
As opposed to finding fulfillment by being an asshole to fellow human beings and other creatures? Saving the world is just so evil … oh wait!
“They have hitched their wagons to a cause that is neither scientific nor wise.”
It is scientific by definition – it is the recommendation of actual scientists that we do something about this. As for wise – well future generations will judge that. Let’s save the world and see what they say, huh? Or should we nothing and have them condemn us if the scientific predictions turn out to be correct after all?
“And like all religious fanatics they demand utter unswerving obeisance to their ridiculous god.”
Warning! Strawman alert! There’s a high number of atheists on this blog who support doing something about climate change. No swearing to a god required. And many of the religious leaders in the original article already require swearing to a god – yours in fact. The Church of Gaia strawman that exists only in your head isn’t necessary to see the logic of following the advice of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate. Unlike their denialist detractors like you.
“These are indeed the wankers of whom I speak – so in love with their own “intelligence” they can only find fulfilment by by saving the world.”
Better than those so in love with sin that they can only find fulfilment by consuming and despoiling the world in the desperate, grasping and destructive pursuit of instant gratification, wealth and power over others.
“hitched their wagons to a cause that is neither scientific nor wise.”
Yes, you have rather hitched yourself to an anti science, short sighted ideology. One that espouses the virtues of taking NO ACTION WHATSOEVER when confronted with a possible threat to our countries prosperity and security.
Such wisdom has rarely been seen SB.
“And like all religious fanatics they demand utter unswerving obeisance to their ridiculous god.”
What, like kneeling before a man in a purple dress, drinking magic bloodwine, eating godflesh crackers and begging favours from the statue of a dead hippy?
Or maybe its a bit more like having lots of children you can’t afford to feed, or infecting your wife with an exotic disease, all because The Grand Wizard told you that wearing a condom is immoral?
Talk about ridiculous!
Destroying an economy on a whim and a wank is not “taking care” of anything …
Funnily enough, Jesus and the bible didn’t say anything about economics, carbon prices/taxes etc. The bible does however, talk in detail about God being pissed by people destroying the planet (eg. Isaiah 24:4-6, Jeremiah 2:7, Revelation 11:18). When God granted us power over the Earth, he said we should ‘work it and keep it’ (Genesis 2:15) – not destroy it. To keep is to manage, to take care of. In fact, Leviticus 25:23-24 talks about not just selling out the land, that we are merely tenants of God’s estate and reminds us that this place is His.
As I said, the bible is pretty silent on economics and government however, beyond 1. pay your taxes and 2. respect /obey the laws.
Religious institutions don’t pay taxes, they are exempt and fight fiercly to protect that ‘right’. Considering it does not require a benevolent purpose (as a PBI must demonstrate to get the same exemption), merely a religious one, it is a significant level of funding granted via exemption from revenue. In other words, the arguement of ‘they do good’ is irrelevant, because PBI’s get the same benefit by demonstrating they are benevolent. All a religious organisation would need to do is demonstrate that and there would be no problem. The issue is that they get taxation exemptions for no other reason but that they are religious.
Religions do not respect our laws, particularly laws designed to enact some of Jesus’ own teachings (eg ‘we are all equal’ – think Galations 3:28). Other laws they don’t like they then lobby to have changed and in the mean time simply disobey/disrespect. Consider how much respect they pay to the legalisation of abortion in Victoria or the needle and syringe programs (the bible is literally silent on both of these – it is merely a construction/interpretation that religions apply). Consider how they discriminate against women, regardless of if those women follow that religions tenants or not (note that the bible is not silent on this – again look at Galations 3:28). Consider the disproportionate abuse of trust via clergymen – again the bible is not silent on this eg. rape, abuse of position etc (eg. Matthew 18:6).
I am generalising, granted, but it is a disproportionate picture. Jesus preached compassion and equality . I see little of that from religions (notwishstanding that I see a great deal of it from individuals of faith). He preached no condemnation (granted that was Paul speaking to the Romans) – but I mainly (not only) see them (religious groups) judging and condemning others.
They have hitched their wagons to a cause that is neither scientific nor wise.
In all honesty SB when you (a non-scientist) find that your preferred position on climate modelling requires the glib dismissal of the considered scientific consensus of the CSIRO, it may be time to take a breath and think again.
Your commendable commitment to being a contrarian is taking you into cartoon territory.
