Prev
Next

Confusion vs inaction: our leaders’ real climate colours

Ellen Sandell

by Ellen Sandell

19 Aug 05:35am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

50

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

73

Filed under: Climate Change, Election 2010, Environment, Ets

79 comments

As we enter the last few days of the election campaign, climate change seems to have Tony Abbott in a muddle. As his record shows, he seems to be confused about whether he understands the science or not, and whether he believes in emissions trading or not.

This polar bear will take Latham's advice and vote informal. Photo: Getty Images

First, his position was that the consensus on climate science was crap. Then he backed an emissions trading scheme when it was Howard’s last hope of winning over a dissatisfied electorate. 

When that didn’t work, he reverted back to his original views and ousted Malcolm Turnbull, telling a group of school students that it was warmer at the time of Jesus. Now he tells us that climate change is important, but he doesn’t want a price on pollution, ever. Boy, is Tony Abbott one confused man.

His see-sawing views took another swing last night on ABC’s Four Corners, when he again reiterated his opinion that global warming may have stopped in recent years. This is in stark contrast to the Australian Academy of Science which yesterday released a report outlining that the case for human-induced climate change is greater than ever before.

Abbott also said his view on the science was “not really relevant”, and that the important thing is the policy response from his party.

The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, why produce a policy on something that you believe doesn’t exist? If science isn’t driving the Coalition’s policy, we should all be worried about what is. Secondly, even if Abbott’s policy response was based on something other than science, such as risk-analysis, his policy response is currently deeply inefficient.

Abbott has gone from being a small-government, free-market kind of guy, to someone who wants Australian taxpayers to pay polluters to stop emitting pollution. The Coalition is trying to scare people about the introduction of Labor’s ‘carbon tax’ – saying that it would put up the price of electricity, groceries, dining and holidays. But they haven’t been completely honest about the cost of their own climate policies, where the taxpayer would shoulder the burden of reducing pollution and the polluters get off scot-free.

This isn’t to say the Government does a whole lot better. Frankly, at the moment their policies are not that dissimilar to the Coalition. However, there is a big difference in intent. At least the Government genuinely seemed to want climate action. Sure, they didn’t have the conviction to take the issue to a double dissolution. Sure, they were rubbish at selling their climate policies to the public. Sure, their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was so weak as to be ineffective. But they still believe that putting a price tag on pollution is the most efficient way to reduce emissions, whereas the Coalition does not.

We are now in the ridiculous situation of the Coalition slamming the Government for lack of conviction on an issue on which they never wanted any action in the first place. Tony isn’t the only one who has the right to be confused.

This election, we have a choice between a denier and an avoider for our leader. It’s a difficult choice, and no wonder that people find it hard to choose between them. However, whilst the situation is confusing, young people are very clear on their desire for stronger action and disregard of leaders who are all talk and no action.

Recent polling by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) shows that over two thirds of Australians aged 18-30 say climate change is an important issue that will inform their vote.  Half of all those polled will not be voting for one of the major parties, or are undecided in their vote.

Even more interestingly, half of young voters in the poll said they believe Tony Abbott is a climate skeptic and, if elected, would simply ignore the scientific evidence for stronger action on climate change. It’s something that the Coalition leader should take note of, as Gen Y represent one in five voters this election.

Last week AYCC also released a non-partisan climate scorecard which shows where each of the three major parties stand on climate change. Hundreds of young people have already been handing them out in the streets, reaching thousands of voters.  The AYCC’s 55,000 members will receive the scorecard in their inbox on voting day, to find out where our leaders really stand.

Young people and climate are both being overlooked by Labor and Liberal this election, but it’s a dangerous thing to do.  If the science doesn’t snap Tony out of his confusion, and Julia out of her inaction, maybe the result on polling day will.

- Ellen Sandell is General Manager of the AYCC. She is the 2009 Joint Young Environmentalist of the Year.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
368There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
295Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

79 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Trajan says:

      06:00am | 19/08/10

      AGW again, AGW = more taxes, higher taxes, kids don’t pay taxes, they change their minds (like the climate does) when they start paying them.
      CO2 is a life giving gas, it is not the bugbear of man and man’s input is of neglible consequence there is no scientific evidence of AGW,  the sun and oceans drive climate.
      Australia has great natural resources, the major crime is -  not to use and exploit this vast wealth.
      Trajan, Skeptocats.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      06:35am | 19/08/10

      Climate Change is rapidly becoming a fringe issue.  I know this comes as devastating news to some, particularly those who’ve spent the past decade trying to save the planet.  I know you all want to blame Abbott for this.  The truth is that its the Labor party that demonstrated that all the hype was just that when they abandoned the issue.

      The problem that the climate movement faces is that as the public becomes more informed they also become less empowered.  The only reason for Australian unilateral action is to send a message to the world that we care, it doesn’t take much grey matter to realis that a nation who produces 1% of emissions cutting by 25% while others are increasing is an exercise in futility.

      The only sustainable political position in Australia is to be shoulder to shoulder with the US and China.  From time to time politicians will seek political mileage by arguing the need to get ahead of the curve though this will never actually eventuate.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      05:42pm | 19/08/10

      Denial ain"t just a river in Egypt.
      Mark Twain

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      06:53am | 19/08/10

      hmmm young people polled by the AYCC, about climate change. The same AYCC with their sandle wearing representatives who use words such as “denier”, “avoider”, “skeptic” all in the pajorative sense, think their poll is somehow useful when they get the results they went out looking for.
      With the blind acceptance of the “theory” behind the global warming “narrative” by the left wing types in the media, is it any wonder that a lot of people beleive it without ever having done a seconds worth of their own research.
      People actually beleive the IPCC has thousands of scientists in white coats counting stuff…. people actually beleive that every scientist in the world, barring a few crazies, is in complete agreement over the theory of global warming… I’m sure even poor old Ellen beleives it, never having even attempted to question it.

