Murdoch Papers Tell Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott To Defy Warmists And To Join Them. Only One Paper Is Right

Posted on Thu 12/11/2014 by

0


Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

Global Warming PoliticsRupert Murdoch’s Australian says Tony Abbott should stop trying to please sceptics:

Mr Abbott should place himself in the middle ground on climate change policy. Yet he is too eager to please the rabid elements of the conservative base, who do not accept the science of climate change. But in the political world, voters want to see action to abate emissions… Mr Abbott should change his rhetoric, ramp up the symbolism and worry less about the urgers on the far Right — the way centrist Mr Howard would have.

Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph says Tony Abbott should stop trying to please warmists:

By pledging $200 million over four years to the international Green Climate Fund, the Prime Minister has not only gone against his stated position on contributing to the fund, but he risks alienating the core support that saw him elected last year as an opponent of Labor’s carbon tax.

As well, announcement of the contribution has done little to appease environmentalists… Coalition supporters may be justified in wondering why the government went to the trouble of dismantling the carbon tax only to sign up for such an expensive climate change program — a program once described by the Prime Minister as a “Bob Brown bank on an international scale”. Abbott should have resisted pressure. This is a win for nobody except those receiving our money.

Some confusion in the Murdoch camp, then.

In fact, the Australian is wrong, and most worrying is that its language sounds disturbingly like slogans from a GetUp rally.

– Abbott has been heeding “urgers on the far Right”? Seriously?  “Far Right”?

– “Rabid elements of the conservative base … do not accept the science of climate change”?  What a ludicrous straw man argument.  The case against warming alarmism is in fact rooted in science – the science that unambiguously says the atmosphere has not warmed for 16 years and the deep ocean for nine. It is rooted in the science and the economics which shows massive spending on global warming schemes will make little difference to temperatures, and is likely to hurt more than help – an argument repeatedly put in the paper by one of The Australian’s favoured climate commentators, Professor Bjorn Lomborg.

– “But in the political world, voters want to see action to abate emissions”? Really? Didn’t we just have an election in which public support for scrapping the carbon tax was so strong that even Labor in a panic promised to “terminate” the tax?

– “Mr Abbott should change his rhetoric, ramp up the symbolism”? Abbott has in fact paid lip service for years to global warming. Only yesterday he dropped another $200 million into a global warming fund. And what good did that do? It merely encouraged the Left, dismayed Abbott’s supporters, legitimised the warming scare and made the Government look clueless.

– “The way the centrist Mr Howard would have”? Has the writer forgotten the history? Howard long resisted the alarmists, even more than does Abbott today.  Only with polls predicting his final defeat did Howard in desperation promise to move towards an emissions trading scheme. It did him zero good. No one thought his commitment genuine, and he merely signalled that Labor and the Greens had been right all along – so why vote Liberal instead? No wonder Howard has since backtracked.

I don’t know who wrote that editorial in The Australian, but wonder how they managed to sneak into the editor’s office and pinch his password.

UPDATE

Julie Bishop and Andrew Robb actually seem to be telling the Lima global warming conference a few home truths (albeit not on the failure of the world to warm as predicted):

Trade Minister Andrew Robb declared Australia will not sign up to the next global climate deal in 2015 if it will put the country at a disadvantage to trade competitors…

The hardline stance taken by Mr Robb and supported by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop reflects the continued importance of plentiful oil, gas and coal to Australia’s economy…

Mr Robb’s tough negotiation position was spelled out on the same day Australia tried to gain leverage in the current negotiations in Lima by ­agreeing to a surprise $200 million donation to an international fund to help ­developing countries combat climate change.

“We will make a particular effort to ensure that they are as ambitious as we will be,” Mr Robb said. “If we are not convinced they are doing what they should, it will influence whether we sign up or not. Outcomes must be comparable. We are not going to get it in the neck and increase our costs for nothing.”…

Ms Bishop said Australia objected to a wording in the draft Paris agreement that the world should aim to end net carbon emissions completely by 2050.

“How could one possibly commit to having a fossil fuel-free world by 2050? At best it is an aspiration. I am interested in grounding our text in fact and reality … We would not sign up to targets that would damage our economy, would send jobs offshore, would close down manufacturing. It is in no one’s interest for Australia to be damaged economically.”

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Andrew Bolt’s columns appear in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Adelaide’s Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am. He is also heard from Monday to Friday at 8am on the breakfast show of radio station MTR 1377, and his book  Still Not Sorry remains very widely read.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog . http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/