They have hitched their wagons to a cause that is neither scientific nor wise.
SB Are you saying that the concept of man induced warming is not scientific or are you just against a carbon tax?
Jordan: “False. I calculated a very conservative upper bound on the worst case scenario of damage to the Australian economy from a Carbon tax here”
Well praise the Lord! But sadly your calculation is rubbish. It doesn’t take account of the fact that the tax does not apply to the rest of the world or the destruction of industries and the reduction in investment that follows from that.
Unique: “It is scientific by definition – it is the recommendation of actual scientists that we do something about this. As for wise – well future generations will judge that. Let’s save the world and see what they say, huh? Or should we nothing and have them condemn us if the scientific predictions turn out to be correct after all?”
Nonsense. Here is a clue – the definition of science is not “consensus”. If the “scientists” will not share the data and models on which they base their recommendations then no rational person would act on their sermons. The “scientists” are behaving more like a priestly caste and the chattering classes are queuing up to act as Spanish inquisitors. It would be a lot simpler, and much more scientific, to put the evidence on the table and subject it to critical scrutiny.
Duncan it is the idiots who have been telling us for the last 20 years that we must act immediately or it will be too late to save the planet who are involved in a “ desperate, grasping and destructive pursuit of instant gratification, wealth and power over others.” This gravy train is as much about power and money as anything else.
Mondo: “In all honesty SB when you (a non-scientist) find that your preferred position on climate modelling requires the glib dismissal of the considered scientific consensus of the CSIRO, it may be time to take a breath and think again.”
Science is about testing hypotheses. Politics is about consensus. When the “scientists” won’t let their work be tested, but rather rely on “consensus” you know that their game is politics not science.
Gordicans “Are you saying that the concept of man induced warming is not scientific or are you just against a carbon tax?”
The approach of key scientists in this field – “why should I give you my data when your goal is to prove me wrong” and “Please delete this email chain” and “I would rather destroy the data than give it up under FOI” – is such that no government could rely on it. The carbon (dioxide) tax is beyond stupid because even assuming the “science” was correct, an Australian tax is not going to have any material impact. I’d be looking at dropping iron filings into the ocean or something along those lines if I thought it was minutes to midnight for planet earth.
Your commendable commitment to being a contrarian is taking you into cartoon territory.
Some would obviously prefer to subscribe to a massive worldwide conspiracy involving all Western governments and major science organsiations globally than be seen to agree with leftards.
The thing is, supporting climate change policy and environmental policy is consistent with Biblical principles, including those books that are shared across three of our dominiant religions in the world.
narcoticmusing, this is why religious right wingers in the US want to rewrite the Bible, it’s dawned on them that the Jesus they worship is actually a socialist.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
What is it with the religious right and their batshit insanity? SB?
Buns it is not a conspiracy so much as the logical consequence of hubris and venality.
Buns the Bible is certainly in favour of responsible stewardship of natural resources. That has nought to do with posturing politicians grandstanding on the back of unproven theories.
RobJ: “What is it with the religious right and their batshit insanity?”
Misplaced ideals I suspect. Much like bleeding-heart lefties.
When the “scientists” won’t let their work be tested, but rather rely on “consensus” you know that their game is politics not science.
But surely that was then and this is now.
Are you aware of any scientific work relevant to the climate science debate that remains protected from scrutiny today? Tens of thousands of scientists the world over are researching this field – you don’t really believe that you can dismiss their efforts with a wave of your hand do you?
Tens of thousands of scientists the world over are researching this field – you don’t really believe that you can dismiss their efforts with a wave of your hand do you?
Yes, he does. Even though he’s not a climate scientist. And, what’s more, he has the temerity to accuse others of hubris at the same time. Then again, why should anyone listen to experts when they could take counsel from leftard-hating ideologues with absolutely no qualifications in the field? The vehemence with which they hold their beliefs more than compensates for the fact that they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Mondo, inquiries were held, stooges were appointed, the chief complainants were not even interviewed, no problems were identified and the game of cat and mouse continues.
Forget about the “tens of thousands” of scientists. A closer look suggests that the core debate is controlled by a small coterie of “scientists” who call themselves the “Hockey Team”. They are far too interconnected to be called independent and seem obsessed with acting as gate-keepers. This problem was identified in the Wegman report in 2006. Nothing much has changed.