      Tell me dear comrades of the left, I thought one of the driving passions in any good leftist, was to question authority… resist conforming to mainstream ideas or “group think”... why is it then, that every lefty on the planet beleives in this stuff (and the high taxing solutions) unquestioningly?
      Why is it, than any pragmatist who thinks there could be a better way, or even displays doubt in the small group of about 60 well funded scientists is likened to a holicaust denier?

      That totalitarian streak is really showing through… I say to the “beleivers”, be careful what you wish for.

      Reply

    • Warren says:

      08:54am | 19/08/10

      .. and I say to you Brad, learn to spell.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      12:49pm | 19/08/10

      wow… great post, Warren. Really got me there, so I take it your a believer then?

    • Warren says:

      01:40pm | 19/08/10

      I would sooner believe the broader scientific community with their peer reviewed papers, before I believe conspiracy theorists.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:50pm | 19/08/10

      You can believe whatever you like… as can I. The difference is, if one chooses not to believe the anthropogenic part of AGW, they are treated as heratics. I don’t think for a minute that there is any consipiracy going on (except the data manipulation that goes on, and cherry picking of information on both sides of the argument). I do notice though, that this is an issue almost exclusively pursued by the left… forget consipiracy, more like collectivism. I lean more towards self determination, and I wouldn’t insult you, based on whatever hypothesis you chose to suscribe to.
      PS: I’ll learn to spell, if you learn grammar tongue laugh

    • iansand says:

      07:18am | 19/08/10

      Abbott’s attitude can be judged by where he goes to get his information.  He is reading Professor Plimer’s book.  A cynic may think that he is merely seeking reinforcement of his own views.  I would have been happier if he had said that he was reading Prof Plimer and someone who supported AGW so he could get a balanced set of opinions from which to form an informed opinion.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:09am | 19/08/10

      ‘balanced set of opinions’? You ARE talking about Tony Abbott?

    • iansand says:

      12:17pm | 19/08/10

      I was dreaming.

    • Al says:

      07:33am | 19/08/10

      So the government is doing more because they had a better intent.  Who cares what the outcomes are, as long as their hearts were in the right place….....ridiculous.  I’m Gen Y and I think that part of the reason we’re ignored by governments is the kind of single issue obsession illustrated in this article.

      Our entire way of life is based on access to cheap energy.  Currently the cheapest is coal.  Without commercially viable alternatives penalising polluters will always make the cost of energy go up, and since everything relies on energy/electricity, the cost of everything else rises too.  An ETS will work to reduce emissions, but not if you compensate everyone.  With the kind of compensation proposed in the government’s plan there isn’t really much incentive to reduce emissions.; if there was no compensation there’d be a huge voter backlash and the government would be turfed out.

      We can gradually transition to more renewables, but to do it in the kind of timeframe the environmentalists want (without sudden technological breakthroughs) would cripple our economy AND our energy supply.

      If we were even a tiny bit concerened about reducing our emissions we’d be building nuclear power plants.

      Reply

    • Sarah Stevens says:

      12:57pm | 19/08/10

      Thorium Nuclear is the way to go. I wrote to Bob Brown about this but I can’t believe that someone like him, who should be able to assess an idea on it’s merits is so blinkered. He still thinks C02 is a pollutant. Tell that to my greenhouse plants

    • Peter says:

      07:52am | 19/08/10

      [Sigh]

      Another patronising young twerp from the Socialist Left, pushing an anti-Liberal agenda under the guise of ‘environmentalism’.  Wake up, Australia!  Go an live in cave, give up modern conveniences and live and die a miserable, coal-free life, Ellen.

      And, FYI, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  All plant life requires it to survive.  It’s one of the key elements in photsynthesis.  Why do you have plants, ellen, and want them it exphixiate?

      Reply

    • Who says:

      10:29am | 19/08/10

      Peter,
      Putting aside any views on climate change for a moment I would like to point out the flaws in your ridiculous comment about plant life and carbon dioxide.  It is akin to suggesting that since I drink water I should permently submerge myself in it for fear of dehydrating.

    • shane says:

      10:41am | 19/08/10

      It must be such a pain having the burden of truth in a world of unbelievers Peter.

      I love the way that “socialism” is thrown around as some big scary idea every time someone even dares to mention a “traditionally” left issue.

      Any time anyone on the “left” attempts to put forward an idea, its “socialism”.

      Keeping in mind I couldn’t give 2 hoots about socialism, communism, theocracy etc, how’s the free market capitalist system workin out?

      First world countries drowning in debt (though not Australian, despite what reactionaries might say). Third world countries destroying themselves environmentally and socially in the effort to achieve development status in a world of finite resources, incapable of supporting the population at a level acceptable to first world dwellers.

      I guess these are the views of another “socialist” though.

      Your point on CO2 is scientifically irrelevant to the discussion of CC. Which may be a bonus if you’re one of the sceptics who thing the worlds scientists are engaged in a plot to bring back Capitalism I guess.

      Anyway, what’s the point? You attack a young writer as if she or anyone in authority could give a crap what you think.

      Sigh. No-one cares what you or I think, particularly not a young journalist who is probably super excited to even have an article published in a world awash with so many cheap thoughts and opinions.

    • DocBud says:

      11:04am | 19/08/10

      Interesting article in the Transactions of the Royal Society:

      http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2835.abstract

      “Which may be a bonus if you’re one of the sceptics who thing the worlds scientists are engaged in a plot to bring back Capitalism I guess.”

      What are you talking about, Shane?

    • shane says:

      11:33am | 19/08/10

      DocBud,

      Apologies, meant Communism. Thanks for pointing it out. They both start with a C after all.

    • Rus says:

      08:15am | 19/08/10

      There is a consensus of opinion with many Scientists, world-wide that the Climate Change proposition is a scam.  Al Gore presented his video because of his financial interests in going green.  No wonder Tony Abbott is rather shaky about the matter.  Surely he has read all about it, after all, he is a Rhodes Scholar but has to come against the Australian Media, Educational System and the brain-washed public.  What is he to do?  A major problem for him   A bigger problem lies ahead for us.  Those who put their faith in unproven scientifically Climate Change as presented, will impose upon us all, such a great cost that it will be destructive to our way of life and to our society as a whole.  Big question for all is - if those pushing Climate Change are wrong, oh, what a price we will all pay.  If they are right, well, it may begin to happen within the next couple of centuries as an effect, but that is a big might, if we are to believe those many Scientists who prove those others to be wrong.  And there are hundreds of them.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      08:53am | 19/08/10

      If they are wrong we are left with cleaner air, more efficient industry and sustainable energy sources.  We would not be reliant on energy sources that will (at some point) run out, and the time at which those resources will run out will be extended.  I would hate it if that happened.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      10:11am | 19/08/10

      If they’re wrong, we’re left with an uncompetative economy, even higher taxes, massive unemployment, brown-outs, black-outs and ultimately, a collective backlash against environmentalism that will be much more damaging that the traditional resource based economic model we currently have.
      I’ve no doubt that things wuill eventually change, but not with the current technology, and certainly not because the left demands it.

    • iansand says:

      12:15pm | 19/08/10

      Brad of Bentleigh - There is no reference in Rus’ or my post to any particular country.

      The sad thing is that Australian ingenuity in alternate energy sources is making a motzah for German and US companies because no Australian investors or governments would support local development.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      12:53pm | 19/08/10

      That “motzah” is not money actually being made in the traditional sense, it’s all tax payer money. Consumers aren’t paying the full kick and you know it.
      I’m happy for good ideas to flourish, and they will… we don’t need to subsidise it to such a large extent, and damage the livlihood of the community at large in the process. If the ecomentallists would take a pragmatic approach, things would get done, but as you know, it’s not just about AGW. The extreme left has taken over this issue, and people won’t buy what they’re selling.

    • Ryan says:

      03:16pm | 19/08/10

      I am with Brad of Bentleigh on this. I don’t know too many who wouldn’t make a decision to install solar panels (if they were cheap, practical and lasted for a long time), not to mention buy electric vehicles if they were practical and price competitive. Quite honestly no one is opposed to exploring these alternatives, least of all Tony Abbott, what we are healthily opposed to is the so-called Greenie left like Al Gore making billions upon billions of dollars off sub standard rubbish being passed off as a solution.

    • Joe P says:

      08:21am | 19/08/10

      Trajan, Brad and Peter drag out the usual completely debunked denier propoganda to the detriment of thier own position. They are a sad example of the shocking truth that most folks have no idea of how the scientific process works despite it’s importance to all our lives. A denier is someone who refuses to consider evidence and clings to the lies of others to support an untenable position. It is an apt description for those that refuse to accept the established science of man induced climate change and instead bang on with bizare conspiracy theories. The only belief system that is relevant to the topic is whether you believe in science or not, deniers chose not to and thier influence on pollies is a terrible danger to us all. Public policy decisions in this area need to be based on expert opinion not the debunked ramblings of a few ill informed old farts with nothing better to do. That “young twerp” will be dancing on our graves soon and hopefully getting on with dealing with the issue rather than deniers…

      Reply

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      08:51am | 19/08/10

      Pull the other one, it has a bristlecone pine attached.

    • neil says:

      09:54am | 19/08/10

      Joe,

      Clearly from what you have said people who believe that AWG is the main driver of climate variation are science deniers. The confirmed testable science shows that AWG can only account for 10~15% of the post industrial warming.

      The theoretical science with unproven positive feed backs can only be described at best as plausible. However after a decade of field testing these fudge factors have been debunked too all but the most fanatical alarmists, mostly the ones whose reputation or livelihood depends on them being real.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:01pm | 19/08/10

      You just proved my point, Joe P. Anyone who questions your belief system is a denier (an intentionally pajorative term).

      Speaking of propaganda… if you can somehow explain away (in a rational manner) a couple of things… say, Climategate and the hockey stick saga… I’ll listen. I’ll still form my own view, as I, unlike the vast majority of people, actually have done a little reading (of all sides) and remain unconvinced. The left (why is it again, that this is an issue pursued almost entirely by the left? No conspiracy theory here, but something that is noteworthy) will continue to promote the position that anyone wishing to think for themselves is evil. Something which you have continued in your vitriolic post.

    • Steve Robinson says:

      01:01pm | 19/08/10

      ROFLMAO! The irony of a chicken little talking about the ‘science’ is delicious. I doubt you’ve even read (let alone understood) ‘The HockeyStick Illusion’ by Andrew Montford.

    • David C says:

      05:16pm | 19/08/10

      Play the ball not the man

    • Sam Chowder says:

      08:22am | 19/08/10

      I’m sick of polar bear cubs abusing their cuteness, the cub in the picture is not even close to eighteen and shouldn’t be voting.

      Reply

    • Michael K says:

      08:53am | 19/08/10

      The globe is undoubtedly warming; no question. Is this warming the result of human industrialisation? Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, I would like to see an enormous Commonwealth Government investment into alternative and sustainable energy initiatives and the scientific research behind it. Not so much to save the environment, but to help ensure Australia’s economic viability in a post-coal world.

      More importantly I would LOVE to see Australia invest either in its own space program or an allied space program. I think it’s clear whether climate change is man-made or not that us humans are going to screw this planet eventually. We best start colonising the Moon / Mars and harvesting resources from our own solar system if we want to maintain our standard of living. A space exploration / economic program can also be sold much more easily to forward-thinking companies than an ETS (think Virgin’s recent venture into space joy-flights). Yet funnily enough I don’t feel the Greens voters are too concerned about the long-term future of the human race. A shame, really.