The CO2 aspect of climate change can be explained thus (I’ll keep it overly simplistic):
Background – CO2 cycle
CO2 is a normal gas in the atmosphere and it (along with some other gases such as CH4) traps heat in the planet via a “Greenhouse effect”. Hence it is called a ‘greenhouse gas’. This is normal and essential for life, otherwise the planet would be too cold to survive in. Life evolved (or was created) in such a way that it manages this dynamic – plant life consume CO2 and convert it into oxygen via photosynthesis (and other equivalent mechanisms for non-light dependent organisms). ALL life (including plants) consume O2 and exhale CO2 as a normal bi-product of respiration. Note that this IS NOT disupted science.
So why all the fuss about CO2 (and other ‘greenhouse’ gases)?
Respiration is essentially controlled combustion of an organic molecule (glucose). Fossil fuels are organic molecules and thier combustion also creates CO2 (amongst other things). Thus, we, as a race, are artifically adding in more CO2 (and other ‘greenhouse’ gases) into the atmosphere than the natural balance. Note, despite that it is accepted that we produce CO2 via combustion and other industrial sources (and create other excess greenhouse gases), climate change denialists will argue that levels of this chemical doesn’t increase just because we add to it. This is about as logical as there being some all seeing, powerful all loving being that does nothing when faced with the atrocities in the Congo… oh wait… I digress…
Climate change deniers will point to the fact that plants consume CO2. However, they neglect to take into account two issues from this: first, all life produces CO2 but only plants consume it; so plants are already dealing with a CO2 burden. Secondly, we are rapidly depleating plant life both in the forests/jungles but also the oceans.
So in summary, we have a ‘drip effect’. Think of a bath tub with a certain amount of water in it. If we want the water level to remain constant, we need drip in at tap = drip out via plug. If we increase the tap of water flow, or tighten the plug, we’ll see the water level rise. Similarly, CO2 in consumed by plants should = CO2 produced by ALL life. However, we are increasing the CO2 tap while simultaneously closing the CO2 exit plug. This means a net increase in the CO2 levels.
Now, I’ve been overly simplistic here to an audience who gets this – yet climate sceptics still insist it is all bull. Climate sceptics, please comment on how drops in increasing and drops out decreasing doesn’t end up in a net effect of increase?
When the “scientists” won’t let their work be tested, but rather rely on “consensus” you know that their game is politics not science.
So it is a conspiracy after all. Got it.
If the “scientists” will not share the data and models on which they base their recommendations then no rational person would act on their sermons.
SB this is the first I’ve heard that scientists are not sharing data. What data is not being shared?
Narcotic: “Now, I’ve been overly simplistic here”
No shit.
“yet climate sceptics still insist it is all bull”
Really? That comment shows that you understand neither position.
Try spending a bit of time reading something from someone who is both knowledgeable in the field, and open-minded. Judith Curry’s blog is a good place to start.
Buns, playing politics does not necessarily require a conspiracy, just a lot of self-interest.
The approach of key scientists in this field – “why should I give you my data when your goal is to prove me wrong” and “Please delete this email chain” and “I would rather destroy the data than give it up under FOI” – is such that no government could rely on it.
SB all this does is describe how you haven't the slightest understanding of science. Science is no different to other human activity. It is subject to politics and dirty play, misrepresentation of data, power groups and corruption. So what else is new? Judith Curry's work writings are a lot about this area and its what scientists talk about and are involved in all the time. There are assisinations, kingdoms and fiefdoms in science just like all other areas of human activity. If you want to learn more about how science works Thomas Kuhn is your best starting point.
You jump the shark because of your fixed narrow ideological beliefs (AGW is something the left and greens believe in) and throw up scientists arguing and Judith Curry as reasons believing AGW is not true. Your position is not credible because your fixed ideology is in conflict with the science and is having trouble coping.
SB still fixated on his anti-science crusade?
No surprise he’s drawn to Judith’s blog – all the cranks and fringe theorists have flocked there.
SB I’ve told you on another occasion that I follow Curry’s blog – that doesn’t make climate change fictional because a blog has both sceptics and believers posting at it.
Bizarrely enough, SB, Tony Abbot doesn’t think a carbon tax would increase the overall tax burden at all… I know he didn’t write it down so either he was lying and being unreliable or he is now lying and being unreliable.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-dogged-by-old-carbon-comment-20110607-1fprb.html