      Reply

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:08pm | 19/08/10

      A space program? Enormous commonwealth investments (ie: tax dollars) Where would we get the cash for that? I already pay way too much tax, thanks.
      Besides, imagine the fossil fuel we’d have to burn to get to mars, the eco-mentallists wouldn’t wear that. Stop thinking evil thoughts you denier capitalist swine grin

    • Polly Wafle says:

      08:57am | 19/08/10

      I did an online survey on who would be the best party out of the three - I answered the questions and was told to do a Donkey Vote.! Instead, I voted for the Secular Party, giving preferences to two of the others.  If you are lucky, there are other alternatives.

      Reply

    • Barry says:

      09:19am | 19/08/10

      Silly thing is that it doesn’t matter whether enhanced greenhouse represents a threat or not. China is adding coal-fired power stations at the rate of roughly one Australia’s-worth of emissions per year and has a strategic plan to do so for the next 25 years. India, Africa, South America and Indonesia are not likely to keep their people in poverty by failing to develop just to suit Western ecochondria either.

      This means atmospheric levels of the essential trace gas carbon dioxide will rise regardless of Western panic or austerity measures so our choice is having sufficient reliable and affordable energy so that the populace can defend itself against extreme weather events and generating sufficient wealth to develop and harden infrastructure to cope with any adverse events or we do not.

      Since mitigation is not in our hands (and it never was) the only choice is adaptation. Build the coal-fired power generation and cope with whatever the climate might do—we have no choice now and we never did.

      Reply

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:11pm | 19/08/10

      “ecochondia” - love it! :-D

    • Charles says:

      09:21am | 19/08/10

      Ellen it is you who does not understand the science.  According to the IPCC’s own figures humans are only responsible for 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.  This means you could reduce anthropogenic emissions to zero and still only reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 11 ppm.

      So, perhaps you would like to have a shot at explaining how that might change/effect/transform the climate.  You can even call in those luminaries like Dave Karoly, Tim Flannery and Will Steffen to help you out, although I can advise you they would have to overturn most of the well known and established laws of physics to even come up with an answer.

      The best thing that climate scientists (and yourself) can do is go and buy a $5 calculator and go looking at a few figures.  390 ppm is not a lot of CO2, and to suggest that that could capture solar emissions is a fantasy at best, and most likely a delusion.  3% of that is even less and is only one molecule in every 90,000 or so. 

      Two things mainly affect the climate, they are the sun and the oceans, anthropogenic effects wouldn’t even be in the first 100 of things that might vary the climate.  AGW is a political scam, not a science issue.

      Reply

    • Trolldoll says:

      04:03pm | 19/08/10

      Also the IPCC’s own data siggests that even if the level of atmospheric CO2 was to double the temperatur increase would be less that 1 degree! This is the biggest scam in history!

    • neil says:

      09:24am | 19/08/10

      Why do people keep coming back to this dead issue? It’s over, Copenhagen burried it. The four biggest emitters, China, USA, India and Russia are not going to do anything that will have an adverse effect on the competitiveness of their economies. Russia thinks warming is a good thing and they are probably right.

      Get over it, move on!

      Reply

    • Denny Crane says:

      09:25am | 19/08/10

      Ellen how biased are you, i would believe on saturday you will vote 1 greens and 2 labor.

      In not one part of yur article did you even state the Labor parties policy on climate change, and also you seem to have a lack of acre regarding if there is a carbon tax and what this WILL do to the australian economy.

      Climate change is the greatest fraud attempted to be thrust upron the people of this world in 100 years, the MWP is all forgotten, the doctored emails again all forgotten, using only some temperatures from Russia again all forgotten.

      Climate change is about certain governemnts making money through a tax system on something that dosent exsist.

      Reply

    • Barry says:

      09:27am | 19/08/10

      I’d have to doubt the AYCC poll.  Most people in the younger numbers of that age bracket don’t really care that much about any of Labor or Liberal policies apart from receiving more money.  It means more money to spend on booze . . . .

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      09:39am | 19/08/10

      Demagogue: One who preaches a doctrine he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.
      Henry Louis Mencken
      Tony Abbott with Andrew Dolt as the cheerleader

      Reply

    • Gruff says:

      05:41pm | 19/08/10

      “Demagogue: One who preaches a doctrine he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”

      I suggest the same could be said of Al Gore.

    • Al says:

      09:39am | 19/08/10

      I am sick and tired of hearing this crap about a great big carbon tax pushing up electricity prices.
      I work in the power generation sector. Nearly everyone in this industry recognises the dangers of climate change and the CEO’s and boards of these companies desperately want a price on carbon.
      The reason for this is that there has been almost no investment in the sector because money markets know that a price on carbon is inevitable.
      Those money markets and superannuation funds won’t risk any power sector loans until a carbon price has been enacted because they can’t make a judgement on their returns.
      For most of the past decade, maintenance and planning for new power stations has been at an all time low because of this lack of investment.
      In addition a stack of loans made earlier to buy overpriced stations - like Hazelwood - are coming due in 2012.
      Without the investment of money markets to act as a buffer and spread the cost over time, where do you think the money is going to come from to pay off these loans, build new power stations and maintain the old ones?
      The consumer of course.
      If you think electricity costs a lot now, wait until 2012 and beyond.
      In short, without a carbon tax sometime very soon, expect to pay exorbitant amounts for an unreliable electricity grid . This is particularly true in Victoria where very soon the peak generation capacity of the state will be less than the demand for power.
      Without a carbon price expect to pay more AND experience power cuts.
      Short term, lame one line policy promises about great big carbon taxes being bad for the economy - yes Mr Abbott I’m looking at you - are putting us all into a massive financial hole.
      That is before we talk about how this increase in prices could affect inflation and interest rates, particularly once mining profits start accelerating again.
      I hope you can all maintain your mortgages and keep the costs of small businesses down while the sceptics encourage us to look the other way on global warming.
      Australia deserves whatever gutless, slogan belching government it gets.

      Reply

    • DocBud says:

      10:35am | 19/08/10

      “Short term, lame one line policy promises about great big carbon taxes being bad for the economy - yes Mr Abbott I’m looking at you - are putting us all into a massive financial hole.”

      No, what is causing the problem is people pushing for a carbon tax despite having only weak scientific and economic cases to support such a policy and industry leaders paying lip service to the green movement instead of fighting its lies and distortions.

      A guarantee of no carbon taxes would give more certainty than the threat of a fluctuating price and it wouldn’t push up prices.

    • Al says:

      12:00pm | 19/08/10

      @DocBud - I’m sure you have a clear understanding of science and economics. No doubt you understand the complexities of the power generation and transmission sectors.
      With that in mind, could you please explain why the scientific argument is weak and let the heads of power coporations and investment bodies know that they have got it completely wrong?
      I ask for just one qualification when you answer, no slogans please just clear explanantions.

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:17pm | 19/08/10

      Now *that’s* a new argument… if we “don’t” get a carbon tax, electricity prices will rise… I gotta hand it to you, that is original, and real ‘out of the box’ thinking… complete rubbish of course, but a very, very good effort none the less. grin

    • DocBud says:

      03:31pm | 19/08/10

      I sent a lengthy reply, Al, but no longer than many posts here, but it hasn’t been posted, sorry, seems I can’t help you.

    • Sean says:

      09:43am | 19/08/10

      The deniers or what ever term they should be labelled will never understand the science as their ego is sitting right in the way. CO2 is not a pollutant they yell from the roof tops. So lets see - more of something can’t harm us right? Wrong. Too much CO2 in an enclosed room, a finite space, will simply kill us. Agree? Or is that too much? Well by their argument the atmosphere should all be okie dokie if it was 100% Oxygen right?
      Plants use CO2 yes. But all species of plants have a certain limit of CO2 they can actually use. Fact. (this is basic plant biology 101) Too much CO2 and other pollutants warm the atmosphere. Fact. Why? The evidence says so within 95 % certainty. (You can never get higher certainty in science). However the process has been - science says this - right wing commentator says this - people then think there are two sides to the story. Strange logic.
      The proof that this is simply about ego and fear of a slowing economy is the issue of the so called ozone layer depletion by gases such as CFCs. The world was ok about understanding and believing this. Why? Because it was easy to re-tool industry to change methods. Householders simply had no choice in the matter. (And there lies the secret to changing our ways)
      Most people who have had some form of education understand that our actions, as humans often produce waste and thus pollution. To deny that this would not have an impact upon us is childish to say the least and most likely outright irresponsible.
      The real radicals in this ‘debate’ are those that accept the thoughts and opinions of right wing bloggers and commentators who only oppose climate change because they don’t like the person spreading the message.
      Grow up deniers and stop acting so radically based on your hungry ego.
      If you are going to question the vast majority of trained climate scientists then you better not believe anything your doctor tells you next time you get your prostates checked out. I mean what if your doctor also believes in science and therefore climate change? Don’t trust him then. In fact - she’ll be right mate - it’s all a conspiracy to fund the greedy doctors. Right? Now before you comment - be consistent now.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      05:21pm | 19/08/10

      The “danger” level of CO2 in a room is 8000ppm (go ask a submariner) we are only at 380ish now, I think your point is not relevant. There are no projections we will get anywhere near 8000ppm

    • MarK says:

      09:54am | 19/08/10

      Climate change…again.

      Really?

      Just stop. Please just stop. It is old and boring.

      Joe the science as conducted was is and forever will be crap.

      What will be the new scare into getting a Tobin Tax or a GDP contribution up?

      You guys need a new cause.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      11:24am | 19/08/10

      Tell that to the people who suffered through the bushfires, caused by a 45 degree day!

    • The Badger says:

      11:32am | 19/08/10

      and you need to read less Bolt.

    • DocBud says:

      11:58am | 19/08/10

      You have evidence of a link between the bushfires and AGW do you, acotrel?

      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-paper-on-australian-bushfires.html

      “There are relationships between normalised building damage and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Indian Ocean Dipole phenomena, but there is no discernable evidence that the normalised data is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases.”

    • LC says:

      09:55am | 19/08/10

      Informal votes don’t get counted. You MUST number all the boxes.

      Reply

    • shane says:

      10:07am | 19/08/10

      Agree with the Author of this article. Though I’m not sure its worth believers in Human induced climate change writing articles like this for the Punch, or some other sites. Its pretty obvious from my past punch surfing that comment contributors are usually majority conservatives or lib supporters.
      Agree with the Author of this article. Though I’m not sure it’s worth believers in Human induced climate change writing articles like this for the Punch, or some other sites. It’s pretty obvious from my past punch surfing that comment contributors are usually majority conservatives or lib supporters.

      I’ve got no problem with that.

      I do think that left leaning articles on a right of centre (if only slightly) news site probably serve more as lightening rods for sceptics to gather and rant about the bullsh*t that is Climate change, then they do to actually inform anyone.

      Again, no problem with that.

      Regardless of belief in the issue or not, its treatment by both parties is atrocious (even in the context of their own views).

      Labor believes in climate change but refuse to do anything about it due to Lib scare campaigns. Cowardly

      Libs have a half assed policy for something they don’t even believe in (an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist in many of their minds). Flog it off as direct action in the hope of fooling the 60% of Australian’s who apparently DO believe in CC. Political thuggery.
      I’m voting Greens, despite the fact that just about every article I’ve read about the Greens is telling me to watch out for Red’s under the Bed, and nightmares of income-re-distribution.

      I don’t care. It’s not as if the forces of market capitalism have given the world a utopian paradise.  Give the Greens balance of power. I’m sick of listening to the two full of sh** major parties and their idiot hypocritical “policies”.

      I’ve got no problem with that.

      I do think that left leaning articles on a right of centre (if only slightly) news site probably serve more as lightening rods for sceptics to gather and rant about the bullsh*t that is Climate change, then they do to actually inform anyone.

      Again, no problem with that.

      Regardless of belief in the issue or not, its treatment by both parties is attrocious (even in the context of their own views).

      Labor believe in climate change but refuse to do anything about it due to Lib scare campaigns.

      Libs have a half assed policy for something they don’t even believe in (an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist in many of their minds). Flog it off as direct action in the hope of fooling the 60% of Australian’s who apparently DO believe in CC.

      Reply

    • Alison Turner says:

      01:05pm | 19/08/10

      I’d rather live in the free market capitalist west where i can earn a living based on my work ethic and skills than live in a socialist/communist country like china. The standard of living difference is massive. That’s the elephant in the room for all the Reds.

    • Chris L says:

      03:50pm | 19/08/10

      What is this obsession the neo-cons have developed for elephants?

    • YZ says:

      10:11am | 19/08/10

      Prove to me that we are affecting the climate. All it is, is UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, much like ‘string theory’ or ‘loop quantum gravity’ it’s a guess to what is happening, how do we know the climate is not on it’s natural cycle?

      Reply

    • shane says:

      11:14am | 19/08/10

      Your Computer works does it not? Such technologies were derived from the predictions and expectations of a physical reality in which the ‘Hypothesis’ of quantum theory is true. Granted to don’t know the individual movements of each ‘string’ or particle, and may not know exactly why things are the way they are, but the fact that predictions bare out true, it would imply that humanity is at least on the right track.

      Regarding affecting the climate. Do you remember the 80’s, and the whole big debate about CFC’s and acid rain? The world stopped producing products with CFC’s and there was a signifcant drop in the accurance of acid rain. That would imply to me that humans do have the power to affect the atmosphere.

    • YZ says:

      11:31am | 19/08/10

      does my computer work? barely, I hate the damn thing. but it is proven to work given that I can type stuff on it.

      Still not convinced

    • shane says:

      12:53pm | 19/08/10

      I didn’t think you would be.

      Writing on these blogs is merely an outlet to vent ones spleen on whatever the issue might be.

      I would be surprised if anyone actually changed their view after reading any of the comments on any of the stories.

      We all rant individually, content in our view, and unwilling to change it, whether consciously or not.

      We can pollute the oceans. We can pollute the earth. We’ve even polluted space (at least low earth orbit) to the point where space junk is a danger to future launches.

      Why should the atmosphere be different? Because its ‘big’??

      So is the ocean, and there’s a floating island of garbage 3 times the size of the Texas in the middle of the pacific.

      All the power stations, all the cars, all the machinery pumping crap into the air 24/7 for the last 100 odd years. Is it really so hard to believe we could change the chemical make up off the atmosphere after such efforts?

      p.s. I agree with you on the barely working computer senario. I destroyed my laptop in a techno-rot induced rage last weekend.

    • Warren says:

      10:37am | 19/08/10

      YZ you need to learn the difference between a Hypothesis & a theory. Climate Change is based on data. You may argue how that data should be interpreted, but it is certainly not a hypothesis.

      Reply

    • YZ says:

      11:11am | 19/08/10

      no it is just hypothetical, this ‘could’ be why this is happening. Mother nature runs on a cycle much like volcano eruptions, we don’t have any data from millions of years ago to back up what these guys are claiming, everything is on a cycle and what you have said is not proof. hypothesis, theory same same

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:27pm | 19/08/10

      Hey Warren, Climate Change (previously known as Global Warming) is based on data… the problem being, that the world now understands that the data is dodgey. This is proven beyond doubt.

    • Warren says:

      01:49pm | 19/08/10

      Brad, that depends which data you are talking about. “The world” as you refer to it, broadly accepts the climate data that has been collected of the last 150 years or so. I could of course be wrong and the IPCC, the Governments of Europe, China, South and North America, climate change scientists could all be in cahoots in a bid to tax us more.

    • YZ says:

      02:11pm | 19/08/10

      Yeah data pf 150 years…..the earth is older than that. nature works on a cycle, these scientist you are all gung-ho about also used to believe that the atom was the smallest something or other and that the world was flat. scientists are often wrong

    • Macon Paine says:

      10:56am | 19/08/10

      Oh great another self important lefty who’s had too many lattes. Anyway just a few points:
      “First, his position was that the consensus on climate science was crap. Then he backed an emissions trading scheme when it was Howard’s last hope of winning over a dissatisfied electorate.”
      It is hilarious that you have brought Howard’s ETS into this. If Howard had won the election, we would already have an ETS in place (because both Labor and Liberal would have supported it and the greens opposition would have counted for nothing) and you wouldn’t be carrying on like a pork chop.

      “At least the Government genuinely seemed to want climate action. Sure, they didn’t have the conviction to take the issue to a double dissolution. Sure, they were rubbish at selling their climate policies to the public. Sure, their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was so weak as to be ineffective. But they still believe that putting a price tag on pollution is the most efficient way to reduce emissions,”
      Perhaps they dont and you’ve been conned. Besides Labor has been pretty much rubbish at everything. You claim Labors CPRS” was so weak as to be ineffective” yet you utterly fail to state any alternative. So you either have no idea what you want or you want something that you know will never get up (like the greens plan) without causing massive harm to Australians and our economy.

      “We are now in the ridiculous situation of the Coalition slamming the Government for lack of conviction on an issue on which they never wanted any action in the first place.”
      Wrong. On the contrary it is not ridiculous at all. The Coalition is simply trying to hold the Government to account for it’s claims, as any good opposition should do. The Government makes claims about acting on climate change because it is “the greatest moral challenge” and “delay is denial” yet when it comes to the crunch they are too gutless to act. What this tells us is the Government is more concerned about holding onto power than acting in the nations interest. Well it is Labor after all so Richo’s “whatever it takes” seems appropriate here.

      “This election, we have a choice between a denier and an avoider for our leader.”
      Wrong again. They are both deniers. Julia Gillard is infamous for agreeing with Malcolm Turnbulls “delay is denial” statement but then going on to delay action. So by her own standards she is a climate change denier.

      “Even more interestingly, half of young voters in the poll said they believe Tony Abbott is a climate skeptic and, if elected, would simply ignore the scientific evidence for stronger action on climate change. It’s something that the Coalition leader should take note of, as Gen Y represent one in five voters this election”
      So half dont. Big deal. Besides this is just silly. Rudd/Gillard are currently in power and ignoring the evidence for climate change by delaying for another only 3 years (they say). Abbott has committted to reducing our carbon levels by 5% on 2000 levels by 2020 and he will act virtually immediately. Gillard has commited to a people’s talk fest (I thought it must be april fools day when I heard about that, lets hope they will offset their carbon emissions!”) and possibly acting in 2013 provided “consensus” is reached. It’s truely surreal times when a slandered “denier” has trumped the self proclaimed “believers”.

      “Last week AYCC also released a non-partisan climate scorecard which shows where each of the three major parties stand on climate change. Hundreds of young people have already been handing them out in the streets, reaching thousands of voters.  The AYCC’s 55,000 members will receive the scorecard in their inbox on voting day, to find out where our leaders really stand.”
      I really hope you have offset the carbon emmissions from producing these climate scorecards that would be very hypocrtiical if you haven’t.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      11:05am | 19/08/10

      For me, I say Yes to action on climate change, but NO to an E.T.S. Why? because an E.T.S is another vehicle that can (and will) be exploited by the unscrupulous banksters that caused the GFC. A carbon tax is marginally better, because at least that’s just the government screwing us over instead of the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and The City. But it is still futile: the population will keep growing in India, the Amazon rainforests will keep getting clear felled and China will keep burning coal no matter what sacrifices the Australian tax payer makes.

      Instead, lets take real action by planting vast forests to soak up the carbon, lets start using permaculture farming techniques in arid and semi-arid areas, and lets continue to put solar panels on our roofs and switch over to hybrid-electric cars. These are real steps we can take to make a real difference, without having to line the pockets of the taxman or the investment bank man in the process.

      Reply

    • Brad of Bentleigh says:

      01:45pm | 19/08/10

      Finally, a pragmatic approach… keep preaching common sense, Richard, and people will listen, regardless of their views on AGW.

    • Martin G says:

      12:47pm | 19/08/10

      Ms Sandell, your AGW barrow appears to have slipped into the chasm of electoral irrelevance.

      And so it should, the amount of demonisation us sceptics had to put up with from people like you, Flannery, Rudd, Gore, etc. makes it feel all the more sweet.

      Furthermore, you and other greenies DO NOT speak for all young people. Stop painting us all as tree-huggers mind-controlled by Al Gore. Any reasonably-minded person would take your ‘poll’ with a grain of salt.

      I’d like to think the rest of my fellow Gen Y’s have seen through the scam, spin, lies and alarmism peddled by the AGW brigade and the green movement. Maybe we will have to wait until they exit university and enter the real world where they will have fun finding a job, purchasing a property, and paying bills for their utilities. All of those things will be made much harder should the green cult get everything their way.

      Reply

    • Darren Parker says:

      12:54pm | 19/08/10

      Hi Ellen - look I hate to be the bearer of good news but you don’t have to worry about catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming anymore. You see, last year, there was this event called Climategate. It involved the leaking of thousands of emails between Phil Jones of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit and Michael Mann of penn State University (amongst otheres). These emails revealed that the globe has stopped warming. You may have even heard the phrase ‘hide the Decline’. But of most interest amongst these emails was the fact that there was a legitimate peer review article published by Stee McIntyre and Ross McKitrick that was effectively black-balled by the clmaite change clique. This paper showed that the Hockey Stick, so famously espoused by Al Gore in his sci-film An Inconvenient Truth, was in fact a mythical construction, not unlike a Chimera, created by Michale Mann through what can only be described as pseudo-science. The Hockey Stick purported to show that 20th century warming was unprecedented - when in fact it was. This period of time, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland, was the Medieval Warming Period. Look I could go into a lot more detail, but I’m going to hit the character limit so let me just give you some search terms to look up. Do your research and then have a good nights rest knowing the world isn’t going to end because of a few extra parts per millionof carbon dioxide (plant food) in teh air. Worry instead about the much more real threats of Nuclear Armagdeddon, Asteroid Impact , mercury poisoning and over-fishing. Don’t be a global warming sheep. You should know better. Thos search terms - “wattsupwiththat” , “bishop hill”, “climate audit”,“Jo Nova”. Regards

      Reply

    • NEFFA says:

      12:55pm | 19/08/10

      at last, the government has found a way to tax us for the air we breathe.

      Reply

    • Mr Pastry says:

      05:00pm | 19/08/10

      Everybody screams about impending climate doom but nobody wants to turn the plasma off, ride a bike, holiday nearby, eat local produce, invest in solar, consume less, wear previous years wardrobes, stop throwing food away, use electrical gadgets till they die, and on and on and on.  Just shut up until you have learned to control personal ambition and greed and dulled voracious consumption.  An Australian government energy bourse will solve nutt’n and if you think it will then just keep dumbly consuming as the planet did very well without us before and will easily do well without us again, just ask a dinosaur.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      05:23pm | 19/08/10

      Why do people insist on putting pictures of polar bears up when there is an article on climate change. Polar Bears are doing just fine.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      10:21pm | 19/08/10

      Ellen,
      There’s two key things that I would hope you and the AYCC may be able to consider and that’s:
      1. Tony Abbott is not too different from most people who are bombarded with all sorts of technological information and even the IPCC are much the same for they as an organisation are continually reviewing submissions from various organisations and the Anglesea emailsgate aside, the IPCC have revised their reports based on modelling changes a number of times.
      The IPCC have also had scientists depart for having views they cannot align with what the IPCC publish and so emailsgate should be no great surprise.
      There are also many well renowned organisations and scientists that have varying views on climate change.

      It is not such a bad thingto have an open mind, a mind open enough to be continually reviewing data and Tony is not backward in having stated that his choice of words off the cuff is not always the best.
      Secondly, I’d hope you and your organisation can be all ears and eyes feeding open minds so as you do not take a prejudiced position because it has been the flavour of the decade, century or Polar Gore .

      On part of what you have said:
      ” His see-sawing views took another swing last night on ABC’s Four Corners, when he again reiterated his opinion that global warming may have stopped in recent years. This is in stark contrast to the Australian Academy of Science which yesterday released a report outlining that the case for human-induced climate change is greater than ever before. “
      I do not see it so much as seesawing but perhaps the journey of one who has realised it is not so much a balack and white or open and shut case and he has on a number of occasions of late stated that he does now accept that there has been global warming and it is a scientific matter as to how much effect from humans there is.
      As to the ACS, their view is one of many and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ will show you that there was a peak in 1998 and then apart from another peak in 2007 there has been a slight downwards trend.
      The NH is having a hotter summer this year and despite a cooler winter down south, there’ll possibly be another peak and at the same time the last couple of NH winters have seen some vast snow/ice storms.

      “Abbott also said his view on the science was “not really relevant”, and that the important thing is the policy response from his party.”
      And doesn’t that just mean it is as it should be that a government and not one man or a gang of four decide policies.
      And then you go on with:
      ” The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, why produce a policy on something that you believe doesn’t exist? If science isn’t driving the Coalition’s policy, we should all be worried about what is. Secondly, even if Abbott’s policy response was based on something other than science, such as risk-analysis, his policy response is currently deeply inefficient.”

      But he has taken that journey as no doubt others in the party have to not be total disbelievers as such but more accepting that all may not be as it is claimed.
      I suppose you could liken it to the GFC and you either make a Knee Jerk reaction before there had ben any significant flow on to Australia or you take a bit more time to assess the situation and take account of local conditions.

      And putting that back into the context of climate change, about the beginning of the previous century, the River Murray had run dry, there being photographic evidence of that, horses and buggies driving across a dry river channel.
      About the same time there had been an awful lot of Ice Cap melt, sufficient for the famed NW passage to have been all but open.
      And we had a lot less humans and industrialisation about then.

      So yes, you could say there is an awful lot of information about that we should all consider more closely and review IPCC modelling and their claims with other information of both technical and practical content.

      Reply

    • Joel Dignam says:

      11:44am | 20/08/10

      Tony Abbott has flipped and flopped and flipped again on this. Clearly he cannot be trusted to act with any conviction on this issue, and the Coalition’s policy is completely irrelevant, dictated as it is by a party completely oblivious to the scientific reality.

      Reply

    • RBarron says:

      09:20pm | 20/08/10

      The ETS must be stopped it is just a tax on everything that requires the use of carbon based energy (Coal powered, Gas and Petrol).
      Everything you do or buy in Australia requires the use of carbon based energy somewhere along the line. It will increase prices, push up inflation and drive use interest rate and as a result will lower real wages and costing jobs. And do nothing to decrease man-made Co2 which is only 5% of the total Co2 in the world of the other 95% is natural. Of the 5% that is man-made, Australia in responsible for 1.4% of the 5% of all man-made Co2 or 0.07% of total made-made Co2. The government is look to cut Australia’s man-made Co2 by 5 to 20% by 2020 if we take 20% cut that equates a 0.014% cut from 0.07% of Australia’s man-made Co2. Australia will be still emitting 0.056% but it will cost Australian Tax Payer 123 Billion Dollars in the next 10 years.
      All in the name of WHAT 1st it was called Global Warming now it is called Climate Change. The Government and the UN is talking about a 2 to 4 degree C raise at the end of this century. They are talking about tipping point with the climate as 2020 and 2030 and a need of an 80% reduction of carbon fuels by 2050.
      What they are not telling the people of the world that at best estimate the World has 45.7 years of Proved Oil reserves. Proved reserves are generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions and the length of time is worked out If the reserves remaining at the end of any year are divided by the production in that year, the result is the length of time that those remaining reserves would last if production were to continue at that rate. Gas is the same story the world has 62.8 years and the world has 119 years of coal.
      Oil has given man most of what we now take for grants and the cheapness of it underpins the world’s economies.

      Reply

    • RBarron says:

      09:27pm | 20/08/10

      Without Co2 the earth would be a very cold place indeed.
      The funniest think is this is what sciences was saying back in the 1970’s why should we believe them now?
      In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977 p 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:

      “Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction - that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”

      Science News, March 1, 1975

      “Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age”.

      Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976

      “Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”.

      Science Digest, February 1973

      “As a result of ominous signs that the Earth’s climate is cooling down, meteorologists are unanimous in predicting that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century, triggering catastrophic famines.”

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:23PM

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:21PM

@apiotrowski You sounded testy at 11. I can only imagine...

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

36

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

91

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

69

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed