Hardline conservative Christians helped orchestrate the flood of correspondence that convinced Liberal MPs to ditch support for Malcolm Turnbull and the emissions trading scheme.

Call to action: The Catch the Fire Ministries site

One site that published repeated calls for direct lobbying of politicians was Catch the Fire Ministries, a church whose pastor earlier this year said the Black Saturday bushfires were divine vengeance for liberal abortion laws.

It has also emerged that Cory Bernardi, one of the Liberal senators who led the revolt against Turnbull, called on supporters in late November to wage an email campaign to persuade his colleagues in the Senate that the public was outraged at the ETS. His email was published and endorsed by a website popular with fringe conspiracy theorists.

When Tony Abbott resigned from Turnbull’s front bench on November 26 he cited an “absolute deluge” of emails from the public expressing outrage at the partyroom’s decision that week to back the emissions trading scheme.

Some reports say Liberal MPs each got hundreds of emails from the public. One backbencher reported getting an email every 30 seconds at the height of the leadership tensions – and one generous estimate put the number of messages in the hundreds of thousands.

There’s no doubt the Liberals’ boilover on emissions trading reflected genuine anxiety in the community – on whether climate change is real in the first place, and then if it is, whether emissions trading is the best way to solve it. Talk to anyone in the street and you’re likely to hear some concern about either of those two points. They’re real, and Kevin Rudd will need to treat them seriously if he wants to keep public opinion on his side as he tries for the third time next year to get the ETS through Parliament.

But the direct lobbying of MPs was in part driven by fringe conservative and hardline Christian websites where influential members urged others to call directly on politicians to oppose the ETS.

One was Catch The Fire Ministries, whose pastor Danny Nalliah claimed he had a dream that foretold the Black Saturday bushfires and they were the result of God removing his protection from the nation because of abortions.

The CTFM website, which claims to have 3000 visitors a month, published a series of posts calling for direct political lobbying on the ETS.

The posts were, in turn, republications of messages from another activist Christian group, the Salt Shakers, and conservative lobby group the National Civic Council, which also publishes the Christian journal AD2000.

One of the messages from the NCC on November 30th – the day before Malcolm Turnbull was ousted – said urgent action was required that day and instructed readers:

Urgently call your Federal Coalition MP and Senators MONDAY and tell them to:
(a) replace Malcolm Turnbull as leader: and     (b) vote down the ETS.

The message from Salt Shakers, which styles itself as a Christian Ethics group and offers “help” to gay people who want to “leave the homosexual lifestyle”, was dated November 19. Providing names and some contact details for senators, it said:

The most important thing you can do is write to the Coalition senators in YOUR STATE and ask them NOT to support the government’s proposed emission trading legislation because it will cost families a great deal of money with no real advantages for the ‘climate’.

Salt Shakers published a journal article outlining a Christian view on climate change in 2007 in an article titled “Climate Change? Global Warming? And GOD” (there’s a link to it on this page). It draws together some detailed analysis of global climate trends and tries to extract an ethical Christian position on the challenge. Christians the world over have differing views on the need for action on climate change and this is, genuinely, a useful paper if you are looking for an informed Christian perspective. It’s clear where the Salt Shakers stand politically, though, from the paper’s concluding paragraphs:

Australia must evaluate how it can act responsibly in reducing emissions and developing alternative energy sources. We must not let this issue undermine our national sovereignty…

We cannot ‘save’ the planet. Only God can. This world will not be wiped out until Christ returns.

Another website that gave the Liberal agitation an airing was Truth Movement Australia, which devotes itself to discussing popular conspiracy theories such as chemtrails, streaks in the sky accepted by most people as jet contrails but believed by some to be government biowarfare experiments and suchlike. One influential member of the TMA community posted an email from Cory Bernardi to supporters which said in part:

I ask you to contact the Liberal Senators in your state that are planning to vote in favour of this legislation. As their constituents, you have both the right and the responsibility to contact them and ask them to vote against the CPRS.

A couple of respondents promise to act on the call and a third quotes a supportive speech from the Citizens Electoral Council, a conservative political lobby group that last year described the ETS as “genocidal”.

It’s worth pointing out this is just the stuff that left evidence. There’s no way of telling how many others decided to act on that call or where else these emails ended up.

Bernardi, along with his Senate colleague Nick Minchin and WA MPs Dennis Jensen and Wilson Tuckey, had been openly defiant of Turnbull’s position on the ETS. The day Turnbull was dumped, Bernardi wrote on his blog that he and his colleagues had been “bombarded with more emails, phone calls and letters than we have ever seen”. The authenticity of the emails, he said, was “in marked contrast to the automated spam campaign run by the environmental movement… It also demonstrates that much in the extreme green movement is not all that it appears to be.”

Despicable spam campaigns by lefties aside, it’s clear Bernardi - whose office confirmed yesterday the email posted on TMA was genuine - had a hand in calling on the emails to Liberal MPs that helped sway opinion against Turnbull in the partyroom. And it’s likely not all the correspondence from people you’d describe as being Coalition heartland.

Some of it, though, most certainly was. Dig down into Google Groups and you can find senators’ email addresses posted by general punters who simply seem uneasy about either the science or the ETS itself.

The way this loose coalition of anti-ETS activists was knitted together on the web is clear from this post by science writer and climate change sceptic Joanne Nova:

Thanks to John W and to the Climate Sceptics Party, I have received two lists of Senators email addresses. See below.

A mass of emails will dent the belief of someone who is convinced, and increase the confidence of those who understand the situation but face a wall of intimidation to point it out. Please support the brave Senators and members who have stood up to the bullies.

It goes on to provide suggested wording for a protest email and there are plenty of enthusiastic and coherent responses from readers. Now say two dozen readers sign up and each agrees to email two dozen politicians. That’s 576 emails - with each senator getting 24 emails, in a short space of time, calling for the ETS to be dropped. It’s a powerful message. Maybe those 24 people tell a few friends or link to the post from their own blog. The numbers get into the thousands very quickly.

Just to repeat: the agonising in the Liberal partyroom over this reflected a real shift in community sentiment on climate change and the ETS. And it’s healthy that there’s now a vigorous public debate about it. So the email campaign can’t be entirely dismissed as a vast outpouring of rage from fringe groups. 

And they might be, as Bernardi said, unique, direct and personal. But it seems clear not all of the correspondence was necessarily from Liberal grassroots - at least some of it was from a wider group that included the hard Christian right, conspiracy theorists, and others swept along in the heated online debates of their chosen forums.

There’s at least one group that’ll be familiar, perhaps even known, to some Coalition MPs, though. The Agmates community - a blistering forum that crackles with debate on current events - ran a long campaign supporting Barnaby Joyce’s vehement opposition to the ETS. This built to fever pitch as the vote in the Senate on the bill approached and as the Liberal party threatened to rip itself apart. When it looked likely that Joe Hockey would become Liberal leader, they rallied emails to him. The following day they discuss tactics for getting their message through to TV stations by a variety of means. It was relentless.

And in an terrifically heart-warming post on the day Abbott became leader, one of the senior community members posted the lyrics to John Farnham’s You’re the Voice with a video to remind the Agmates community of what they had achieved with their messages. You can see the post here.

They’re not resting, though. The Agmates lobbyists next move is flagged here, with a call to now target Labor politicians and convince them to drop support for the ETS. I recommend a look at this post, and its comments:

The ETS may have been delayed , but be under NO illusions it will be back and most likely the next election will be fought over this issue. NOW is the time to sow the seeds of doubt in the ears of the LABOR pollies.

There’s a lot of talk about it being a long summer for the Liberals. Some on the government side might be facing the same.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

157 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • BrandyReilly says:

      12:13pm | 08/02/12

      Do you acknowledge that articles you submit to article directories need to be unique, because that can reflect on you website’s ranking! Select specialized submit article company. Back links options presented by our specialists are of high standards. Thus, you will surely have good rating.

    • LaurieMadden34 says:

      09:13am | 01/02/12

      If you’re in not good state and have no cash to get out from that point, you would require to take the mortgage loans. Because that should aid you unquestionably. I get short term loan every single year and feel myself fine just because of this.

    • ROSARIO34Wiley says:

      09:49am | 12/12/11

      It requires very long time to find more ideas about this topic hence, the custom writing service would help all to find a correct custom essay and to buy essay.

    • Jeannine31HART says:

      02:16pm | 08/11/11

      I am able to learn everything very hard, nevertheless, I cannot write research papers. Thus, I want to search for other pathways to resolve my essays accomplishing assignments. I opine I will Pay for Essay a good company. It will definitely aid me.

    • free hits says:

      08:53am | 27/10/11

      It is really very helpful information about the financial aid. I think it is very necessary. It will help to those students who can not afford the fee of the courses. It is a great step taken by the trust.

    • pfofEb says:

      01:34am | 27/10/11

      AriLPJR

    • smith says:

      10:51pm | 23/10/11

      The fame? You can have all that if you’re smart and play your cards right and don’t become a dick.”Christian Web Design

    • warner says:

      10:48pm | 23/10/11

      As for economists predicting agricultural output..  They prefer delusional fiction and trash from lazy gosips who could not be bothered with truth…ditto the ABC also.Christian Web Design

    • BRAYAudra31 says:

      04:03pm | 21/09/11

      It was uncomplicated to buy essay and student do not get knowledge that the really smart data connected with this postcould subsist and just because of that people buy research paper.

    • MauraMullen says:

      10:02am | 16/09/11

      Numbers of people don’t know that is not difficult to have better grades! Everything they need to do is to ask: ” write my essay “.

    • DyerMIA22 says:

      09:44am | 29/08/11

      I contacted lots of academic papers completing companies and could state that was not very easy to see trustworthy custom research papers writing service.

    • Clarice31Bentley says:

      10:57am | 07/08/11

      The loans suppose to be essential for people, which are willing to organize their company. By the way, that is very comfortable to get a consolidation loan.

    • rambojones says:

      02:50pm | 29/10/10

      Hey, something is wrong with your site in Opera, you should check into it.

    • kotareve says:

      09:47pm | 29/07/10

      Niksdiek 9 In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. Let’s discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
      _____________
      <a >lavetra
        Denver
        1</a>

    • Monlblot says:

      04:43pm | 02/05/10

      NiksAvab say: I recommend to you to come for a site where there are many articles on a theme interesting you.
      _____________
      <a >lavetra
      for men
        1</a>

    • George Coles says:

      07:54pm | 28/04/10

      Tony Abbott is a joke!

    • James says:

      02:39pm | 20/04/10

      I always suspected religious nuts would try and knock our species off.

    • NoxFard says:

      12:26am | 20/04/10

      It agree, the helpful information
        <a > vigara phoenix
        </a> <a > ciallis order houston
        </a> <a > vigra hawaii
        </a>

    • Dee says:

      11:10am | 27/03/10

      Really how can anyone take climate change seriously when the big businesses that do the most damage are allowed to continue their practices whilst householders must foot the rising electricity prices and useno where near the same amount of carbon footprints as the big businesses?
      Id like to also add that yes IMO there is a quickening of climatic changes , but the world is a organism that does change.

    • Rocksteady says:

      12:59pm | 11/01/10

      All these skeptics seem to come out of nowhere when you tell them they have to pay more for electricity due to its detrimental effect on the environment for generations to come.
      Where are the skeptics on drug policy. Science is routinely thrown away for the sake of appeasing religious groups. Marijuana, Ecstasy, and LSD have consistently been shown to be safer and less addictive than alcohol and cigarettes.  If you want to reply don’t give me your personal opinion (eg. I know someone who went crazy from lsd), give me a peer reviewed study and I will respond.
      If you are really a “skeptic” how about you focus on an issue that doesn’t hurt you hip pocket? Or are you just showing that you don’t really believe in science and only in less taxes.

    • Mal S says:

      01:57am | 11/12/09

      Sir Bruce…So you like to believe people can’t write emails on their own or look up a parliamentary address on the web..And, Patrick, your papers are obviously the hypothesising dribble based on the East Anglia fraud, because the actual evidence would have converted you from your no so warming delusion. Whats fair+1.
      As for Coglan, he does work for News L who have not employed a real journalist for decades..They prefer delusional fiction and trash from lazy gosips who could not be bothered with truth…ditto the ABC also.
      As for economists predicting agricultural output.. I doubt if any 2 of them could agree on anything.. Overpopulation?? Why are grain prices below the cost of production??? Not enough people.. that’s why..

    • Jenny Stokes says:

      01:40pm | 10/12/09

      Why is it that some journalists want to disparage views simply because they are expressed by Christians?
      If Salt Shakers and Catch the Fire been ‘pro-global warming’, would it have been newsworthy enough for Paul to have written the article?
      Why did Paul find it necessary to mention totally unrelated issues – statements about bushfires and abortion for CTFM and helping those who want to leave homosexuality for Salt Shakers? It appears to have only been done to try and discredit those groups!

      As Christians we set out to look at this issue (and others) from a practical and objective standpoint: is there evidence for man-made global warming, if so is it caused by CO2, and can man actually do anything about it?

      In the article on our website (written in 2007) I highlighted the difference between CO2 and ‘pollution’; stressed the importance of good stewardship of resources and discussed the people who were behind the Earth Summit and the IPCC back in the early 1990s. Even Paul said “this is, genuinely, a useful paper if you are looking for an informed Christian perspective.”

      However, Paul, you quoted two extracts from the whole article – how do those extracts ‘show our politics’ – except on the specific issue of global warming?
      As can be seen from our article*, Christians don’t just look at the Bible for answers on issues such as ‘global warming’ - we are always prepared to research, analyse and investigate the issue!

      Perhaps the real story is the wide range of groups that are concerned about the adverse impact of emissions trading schemes and theories about ‘global warming!

      Jenny Stokes
      Salt Shakers
      * Article: http://www.saltshakers.org.au/issues/global-warming

    • John T says:

      12:47pm | 10/12/09

      I am not a scientist nor am I a meteorologist, but this argument on climate change is one of the biggest snow jobs in the history of our species.  Of course the climate is changing; it always has and always will.  But we simple mortals simple do not know why!  I think common sense would suggest it is a number of factors, but the argument is being hijacked by hysteria, with Chairman Kevin leading the charge.  My opinion, from a thinking slugger, is that OVERPOPULATION, is the main thing threatening our species, with everything else from climate change, lack of food, water, resources and arable land a symptom of OVERPOPULATION!!  Economists for years have been talking about scarce resources and finite resources as energy sources, yet we continue to use them instead of developing renewable energy systems.  Why, because government can’t tax the sun and wind!  If Rudd is so concerned about Co2 emission, then we need to be developing these renewable processes, and when we have perfected them, stop using fossil fuels for energy.  But the ETS system where you can pollute and buy permits to offset the pollution is a joke and a just another tax.  It is a half pregnant idea, from a man more interested in his own legacy, than
      anything else. It is, and will always be about Kevin.  He has a long way to go to become the greatest socialist PM, but being a student of the Winston Smith school of rewriting history, he is working on it.  We have always been a war with Eurasia - Kevin Co2.

    • scio says:

      05:11pm | 09/12/09

      Since Abbott chose his new front bench (known widely now as Dads Army) it hard to chose who is the most incompetent. There are lots of cranks & buffoons - such as Bishop, Joyce or the bumbling tea lady , Sophie Mirabella.

      For serious derangement though you cant go past Kevin Andrews who :

      - lied about writing 3 books
      - showed appalling incompetence over the Haneef scandal
      - fabricated stories about violence amongst Sudanese immigrants
      - is advisor to the board of Life Decisions International - sort of a Christian Taliban who want sanctions against evil organisations such as Disney, eBay, Johnson & Johnson & that den of atheist n’er-do-wells Rotary (I am not joking)

      Andrews is a total nutcase - a fitting standard bearer of Dads Army

    • Mark says:

      03:28pm | 09/12/09

      Allrighty mighty then, maybe a skeptic can convince me that increasing CO2 concentration does not increase the ability of the atmoshere to retain heat. Do the skeptics realise that CO2 really does absorb IR radiation and it vibrates faster generating heat inthe surrounding air molecules. That is the science needed to be disproved, not some fliipin software model.
      Here is a tip, The Boltzmann constand is what is used to determnine radiation absorption in conjuction with the Ideal Gas equation. Now if you really have something worthwhile to say, other than your opinion, show how it works. If you cant, you are not qualified to shoot your mouth off.

    • Fiona says:

      02:26pm | 09/12/09

      jimmy g says: 11:05pm | 08/12/09

      Jimmy, that the best you can do? A personal snide remark because you don’t have either the brains or knowledge to argue fact? If you cannot recall your basic science lessons, go back to school. Or, if you cannot be bothered improving your knowledge through education, you can head to YouTube where you can listen to David Bellamy - he’s a world renowned botanist - and he can tell you the same thing. CO2 is plant food.

    • Bec says:

      12:40pm | 09/12/09

      So what are you saying Colgan? If an MP receives a call or email on any topic, they should first enquire as to whether the member of the public is Christian, in which case the caller can be immediately dismissed? Sounds like the pseudo-tolerance of the left.

    • Gary says:

      09:43am | 09/12/09

      If you believe this was just a carefully organized email in, bring on an election and test you beliefs not criticize others with lame theories.

      To all the supporters’ of the ETS, emails not working or just lazy like your thinking behind the ETS.

      Gary

    • jimmy g says:

      09:41am | 09/12/09

      Dave says:  01:24am | 09/12/09   “Too many scientists have a financial incentive to support climate change. “

      To summarise this regularly regurgitated myth ; All the science of climate change is a disgraceful fabrication by scientists fearing losing their government grants – we know this because dodgy shock jocks & tabloid journalists , the subject of many previous cash for comments scandals, tell us so.

    • scio says:

      08:45am | 09/12/09

      Hide The Decline says:  07:51am | 09/12/09

        If you are going to regurgitate factoids , try to understand them first!  Your claim is at best silly, at worst , dishonest

    • scio says:

      08:43am | 09/12/09

      The Liberal loonies tell us that climate change will double food production because plants love CO2 , the “farmers friend” – as grains such as wheat , maize, oats, new GM rice etc utilize C4 photosynthesis and are relatively unaffected by increased CO2 levels , I guess that Sophie Mirabella will launch the “Liberal Party 1001 Recipes for Weeds”  cookbook , prior to the next election, as the foundation of the Liberals climate change policy .

    • Nathan H says:

      08:38am | 09/12/09

      Come on Paul, publish the link. Let people know who’s lobying FOR the ETS. Don’t be afraid.
      http://www.greenleft.org.au/

    • Hide The Decline says:

      06:51am | 09/12/09

      ummm….SCIO (aka rocket scientist), even your IPCC priests admit that temperatures have not risen since 1998 and have declined (however small) since 2004ish…..OUCH…...

    • scio says:

      05:37am | 09/12/09

      That king of comedy Tony Abbott has done it again!!!!
      Last night on Lateline you were telling us about your great (but   shhhhhhhhh….its secret) plan to address climate change ....but an hour later you are telling us the earth is cooling.
      Two totally opposite policies within one hour.

      Tell us the one about Iraqs WMD again - that always makes us laugh

    • TB says:

      03:24am | 09/12/09

      Climate change is a non-issue. Why, you ask? Because the bulk of our pollution is the result of us utilising outdated, inefficient and polluting methods of acquiring energy which we simply do not need to utilise anymore. The best kept secret of our time is that clean, abundant energy is achievable without too much bother. The only problem is that there’s far too much money to be made in perpetuating artificial scarcity.

    • Public Record says:

      02:44am | 09/12/09

      Grid: doesnt 99% of an iceberg lie below the surface of the water?
      No. The difference in density is about 10%, not 1%, so the iceberg is only 90% beneath the surface.  Icebergs are land-ice (freshwater),  density around .92gm/cc, seawater is salt and denser than fresh and around 1.02gm/cc.

      But the land rise is a different problem altogether. Isostatic lift or rebound its called, and a very well known effect that is still occuring in some areas since the last Ice Age. In the first place, rock is far denser than ice and the ice isn’t floating in the Archimedes sense. The process is quite slow, in geological terms. As opposed to the sheet melt problem, which we may see by the end of this century.  Estimates of sea level rise already account for isostasis.

      As for the 20 or more years worth of IPCC study and data, well, no, it isn’t discredited. It’s good work and the best we’ve got. There have been attempts to discredit it, but they are mistaken. Either way, why would you want to use *my* answers and not theirs?

    • Dave says:

      12:24am | 09/12/09

      Too many scientists have a financial incentive to support climate change.  To go against it is career sucide.  Having scientist support climate change is becoming meaningless.  Rudd has caused 250 scientists too loose their job at CSIRO.  if you were a scientist there, would you stick your neck out to criticise global warming.  There are significant government grants for global warming research, why would scientists bite the hand that feeds them, of course they are going to say what is financially beneficial.  I don’t trust the research and there are significant holes in the results.  I am very disturbed at how much information is being withheld from the people that actually dispells many of the myths.  The scientific community have done themselves a great diservice in exagerrating climate change and it will take decades for them to rebuild their reputations.

    • Dave says:

      11:59pm | 08/12/09

      I cannot believe the hysteria of global warming proponents.  The faster the rubbish is unravelling to be the biggest con of the 21st century, the more crazy and exagerrated the claims.  Soon they will claim the global financial crisis was caused by CO2.  Give up the con job, more and more people are seeing it for the science fiction that it is.  Global warming has occurred for 20,000 and the earth is already cooling where in 20,000 years 2/3 of the earth will be covered in ice and man can walk from Australia to Tasmania because the sea levels have dropped.  Man kind has little effect on climate change and people are just displaying ignorance making such claims.  If ETS is put in based on such stupid claims, there are going to be alot of scientist sued for misleading government.  We have had enough of this nonsense.

    • joe says:

      11:06pm | 08/12/09

      Good try at a conspiracy theory.  I wouldn’t give all these groups too much credit. They were also against the abortion drug RU486 and Embryonic Stem Cell research and also told their members to lobby then but they failed with the final votes.

      But this time all sorts of people could see through Rudd’s tax grab, right at the time the so called ‘settled’ science was falling totally apart. By all accounts it was a massive campaign. People hate Rudds ETS.

    • Grid says:

      11:02pm | 08/12/09

      I acknowledge I have much to learn about climate change but to all of you who are pro ETS I say how will a tax change anything? We do not need an ETS we need an Emmission Reduction Scheem. No hand outs to the biggest polluters. The price of petrol goes up but we still use it. The price of electricity goes up but we will still use it! The alternative is living in a cave, but hang on 6+ billion of us cooking over an open fire will deforest the earth quicker than ever.
      Instead of 40 billion in hand outs why wasnt it 40Billion in a search for feasible renewables? Untill those are found our best option is nuclear. The moment those renewables are found and feasible close the reactors.
      Jimmey G of the 7odd billion in hand outs 4billion go to the worst poluters the coal based energy companies not the farmers. Im no genuis unless comared to you. Go back to school.

    • jimmy g says:

      10:05pm | 08/12/09

      Fiona says:

      09:51pm | 08/12/09

      “We were also taught in school that CO2 is harmless plant food.”

        Perhaps you should have gone to high school!

      The scientific illiterates in the Liberal Party tell us climate change will double food production because plants love CO2 , the “farmers friend” – as grains such as wheat , maize, oats, new GM rice etc utilize C4 photosynthesis and are relatively unaffected by increased CO2 levels , apparently Sophie Mirabella will launch the “Liberal Party 1001 Recipes for Weeds”  cookbook , prior to the next election - the centrepiece of the Liberals climate change policy

      Increases CO2 levels will reduce output of farms & require greater use of chemicals , fertiliser & water. Of course, the pretend farmers in the National Party could not be bothered with this - they will just lobby for even more taxpayer handouts for the bush socialists

    • scio says:

      09:58pm | 08/12/09

      Abbott is on Lateline , usual bunch of lies - “Rudd is moving in advance of rest of world” - bullshit - EU has had ETS for 5 years now , involving 25 countries (which has taken far more effort than expected due to business cheating)

      “Howard had no intention to do anything that was different to rest of world” - even more bullshit - Howard’s promise for 2007 election ““We have established a committee which recommended the introduction of an ETS. And work is well underway to introduce that by 2011. It will be the most comprehensive ETS anywhere in the world.”

      Liberal lies - to the simple minded, they seem so true

    • Gridd says:

      09:39pm | 08/12/09

      Hi Public record, I am quiet happy to be enlightened,
      Ok land masses float on the mantel, but the weight would still have the same displacment would it not?  The magma and so is still able to get to the surface somehow right. Yes mass would be the correct term I think, if two euqal amonts of water were taken and one frozen, the frozen one takes up more space.. its density is increased? Its displacment is greater?
      The volume of ice on land if melted is worrying but surley there would be some offset by the lands lessend displacment?
      Yes of course ice floats but doesnt 99% of an iceberg lie below the surface of the water? In my drink the ice floats at the level of the liquid not above it.
      I also have trouble with anything the IPCC has to say as its a discredited body.
      As you can plainly see I am no scientist and dont claim to be one, just asking a few very simple questions to try and clarify things in my head.
      I realise this could take some explaining. Are you a physicist or scientist of some sort?
      Regards Gridd

    • don't believe the hype says:

      09:00pm | 08/12/09

      The only religion to be concerned about is the church of climate change (or the church previously known as global warming). You know the one started by Al Gore and Maurice Strong (UN lunatic). KRudd prays there, so does Wrong and Turnbullcrap. They worship at the alter that Gore proselytizes at. He speaks of famine, of rising seas, of calamitous events…..  anyone who dares question the word of the lord aka Gore is a skeptic, nay a denier, nay an extremist. IT IS BLATANTLY obvious that this world is being run by maniacs and thank GOD this evil ETS was voted down. I don’t want to worship at Gore’s alter and if Rudd has his way at CopenFARCE none of us will have a choice.

    • Public Record says:

      08:52pm | 08/12/09

      I’m sorry but Grid has packed a really surpising number of the most basic physics mistakes into a single paragraph.

      “Land masses float: “
      Umm, well, yes….but float on what? On the Earth’s mantle, not on water! The Mantle - molten rock that can make volcanoes.

      “Ice weighs more than water. “
      A meaningless statement, I’m sorry. A pound of ice weighs as much as a pound of water. That’s weight - mass, that is.  Does Grid mean density?  Maybe, but in that case he’s really very muddled indeed…

      “Water when frozen expands.”
      Yes,  that’s right.
      But same weight in larger volume = less dense.  So ice is less dense than water.  That’s why ice floats, in your drink, or as icebergs, or as sea ice.

      But by far the most of our global ice mass (call it weight, good enough here) is on land: the icesheets over Greenland and Antarctica. The icesheet thickness and mass is very very large, much more than sea ice, or seasonal snow eg. Converted to water we are loking at very seriously large volumes.

      “Melting ice reduces displacement”
      Well, if the ice-sheets do melt, the *local* land surface will rise, certainly. Has before, too. But not by flotation effect in the sea level sense, as the land isn’t floating in liquid water.  And it’s only a local effect.

      “So melting ice will lower sea levels”
      No, sorry. The local land surface deformation will not outweigh the sheer volume of water returning to the global oceans. The accepted result is well established by IPCC work, I’m afraid. Sea levels *are* likely to rise, only the amount and period being still somewhat uncertain, and depending on the degree of warmingm we add to the system.

      I don’t know what source Grid has for these really quite worrying misunderstandings.

      There’s a lot of data on the record already, as you can see here, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

      It’s taken decades to gather and assess these results, across a lot of governments and a very large group of scientists. It’s really impossible to make it up, or to paint it as some sort of plot. It simply isn’t. Really, truly.

      Please at least try and have a read.

    • Fiona says:

      08:51pm | 08/12/09

      What a load of rubbish. I emailed senators in the Liberal Party, and I’ve never even heard of this Christian outfit you’re talking about. You make the same mistake as other self-righteous reporters who do not understand ordinary Australians. People like me know the climate has always changed and always will. We were also taught in school that CO2 is harmless plant food. Don’t give us some Al Gore Hollywood spin and expect us to hero-worship it like some new cult. Fact is, Australia has some intelligent people who can think for themselves and research a topic to draw their own conclusions. My conclusion was that the ETS was a tax that would hurt the economy and do nothing to stop climate change.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      08:00pm | 08/12/09

      To the malcontents…Who is, Inigo Jones?

    • Grid says:

      07:43pm | 08/12/09

      All land masses float. This is accepted science. Ice weighs more then water. This is accepted science. Water when frozen expands. This is accepted science. Therfore global warming which melts ice reduces the displacment of areas that are covered in ice and ice in the sea which melts takes up less volume. The end result is global warming, the melting of ice will lower sea levels. To simple? Think about it.

    • Johnno says:

      07:10pm | 08/12/09

      Forget about the christians, quoting from the bible makes it all look stupid, and they get fed to the lions in more ways than one.
      This is more current and scary:
      http://tinyurl.com/weatherscam
      Global government? Fabian society/ Soviet system? Can we believe these people in government? We should have a referendum on this climate gate.
      Lord Monckton speaks on climate and the actual agreements which may create world problems. He says no problems with the climate. We shoudl fry our “scientists” in oil it seems

    • bella says:

      05:52pm | 08/12/09

      @Joe

      on Paul Davies

      You sir need to check the credentials of these so called scientists in the peer-reviewed journals, do a little research into where their grant monies are coming from. Peer-reviewed indeed. Just because a lot of people with vested interests all say the same thing does not make it true. Nor is it true if you read it in the paper, The Courier Mail ran a front page article on the day of the last Federal Election touting Kevin Rudd as the Man of the Future. Oh! and they also ran a front page article the day before the last State election, bannar headline “GIVE ANNA A GO” I do believe that Anna Lies has just been found to be the most un-popular Premier that Queensland has ever had.

    • Dan Cass says:

      05:44pm | 08/12/09

      Nice article Colgo.

      But where are all the responses you evil News Ltd proto-greenies have CENSORED in order to do the Diabolical work of the AGW movement!

    • D'oh says:

      05:40pm | 08/12/09

      @ Joe: have you heard of the data leak from UEA?  If the allegations are true, your peer-reviewed journals are rubbish by virtue of the tampered data and rigged peer-review process.

      I hear Enron had a similar set up to approve/guarantee their loans…..

    • Joe says:

      05:28pm | 08/12/09

      @Paul Davies

      If you are indeed a science teacher with 20 years experience then perhaps you have heard of peer-reviewed journals? There is not one article in any major peer-reviewed journal that argues against the impacts of industrial activity on climate. Until such an article appears (and the rants of Lord Monckton obviously do not count in this context) then any claims of conspiracy or otherwise ring hollow.

    • jim says:

      05:15pm | 08/12/09

      I’m a Christian, I support malcolm turnbull and believe human influence climate change. Where do I fit in? the hypcrisy bin?

    • D'oh says:

      05:09pm | 08/12/09

      @ DA:

      “Doesn’t take much to see what side the bigots are on just keep on insulting everyone who doesn’t believe and hopefully they will all go away, or maybe not,”

      Yeah, shame on them for calling people “deniers”, “arrogant” and “reckless”; how unstatesmanlike, even to stoop to the level of naming…..Oh $h!t, isn’t that what our illustrious leader did???

      My bad, they must not be bigots after all….. [for all you non-bigots, that was sarcasm]

    • Bruce says:

      04:59pm | 08/12/09

      Can we stop calling it “Climate Change”. No body disputes this concept. How about calling it “the effect of human intervention”. Climate change has existed since the earth was formed and will continue to change. This is basic “primary school” education.

    • Paul Davies says:

      04:47pm | 08/12/09

      As A Scientist with 20 years experience teaching, I’m appalled at how little Australians have learned about Science Method. It only works IF it’s done correctly, and all ASSUMPTIONS prove true.

      This is NOT the case with the current climate debate. As the leaked emails testify, there is NO proof for man-made climate change, and MUCH proof against.

      Lord Christopher Monckton’s speech in Minnesota raise serious concerns, and to simply trust the reports thrown at us by the media-favoured “experts”, in the face of a total absence of supporting evidence, is foolish in the extreme.

      If the Christians are the only group willing to stand up on this issue, then thank God for the Salvos. No-one else, with the exception of Andrew Bolt, seems willing to ask the hard questions, yet our Prime Minister was willing to sign us up for a 7 BILLION dollar extra tax, on the premise that we’re dirty climate ruiners.

      We need to separate the issues of pollution (local) and Climate change (global). One is observable, the other is fanciful. The fear campaign behind the climate lobby should raise concerns. The smear campaign against anyone, Scientist or other, who questions the “party-line” on Climate change is truly frightening.

      Those of you who are violently anti-sceptic take the time to look up Monckton’s speech on YouTube and watch it! At least trouble yourself to be informed and consider the issues, not just blindly swallow what the so-called experts are feeding you!

    • Tropsmurf says:

      04:42pm | 08/12/09

      Yep the MSM can’t stand the fact that they might be wrong about AGW especially after years spent flogging it to the masses and fauning over the likes of Gore and Flannery.

    • D'oh says:

      04:34pm | 08/12/09

      @ Andrew: So, you are pretty happy to accept errors on the part of sceptics, but not the IPCC?  If the allegations based on the contents of the UEA emails is proven true, then the climate scientists have sought to push ‘funny’ data and results through a non objective peer review process.  So it should not come as a surprise to you given that sceptics have been denied the publishing opportunites that exist to ‘believers’

      There are in fact thousands upon thousands of scientists who have signed a petition against the “consensus on AGW”.  Use google, it will help you find some papers.  Google climategate while you are at it.

      You are right to have doubts over what is being spoon fed to us.

    • steve says:

      04:21pm | 08/12/09

      Carl Palmer
      It is not the point that extremists jumped onto an issue. It is the fact that they were called upon by Bernardi to use a US style grassroots storming campaigne.
      This is very frightening to think that a politician would exploit extremists for a political agenda. Although subtle by comparison, this is the sort of stuff we see in the middle-east with corrupt officials enlisting extremists to undermine the government.
      It hoodwinked the moderate core Liberal voter by using fear tactics and pack mentality.

    • DA says:

      04:15pm | 08/12/09

      Doesn’t take much to see what side the bigots are on just keep on insulting everyone who doesn’t believe and hopefully they will all go away, or maybe not,

    • Daniel says:

      02:43pm | 08/12/09

      One thing I will point out Dancan (and the rest of the “Christianity Bashers”) is that ALL law is based upon a belief.  Some country’s law is based upon the bible; some country’s laws are based upon the Koran; but Australia’s laws are based upon a Humanist model, supposedly where the majority rules.  But regardless of this, all laws are based upon a belief, thus all laws are RELIGIOUS.  Just that the religion of this country isn’t Christian…it’s Humanism.  Let’s use the evolution/creation argument as an example.  It’s been stated incorrectly that “creation” is religious and “evolution” isn’t, therefore Creation should not be taught in public schools.  But this is far from the truth…  It depends of what specticles you are looking through, which determines your worldview.  For me, I see that this universe and all of it’s existence was planned and created by a personal God, and is of great value.  His moral law was also introduced, thus we have a knowledge of right and wrong. For you (I assume), you believe that things just happened by chance, human life has no real value or purpose and right and wrong is not absolute, but varies upon the particular belief of people for a given time (a very dangerous model I might add if you are apart of the minority).  But neither you and I can clearly prove without a shadow of a doubt where we came from—were we both there to witness it??  But I place my trust in the bible’s account, because it makes the most sense to me.  It’s all based upon where you base your faith/belief in.  All beliefs are religious!!  And as a side note….if you are looking for a physical model for the bible, I suggest you don’t look at the Roman Catholic Church.  To say the very least, they are far from being Christian (Christianity is defined by the bible and not the erring opinions of the Pope)!! The bible does not state that we should force people to believe it, and if not, then they are to be excommunicated and put to the sake and burned alive (the Spanish Inquision ring any bells??).  If the Catholic Church is Christian, then so is Marolyn Manson…  I think not!!

    • What's fair says:

      01:48pm | 08/12/09

      Good Afternoon fellow Punchers
      I am afraid that this post is going to be blocked, but I felt compelled to share my thoughts. Isn’t that strange that I should fear censorship in a free country for sharing one’s views?  I must confess I felt the same way after Mr Rudd’s address to the Lowy Institute, but I digress.
      My overwhelming emotion after reading this column is regret.  Since I started reading The Punch, I felt it an object, comprehensive and very clever site for new, reporting and current affairs.  Recently, The Punch’s coverage of the climate change issue has been less than objective.  This article however put the nail in the coffin of my suspicions of many Punch writers’ bias, unprofessionalism and general a lack of investigative journalism.
      For several weeks, revelations of the leaked data from UEA have cast a shadow on the “consensus on Climate Change”.  I watched The Punch eagerly for two sides to the story and instead got none.  There were a few throwaway comments here and there but nothing substantial.
      Then, there is this farcical tirade against a fringe group who happen to share my stance on the global warming debacle.  I am not a right winged extremist, I am a rational thinking conscientious citizen who believes that this issue deserves a better debate that what it has been given.  I also wrote to my senators and MPs to vote against the ETS but that does not mean that I share their views.
      The Punch should be ashamed of itself for publishing this nonsense and for its failure to report objectively on the issue.  I am deeply disappointed with The Punch.

    • Daniel says:

      01:41pm | 08/12/09

      God promised Noah in Genesis 8:22, after God destroyed the earth the first time with a worldwide flood, that “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”  I rest my faith upon God’s promise and believe that “Global Warming” is a hoax, a money grabbing scam and is pushed (using emotional blackmail) by the global elite, for their One World Global Governance agenda and their vain attempt in total enslavement of it’s citizens. So who’s word should we believe??  The “god of this world” (aka Satan the devil) or the God of Heaven and Earth (aka. Jehovah, God Almighty).  I know who I’ll be placing my trust in!!

    • davido says:

      01:12pm | 08/12/09

      This is the weird thing about the rabid right wing christians. why in God’s name would they object to trying to clean up God’s earth?

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      12:07pm | 08/12/09

      I see the bubble people are out today.  Guess what?  We live on the planet, not in a thought bubble where we are isolated from the pollution and toxins caused by coal fired power.

      Joyce is an idiot, farmers are light years ahead of him and have been for decades.

      AS for Bernardi, he was heard recently claiming that young Afghan refugees were living it up in high class hotels in Indonesia sucking on the champagne in the wet bars.

      Obviously doesn’t know that muslims don’t drink, yet he is supposed to be credible on anything?  He is just a nasty piece of work and getting mixed up with the likes of Danny boy shows that he is a crank.

    • CJ says:

      11:51am | 08/12/09

      Isn’t it so cute that the right and conservative Christians have just caught on to the whole email lobbying idea? At least it seems to be working for them! Great one!

    • dancan says:

      11:14am | 08/12/09

      A Christian fundamentalist leader is no different to a Muslim extremist leader except they’re wearing different clothes.  Both are scammers using the idea of god to control people around them, extort monies, gain power and follow their own agendas. 

      An evangelical lobbyist is nothing more than a religious gun for hire, whoever is “donating” the highest has a direct influence in what is preached and the causes supported or attacked. “We cannot ‘save’ the planet. Only God can. This world will not be wiped out until Christ returns”.  Really?  We cannot even save our own planet now?  We shouldn’t even try to saving the planet because God wants us to pollute it and will save us all before destruction?  That’s just insane. 

      Is Australia to follow the path trodden by America where Christian fundamentalist groups directly influence the running of a whole country and every citizen living within it for their own agendas?  Or are we to follow the extreme example set by the Taliban where a fanatical religious group gains complete power over an entire government, its people and imposes religious law?  And for those scoffing at my Taliban example as ridiculous, why do you think it has taken to long for same sex couples to even be recognised as a union?  Religious law that is why.

      For the record I don’t care what or who believe in as long as it doesn’t discriminate or effect other people.  I rate these religious and lobbyist groups truly dangerous based on the amount of power and control they wield and if I could I’d abolish all of them.

    • BULMKT says:

      11:07am | 08/12/09

      Quote from the US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/ DEC 8 2009) “After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.”

      From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas “Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In our solar system, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth’s surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F) colder than at present.”

      So the very gases that basically sustain all life on this planet are in fact, according to the US EPA, “threaten the public health and welfare of the (American) people.”
      Is it just me or has the world gone completely mad.

    • Cus Cus says:

      11:05am | 08/12/09

      Climate change is an issue that divides opinions among people from all sections of society. There is no single position on climate change among Christians or any other religion. As for some of the religious groups mentioned, they represent a miniscule proportion of the Christian population and I’m sure any politician would realise that, regardless of these groups’  claims to fame. Let’s face it, lobbying in the email age is easy and all sides do it. What about the vigorous campaign by climate change proponents? Many of them are Christians too.

    • Johnno says:

      10:44am | 08/12/09

      While people are ridiculed for stating the bleeding obvious, I stand firm as I do not believe climate change, is man made. There are no hot spots, as you would have read if you looked. is this is not a “nice try Johnno”. I also believed in the “man made climate change” theory. Not any more. Not while scientists are being gagged, facts are being deliberately swayed by people totally white anting what others say without even looking ar the details, and this itself is enough to realise, there are vested interests posting here, and not the people who make up mainstream Aussies. So not “nice try Johnno” , but “big lie Andrew”. As far as winter Ice in the arctic goes, yes, but its thinner but more widespread. No outcome yet, and its colder….Andrew you havent read the items, and you have your head in the sand, (or elsewhere?) You cant see global weather that way….Its difficult to read these posts that way too….

    • Andrew says:

      03:01pm | 08/12/09

      Care to point me at an article that isn’t reputed by a climate scientist?  The problem is that they don’t exist.  I have no doubt that some claims made by climate scientists may be open to doubt but what I don’t believe is that the vast majority of scientists in this field are wrong.  The facts are that their are thousands of peer reviewed papers on climate change while there are very few climate change sceptics that get published and those that do are quickly shown to have made obvious errors and in some cases have clearly tried to fake results.  To prove your case you have to show that thousands upon thousands of very intelligent scientists have all completely misjudged or intentionally mislead the world.  Frankly I don’t believe in conspiracy theories so I find that hard to swallow.

    • David C says:

      10:32am | 08/12/09

      It is quite amazing how the Punch is just focussed on the Libs at the moment. Is this an appeal to the young inner city switched on blogging chicks you are trying to get to come to your Christmas party? It was OK the first couple of times but is now becoming quite a joke.
      How about a piece on the nutty Green types out there? How about a piece on the hypocrisy of the 20,000 odd attendees all spewing out CO2 as they travel to one of the biggest joke fests in the history of mankind.
      How about helping us focus on the path to renewable and secure energy (made easier by dropping the AGW carrying on) How about we refocus on “real” as opposed to perceived environmental issues. How about helping millions of people get access to drinking water and sanitation.
      The world seems to have veered off the path of doing good to be now crashing down the path of “feeling good”

    • Sir Bruce says:

      10:27am | 08/12/09

      Good investigative journalism. This article shed some light on the affair.

      I had been very interested to find out the truth behind the email ‘deluge’.

      Well done.

    • Claire says:

      10:24am | 08/12/09

      Me too. For alleged professional communicators, the pollies are astoundingly inept at putting their case clearly and convincingly to the electorate. That makes those of us who are naturally suspicious think they must have something to hide, and provides fertile ground for the crazier fringes of the conspiracy theorists.

      If the pollies haven’t anything to hide, why can’t they bloody well spell out the ETS rationale properly and comprehensively to Jo/e Public? We’re the ones they expect to bear the brunt of the cost and we won’t willingly pay the new tax levies if we don’t understand what we’re paying for.

    • Patrick says:

      10:24am | 08/12/09

      Thanks for once again exposing this grubby organisation. We should never forget how gleeful this group was as it cheered the deaths of bushfire victims.

      Those who deny climate change need to see who they are in bed with.

      Whether or not it’s too late to mitigate climate change, we should at least have the courage to go down fighting, or at the very least - have a good crack at it. Those who fear change need to step aside.

      Those who believe in and talk to an imaginary and cruel dude in the sky firstly need to see their hyprocracy.

      Like a happy happy clappy clappy christian once said to me when debating climate change after she saw a pile of papers and reports on my desk - “oh you can’t believe in everything your read, don’t you know” - whilst carrying a bible in her hand.

    • I_Exist says:

      10:24am | 08/12/09

      I find it amusing that Christians are willing to get all ‘scientific and skeptical’ regarding climate change, but don’t bother applying it to their own world views.  If you have an imaginary friend you should be disqualified from voting - FULL STOP.

    • Sim says:

      10:23am | 08/12/09

      I agree with Diamantina Dick, if you look at the more extreme Climate Change ‘alarmists’ or believers and the source of the ‘belief’ it is quite similar to paganism.

    • Grant says:

      10:23am | 08/12/09

      Jezza,

      A great macadamia nut god.. 

      Now your just being silly.

      Seriously though, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monsters god is loving.

      I mean sure, I can’t prove he exists but I feel him all the same (after meals usually).  He created the universe and can move through matter, time and space.  He’s always there invisible and all encompassing.  But so gentle with his noodly apendage and breath-taking meatballs.

      So Jezza take a knee, because its time to take communion of his holy-sauce of redemption.

      Ramen.

    • Covkid says:

      10:19am | 08/12/09

      Mann-made climate scientists and their journo friends have not exactly helped themselves. Making alarmist claims, ignoring inconvenient observations and refusing to release data. Then pollies got on the bandwagon (more taxes) and they were stuffed.
      Climatologists have done as much for real scientists as paedophiles in the church, terrorists for Islam and rorts by pollie. And I speak as a scientist with 20+ years experience.

    • nic says:

      10:17am | 08/12/09

      I can only laugh at the ignorance of this article.  The cult of Gaia is a religion in itself. We even have believers and deniers? What we have here is one religion opposing another.

    • Jezza says:

      10:05am | 08/12/09

      Hiya Grant…...While I respect your right to believe in the god “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” I wish to point out to you that you are actually in danger of losing your immortal soul because your god is not the real god.  The real god is my god & he is The Great Macadamia Nut. Repent your evil ways & send me all your money care of The Punch who will pass it on to me. In return you will be granted eternal & everlasting life. Otherwise you’ll burn in hell for all eternity.

    • Fleeced says:

      10:05am | 08/12/09

      Just about every conservative group and every conservative blog was out there was pushing people to campaign against the ETS.  Looking at just one of those groups, and implying it’s all a “religious nut-job conspiracy” is somewhat disingenuous.

    • PJ says:

      10:04am | 08/12/09

      Paul,
      For goodness sake, everyone knows climate change occurs. Please stop referring to “Climate Change Deniers” or “Climate Change Sceptics”. This description is skewed, highly misleading and misrepresents the majority of people calling for more debate on the issue.
      The causal link between human activity and climate change is what the majority of dissidents are questioning, not climate change itself.

    • Barry Fleming says:

      10:03am | 08/12/09

      There seems to be some urban legend that Christians are somewhat fatalistic in that we are supposed to only allow God to deal with problems that we face. In fact quite the opposite is true; conservative Christians well understand that the vast majority of our problems (if not all) are man-made.

      What we tend to avoid is with placing responsibility outside of ourselves, such as AID’s being merely the result of a bug instead of it being a result of illicit human activity. We are well aware of the pollution in our streams and rivers which is a result of human greed and intransigence along with the putrid smog that hangs around many of our cities – again, the result of human greed and this is certainly something that we should be able to address - without the need for Divine intervention.

      To summarise, we are generally a little bit cautious when it comes to secular groups who seem to have their own hidden agendas to push onto a gullible secular audience; in most part these interest groups seem to really fail to understand the basics of life.

      I probably should say that as a Christian if I were to live in one of those small countries who are to receive generous handouts from the richer nations then I probably wouldn’t be too upset with receiving an unmerited cash handout.

    • Rick Eyre says:

      10:00am | 08/12/09

      We should be well past the point where we are debating the existence of anthropomorphic climate change. Are we going to have a fresh debate on the flatness of the Earth next? Disappointing, also, that crackpots such as Danny Nalliah and the Salt Shakers are giving Christians a bad name. Most Christians want to do something about climate change, many recognise the biblical imperative for doing so.

    • scio says:

      09:59am | 08/12/09

      Grant - the FSM is a fake God . FSM has never drowned the world, committed infanticide, condoned genocide or rape - so is hardly worthy of the respect, worship and admiration of True Christians (TM).

    • Nicholas says:

      09:55am | 08/12/09

      Why do Christians and organised religion in general always have to f$%k everything up and hold humanity back? Why? Just fizzle out and DIE already!

    • Carl Palmer says:

      09:53am | 08/12/09

      Lobbying the politicians is nothing new, just ask Graham Richardson.

      Re the Agmates – there is a bloke who is very serious about the ETS - he is now on a hunger strike and very serious about his cause. It’s one thing to talk the talk it’s another to walk the talk. It will be interesting to see where this ends up.

      There will always be extremists who will jump on anything to push their extreme agendas. Whether you like it or not, they have a right to their view and are more prepared to get off their backside and do something about it. However the vast majority of people are genuinely concerned about this matter and are seeking clarification – which is a good thing. They will also be very keen to hear what the PM will say at Copenhagen on behalf of the Australian people.

      I head on the radio the other day that all Sydney beaches – excluding 1 (Malabar) were the cleanest they have ever been - looks like someone is doing something right for the environment.

    • Nicholas says:

      09:52am | 08/12/09

      I suppose you got your degree from Woop Woop University or something as such…?

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      09:52am | 08/12/09

      Joseph, in danger of breaking the silence, we are not actually talking about ‘all the emissions and pollution we are pumping into the atmosphere’ but CO2, which is an emission but not a pollutant.

      From your last comment I take it you may not have developed an understanding of the draft agreement proposed for Copenhagen.

      Next you will be telling me that H2O, a competely renewable resource, is a precious commodity.

    • Joe Raftery says:

      09:49am | 08/12/09

      Athiest, non Liberal member, AGW denier here.  I also emailed all liberal senators in my state and quite a few lower house MPs. People power wins!

      BTW, seen the latest polls from USA and Britain? The whole AGW scam is crashing down like a ton of bricks. I hope everyone with money invested in it suffers.

    • Amber says:

      09:47am | 08/12/09

      All the hot air coming out of wonderful Copenhagen this month should help load the GW figures.

    • Mike_in_Mudgee says:

      09:46am | 08/12/09

      regarding the involvement of Agmate in the populist email campaign to remove Turnbull and wind back Liberal Party policy on climate change… please note that Barnaby Joyce is involved with this lot.  Agmate describe themselves as a forum for “real people”, much as One Nation voters described themselves as “real Australians” . Oh, dear.

    • Michael says:

      09:46am | 08/12/09

      Steve, I’m a scientist with over 10 years experience in varying disciplines. The fact is, GC’s right. No self-respecting scientist would read two blogs and use them to determine their position.

    • Steve says:

      01:26pm | 08/12/09

      Michael, I remain agnostic on the degree to which human activity, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation, have contributed to the recent global warming. What I was commenting on was the quality of science presented in those two blogs. Go read them for yourself. I doubt that it will take you more than a few hours to come to the same conclusion.

    • steveo says:

      12:42pm | 08/12/09

      Realist
      Is this the same Bob Carter who is a member of The Institue of Public Affairs? A lobby group funded by mining groups including Esso Australia a subsidiary of Exxon.
      Is he the same Bob Carter that is also a member of TCS who were given donations from ExxonMobil for ‘Climate Change Support’? Is this the Bob Carter who belongs to The Lavoisier Group who is financed by Hugh Morgan, business president and former WA mining boss?
      Please enlighten me.

    • kam says:

      11:48am | 08/12/09

      Drewboy please cite your evidence for this:

      “when you have an organization like the CSIRO stopping anything being published that is anti-climate change it is worth asking a few questions. “

      you cant just spit random stuff you have read on the internet and make us believe you arent just talking out of your sphincter

    • Jezza says:

      09:42am | 08/12/09

      My nephew is a rampant global warming by carbon emissions believer. He has driven the family crazy over the past five years with his lecturing. He left yesterday for a six month world tour with his girlfriend…they were flying to Europe. I asked him at the airport “How much carbon does a 747 emit going from Melbourne to Europe?” He just shrugged & said “Dunno!” Both he & his partner have a car; they have every electrical appliance possible in their home; they wear the very latest trendoid clothing; they both have their hair streaked & styled regularly; They are rampant consumers of goods that are said to contribute to the greenhouse effect in their manufacture. This lead me to start thinking about other people who believe that mankind is to blame for climate change & I wondered how many of them have given up the good life for the sake of the planet. My conclusion is this : DO NOT LECTURE ME ON MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE UNLESS YOU HAVE GIVEN UP EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY MAN THAT CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE AS YOU CLAIM!!!!

    • Grant says:

      09:40am | 08/12/09

      Chillax everyone…

      My god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who is very similar to the other god deity being talked about here (he is invisible and super awesome).

      Also has a great interest in this matter (since he created it) being a carbohydrate based deity he is very worried about carbon emissions. 

      So, when the time comes for ramagedden his noodliness will bless all of you with his noodly apendage of righteousness and then you may all take a blessing from his holy meatballs of justice.

      Ramen…

    • The Whittler says:

      09:39am | 08/12/09

      +1 I’m in the exact same position.  I figured that man induced climate change had to be the right stance as it was based on science. 

      The more I read the harder it was to ‘believe’.

    • Rohan says:

      09:39am | 08/12/09

      I would agree with that.

    • steve says:

      09:37am | 08/12/09

      What climate change Darren, the temperature has gone down over the last 10 years, but you believe its increasing, i assume you are happy to pay money to be sent to overseas despots to line there pockets.

      There is no proof of climate change at all

    • jimmy g says:

      09:33am | 08/12/09

      Catch The Fire Ministries are fundamentalist , pentacostal Christians - this noisy minority is driving deniers in US & Australia -  they reject climate change especially for two key reasons :

          (i) As they believe the earth is only 6000 years old they reject any science that disgrees with this (eg paleoclimatology, evolution, astronomy, radiometric dating paleontology )
          (ii) They believe their god will not allow the earth to be harmed until he decides to destroy it after the Rapture

      Their “science” is totally aligned with the Talibans - they are not representative of mainstream Christians.
      Like the Taliban they reject the science of climate change but totally accept the “science” of talking snakes & magic trees that eternally curse our souls.

    • Michael says:

      09:32am | 08/12/09

      You want an answer? Here’s one: the emissions and pollution we emit doesn’t have an effect, because it is miniscule compared to what is naturally in the atmosphere already. There have been points in history where CO2 has been much higher than now (despite Al Gore’s rubbish “higher than safe levels” assertion), and what did that result in? Denser forests to absorb the CO2. CO2 is critical for all life on this planet. If we cut down all trees and burned all fossil fuels on this planet, we’d just return CO2 into the atmosphere that was already there before, by the Law of Conservation of Mass.

      Keep making God jokes, though. I’m sure you and Paul can continue to live happily in your bubbles.

    • soultrader says:

      09:31am | 08/12/09

      Here we go again - the media trying to whip up the uneducated masses into fanging each other over a very simple topic. The ETS bill. Enough people, whether Christian, Athiest, Muslim, Collingwood Supporters, Townsville Crocs Supporters, Cronulla Sharks Supporters or whatever - disagreed with the stance taken by Mr Rudd and Ms Wong. They disagreed with what was looking much like a huge tax on life without achieving anything positive except cashflow to the Government.
      And so they exercised their rights to voice an opinion and have this disastrous piece of legislation stopped in its tracks.
      Hooray for Democracy - even the limited one we have in Australia.
      So please write balanced articles or state up front that you are for or against whatever you are writing about. Talk about lierary license.

    • Ando says:

      09:31am | 08/12/09

      I am from Northern NSW and run a small business. I can tell you I made my views very clear to Sen Bill Heffernan on this Tax. And I am not a member of the church. I tend to follow current events hence why I am reading The Punch. So I think the article is actually quite right in rejecting the identification of religious minorities as the source of change here. That would be a fatal underestimation and reading of the small business community here.

    • Peter M says:

      09:31am | 08/12/09

      We skeptics are not the believers. We do not believe in the apocalypse caused by our eco-sins. We want good solid transparent science. The quality of the science as revealed by the “climategate” emails and fortran code shows either (a) very poor science or (b) fraud.

    • adam macleod says:

      10:08am | 08/12/09

      Unfortunately good solid transparent science is almost impossible to produce.  This is because atmospheric physics is based on such an incredibly, mind-blowingly complex system.    To what extent people affect the weather, and what the final outcome of that will be is impossible to say for sure.  Maybe nothing will happen, or maybe something very, very bad will happen. 

      Pollution aside, the Earth’s resources are limited and we’re using them up very fast.  Obviously something needs to be done about this before too long.  The sooner we transition to renewables the better we’ll be in the long run.

    • Peter says:

      09:27am | 08/12/09

      Ice shelves break off under the extreme weight. Glaciers melt and guess what the ice is replaced miles upstream.
      Parts of what is called Antarctica are infact green for part of the year as are parts of the Arctic.
      95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. If Australia shutdown ALL industry we would make .07% difference to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
      AGW is a fraud. Ice ages came and ice ages went. Guess what? We were not the cause of them melting people.
      Climate change is real and natural. When the believers understand how the Sun and Earth interact maybe then they might begin to understand some science.

    • scio says:

      09:26am | 08/12/09

      All the science of climate change is a disgraceful fabrication by scientists fearing losing their government grants – we know this because scientifically illiterate shock jocks & tabloid journalists , the subject of many previous cash for comments scandals, tell us so.

    • Simon says:

      09:24am | 08/12/09

      lol, activity from one marginal sector on an email campaign does not a revolution or seismic shift in opinion make. The ETS framework smells, looks and sounds very dodgy. My guess is that is more likely why it has come up against some criticism.

    • watty says:

      09:23am | 08/12/09

      Keep looking for excuses Colgan.Blame Howard,Bush, Thatcher,the Christians,the Far Right whoever.The ETS was voted down….end of story except for the truly zealous like yourself and Turnbull.

      Now Colgan to show you are “fair and balanced” do the same number on the Australian Gore Ambassadors,the Australian NGO’s including the ACF Greenpeace,FOE, the NGO’s Treaty being presented in Copenhagen the TICK TICK TICK campaign run by Rudd and Co and check the validity of Rudd’s assertion that “the end is nigh” if an ETS doesn’t accompany me to Copenhagen.

      You don’t need to be a member of any of the groups Colgan “exposes” to realise Rudd was (and still is) willing to use Australian taxpayers money (Deposit of $70 million already committed) to satisfy his own beliefs and ambitions.

      You only require an IQ slightly higher than the Drogheda Dunce
      Foe

    • matt says:

      09:17am | 08/12/09

      I’m an atheist and I sent a number of emails to the liberal party voicing my opposition to the ETS bill. I’m also offended by the insinuation of your article. Have you ever written an article highlighting the power of green lobby groups and their numerous email campaigns?

    • watty says:

      09:44am | 08/12/09

      Are you kidding matt? The Dregs of Dogheda wouldn’t touch Greenpeace,the Australian Gore Ambassadors or any other anti-development lobby group.

      Colgan vying for Front Bench position in the Malcontent Political Party

    • Andrew says:

      09:02am | 08/12/09

      Nice try Johnno.  Next time try reading the article and then doing some research.  In the first David Evans, a rocket scientist (who has never worked on rockets [http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans]), makes several claims none of which are accurate [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php].  In the second the article itself mentions that the reason why he can not publish his paper is, “it breached guidelines preventing scientists from commenting on policy issues.”  Which seems like a reasonable guideline to me.

    • Joseph says:

      09:02am | 08/12/09

      I’m with you Medazz- I keep asking the skeptics if they believe all the emissions and pollution we are pumping into the atmosphere does our planet any good.and what will happen to our planet if every Asian and African consumes just half of what we in the West do?
      Strange; but all I get is silence-maybe that is too much of an inconvenient truth for conservatives to come to grips with.

      Ony God can save us? Do these nutters really think God wants us to stuff up the earth? Would God not prefer us to we look after it and our fellow human beings?
      They are a strange lot-then you get the ones who claim an ETS would cause us to lose our sovereignty yet have no problem with the financial engineers who use more than our national budget to trade on global derivatives EVERY day.

    • Rohan says:

      09:02am | 08/12/09

      WTF? I am sure there are christians and non-christians alike who are sceptical of the ETS. Or via the fact Kevin Rudd is a Christian does that make him a ‘denier’ or a ETS sceptic too? Really, time to give it up on the religion vs non-religion angle. You are as bad as Eric blabbering on about male vs female all the time. Pointless.

    • Jon G says:

      09:02am | 08/12/09

      So let me get this straight Paul - in a democratic country, you are writing a story about people expressing an opinion on a political topic to their elected representatives. Wow, that’s controversial! Regardless of which side of the fence you are on (I believe in man-made climate change, but not in Labor’s ETS), if someone disagrees with me they are entitled to say so. And if a large group of like-minded people feel the same, they are also entitled to say so as a group. Stop whipping up panic about a barely existent ‘Christian bloc’ in Australian politics.

    • PresqueVu says:

      08:54am | 08/12/09

      I’m a scientist, I am left wing, I am an aetheist and I am climate change skeptic.  Stop trying to pidgeon hole me as some kind of right wing christian conspiracy theorist nut.

      I started by believing in man made climate change but the more I read on the climate change debate, the more my position changed.

    • Isaac says:

      08:53am | 08/12/09

      McDazz:
      Good point on damage to the earth - it’s common sense really, we abuse the earth and damage happens.
      But as a Christian, I really must respond to your challenge of ‘That’s what they believe isn’t it?’.
      In short: no.
      I’m hoping that you are actually interested in a response here and not just having a thoughtless stab.

      “And as for those flaky Christians that believe only God can help us - they obviously also believe that it’s ok to inflict pain and misery on kids - after all, God will help them too.”
      Christians believe that God created people, He loves them and does have their best interests at heart. I’ll simply quote Jesus to illustrate: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matt 7 v 12).
      When people hurt people, we are responsible for that - not God. And we’ll have to give an account for it to God.

      “Maybe we should just get rid of all our laws and courts as well - God will look after us.”
      Christians believe God created laws and courts, and that the civil magistrate has only the authority which God gives it (Romans 13). So no, we would not want to get rid of the laws and courts.

      “Maybe they should just give us all their belongings as well - and that way, God can look after them.”
      Christians account their belongings as gifts from God to be used for Him (in things like helping kids who are in pain and misery…). So i’ll respectfully decline your offer of accepting my material posessions.

      Thanks for your thoughts, and hope mine get you thinking.

      On another note:  hoofman, I think it was unfair of you to call them ‘shadowy religious groups’. Not in the mainstream? certainly. But I think if you check out their websites, you will find that they are generally quite open about what they are on about. I’m sure they would be more than willing to engage with you too if you were interested (even if you do completely disagree with them). http://www.saltshakers.org.au/contact-us
      I happen to have met Peter and Jenny Stokes from Saltshakers, and they are good decent people doing everything they can to make the world a better place - according to their convictions.

    • Isaac says:

      02:12pm | 08/12/09

      Thanks for the clarification of your thoughts Dazz.

    • mcdazz says:

      12:44pm | 08/12/09

      @Isaac:

      My comment about “flaky Christians” was aimed not at Christians as a whole, but at those who seem to think that we don’t need to stop reducing emissions/pollution because “God will look after us”.

      Sometimes man has to take responsibility for his own actions and not rely upon God to help him.

      And if that means reducing carbon emissions, then so be it.

    • Randal says:

      08:53am | 08/12/09

      I wrote numerous emails urging senior Liberal Party figures to take action to block the ETS, not because someone told me too, nor because I am part of any lobby group or religious fringe.

      In fact I am not a member of any group, either political or religious, I do not subscribe to websites with a view either way on climate change and the letters that I wrote where based on my personal views against the information that was available on the ETS.

      The view that I formed was that an ETS would damage our economy, cost jobs, put pressure on inflation - and in turn interest rates as well as hurting our capacity to be internationally competitive. For this price we would not reduce global carbon emissions by an ounce and I could see no justification for this new tax.

      So to suggest that all emails sent where part of some email campaign from some backwards church is insulting to me who, along with many thousands of others, took action to contact our elected representatives out of concern for a piece of legislation that was horribly flawed, both fiscally and environmentally.

      For me it was not a case of disputing whether climate change is occurring and man’s effect therein, it was a case of urging a party I voted for to act in what I believed to be the nation’s interest and block the legislation. Just as the Greens and the two independents did, all for differing reasons, but with one common thread, they all agreed that the ETS is a bad piece of legislation that cost a fortune and achieved nothing.

      I was not alone in this belief and the election results of Higgins and Bradfield have clearly shown support for the stance the Liberal party has taken on the ETS from their own constituents.

      To suggest that I and many of the concerned citizens who voiced our concerns directly to our representatives and that those that voted in the weekend by-election who supported the Liberal party stance are part some lunatic Christian fringe is a generalised statement and shows that you are not willing as a journalist to accept the public’s concern on the lack of information supplied by the government with the proposed ETS.

      Perhaps you should instead of seeking some conspiracy as to how the community rose up to drive a party to switch it stance should instead seek the answer as to why many Australian’s believe that the ETS, in contrast to the PM’s views, is indeed NOT in our nations interest and once discovered pose this question to Rudd/Wong and co instead of the gutter journalism that you have sunken to here.

    • Ian F says:

      08:50am | 08/12/09

      I was copied in on a couple of e-mails sent to politicians expressing strong concerns about the proposed ETS, none of them were from people with any deep religious beliefs and they were spontaneous, rather than e-mail campaigns organised or coordinated by anyone.  When it actually comes to organising and coordinating e-mail campaigns, I understand that there is a left-wing business called GetUp!, which is based on the e-mail spamming of politicians.

    • Michael says:

      08:49am | 08/12/09

      So scepticism is a big conspiracy by coal companies, truthers, and now we must add christian fundamentalists to that list. All while the world has cooled in the past decade.

      And yet the sceptics are the conspiracy theorists. Right…

    • Paul says:

      08:44am | 08/12/09

      So what!

      Are Christians not allowed to voice an opinion unless it is fully approved by you.

      Have you never heard of move on or get up.Left wing group who do nothing but lobby on stuff that the left wing want.
      Get over yourself with this pile of garbage

    • Ben says:

      08:30am | 08/12/09

      Since the public are truly concerned about “whether climate change is real in the first place, and then if it is, whether emissions trading is the best way to solve it,” why should anyone be surprised when some Christians email or (gasp) organise a protest to politicians? 

      How about a similar investigation into the hardline lobbying efforts of radicals from the left?  (don’t hold your breath)

    • Kenny says:

      08:30am | 08/12/09

      Humans, cars, heavy polluting industries, deforestation etc are resulting in levels of carbon dioxide higher than what plant life can use.
      Does this mean that before humans, cars, heavy polluting industries, deforestation etc that carbon levels were perilously low… leading to an acute risk of a catastrophic global cooling? No? Maybe? It’s the sun, stupid!

    • Sherlock says:

      08:28am | 08/12/09

      I can’t count the times over the years I heard sceptics being accused of being some sort of conspiracy theorists.

      However any conspiracy talk I’ve ever heard from sceptics pales into insignificance to the wild stories I’ve heard from the climate change faithful since the release of the CRU emails.

      There’s no conspiracy.

      Your ETS was voted down because a large number of sensible people realised that it was going to be a huge tax on everything that would do absolutely nothing to stop any climate change.

      The emails only confirmed what the sceptic had been saying for years

      Dodgy computer modelling that was built on even dodgier data (the g.i.g.o. principle)

      Falsifying data

      Illegally hiding the raw data from FOI requests

      Active suppression of dissenting views including the corruption of the peer review process.

      A small clique of scientist running the major climate change theory

      There has been examples of these very things being quoted for years. It’s just the climate change faithful have refused to listen

      Open your eyes people. Get away from your computer screens and go outside. You may be surprised to find that despite the alarmists apocalyptic predictions that it’s rather cold out there.

    • GC.. says:

      08:25am | 08/12/09

      Arctic ice ‘said to be recovering’ in Winter.  My God (pun intended), nobody predicted that!  A Nobel prize for you, Johnno.

      And now Saudi Arabia has come out and said no relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming.  At least the fundy Christians and Muslims are all reading from the same book!  Nice company the so-called sceptics keep. 

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm

    • Their comment says:

      08:23am | 08/12/09

      Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. “I don’t think there’s any doubt it is contributing to what we’ve seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica,” he said.

      Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. “The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west,” he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

    • Super D says:

      08:18am | 08/12/09

      Doesn’t seem any different to what organisations such as GetUp! were doing in order to demonstrate “overwhelming” public support for a bill of rights.

      I guess how you feel about these sort of campaigns depends largely on where you stand on the issue.

    • JESUS! says:

      08:17am | 08/12/09

      Don’t blame me, I’m on the AGW side. But hey, when have christians ever taken any notice of what I’ve said!

    • Jan Ziska says:

      08:16am | 08/12/09

      The Citizen’s Electoral Council are *not* ‘a conservative political lobby group’ in any sense of the term. They are radical, hold a mix of far-left and far-right positions, and would best be described as a bunch of fruitcakes. Do your homework Cogs!

    • Johnno says:

      08:02am | 08/12/09

      Until science is not politically influenced, the public can have no confidence in scientific outcomes. The recent CSIRO scientist who quit, and his predecessor both had problems having their opinions published, even though they held the same porition. They have since resigend from the CSIRO. Surely if theres smoke there fire in the climategate affair?
      See here>>
      Carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238
      Scientist quits over ETS ‘censorship’
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/03/2761141.htm?section=justin
      Today in Arctic Ice : said to be recovering. Who knows, they may al lbe right…or wrong, but lets get the facts….

    • Little Miss Sci Fi says:

      07:58am | 08/12/09

      Actually, I think the emails and letters can be more directly attributed to the fact that Rudd and Wong never explained the CPRS to voters. 

      People were more concerned that they were going to be taxed to the eyeballs than anything else.

      Sorry Colgo, I think you’re way off here.

    • John says:

      07:57am | 08/12/09

      I am not surprised that these sky daddy worshippers are influencing the god bothers in the Liberal Party. Most of the evident I have seen and read is overwhelming to the fact that humans are changing the climate. But when you see the amount of religious nutters we have in parliament, I am not surprised by the lack of a rational debate.  The ETS is the system that big business wants, there where other models but the debate was never had. K.Dud has recently shown his lack of understanding of the climate change issue by his statement on population growth for Australia. Population is the greatest contributor to CO2 emissions but is not even going to be discussed at Copenhagen.

    • hoofman says:

      07:56am | 08/12/09

      Which ‘believers’? The believers in an invisible friend who’s waiting for you when you die, or the believers in a vast body of scientific literature supporting human induced climate change theory. If we’re going to be sceptical, shouldn’t we start by being sceptical about the centuries old confidence trick that is modern day religion, and be very suspicious when shadowy fringe religious groups urge concerted political lobbying?

      Been much rain out there on the Diamantina River this century, Dick? No, thought not. Still, don’t worry, drought’s been happening for centuries, eh?

    • Peter M says:

      09:44am | 08/12/09

      At the center of this vast body of science would you find Messrs Mann, Jones and Biffra? Go and look at their emails hoofman. You will be shocked.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      09:35am | 08/12/09

      G’Day Hoofman,

      AGW is a central tenent of the Liberalist Religion. If you are skeptical of ‘modern day religion’, this is the ‘modern day religion’ I would be skeptical of;  too many similarities with Paganism for mine.

      One of our best seasons ever out here in the West, much better than the droughts of the late ‘30’s or late 60’s. But we only have weather out here, no climate.

    • Mark says:

      09:12am | 08/12/09

      Chesterton was right ...

    • thatmosis says:

      07:51am | 08/12/09

      At least they were upfront about it not like the sycophants in the media who have for years been feeding the public a doom and gloom scenario based on lies and false documenttaion and the spin from KRudd and Co. Im not a religous person at all but I do admire people who speak out about deceit on such a wide scale by people who should know better and have not done any real indepth investigation into the truth or untruth of what they were supposed to be updating for the people of Australia. The way in which the Australian media has fawned upon and taken for truth everything uttered by our fearless leader is somewhat frightening as it shows that a biased view is being foisted on the public with no real debate about the truth.

    • mcdazz says:

      07:48am | 08/12/09

      Yes - and the earth is still flat and Charles Darwin was a hippie.

      As for me, well, I don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve in Climate Change.

      I am of the opinion that there are weather cycles on this planet.

      However, I’m also not stupid enough to believe that the amount of emissions and pollution that we create isn’t doing any damage to this planet - because we know it is.

      I don’t need Climate Change scientists to tell me it is so - and I certainly don’t need Climate Change skeptics to tell me we aren’t doing damage to this earth.

      And as for those flaky Christians that believe only God can help us - they obviously also believe that it’s ok to inflict pain and misery on kids - after all, God will help them too.

      Maybe we should just get rid of all our laws and courts as well - God will look after us.

      Maybe they should just give us all their belongings as well - and that way, God can look after them.

      That’s what they believe isn’t it?

    • Barry Fleming says:

      10:13am | 08/12/09

      There seems to be some urban legend that Christians are somewhat fatalistic in that we are supposed to only allow God to deal with problems that we face. In fact quite the opposite is true; conservative Christians well understand that the vast majority of our problems (if not all) are man-made.

      What we tend to avoid is with placing responsibility outside of ourselves, such as AID’s being merely the result of a bug instead of it being a result of illicit human activity. We are well aware of the pollution in our streams and rivers which is a result of human greed and intransigence along with the putrid smog that hangs around many of our cities – again, the result of human greed and this is certainly something that we can address – without the need for Divine intervention.

      To summarise, we are generally a little bit cautious when it comes to secular groups who seem to have their own hidden agendas to push onto a gullible secular audience; in most part these interest groups seem to really fail to understand the basics of life.

    • Darren says:

      07:45am | 08/12/09

      of course ‘christians’ want to deny climate change - when it occurs we all die and they get to heaven quicker and the rest of us will go to hell.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      07:32am | 08/12/09

      It seems The Believers are attempting to rationalise the groundswell against them. There cannot be so many ‘otherwise intelligent perople’ out the can there?

    • GC says:

      07:13am | 08/12/09

      If you were actually a scientist, you wouldn’t make your mind up by quickly reading two blogs in a day, nor would you expect non-experts to.  You’d have a look at the peer-reviewed literature (contrarian and non-contrarian), which you’d have access to.  You would know that the value of a scientist’s work is in whether it is reproducible, particularly by different groups using different methodology to get the same result.  You would suspect that someone who publishes predominantly in blogs and very very rarely in the peer-reviewed literature might not be the most reliable source of information.

      But nice try though.

    • John says:

      01:43pm | 20/04/10

      Peer-reviewd literature? Like the stuff the IPCC out out?

    • Steve says:

      09:08am | 08/12/09

      I value peer review, but it is no guarantee. I have published stuff in books and papers that has been very thoroughly reviewed, and still found to have serious errors later on. In some cases reviewers have explained to me that they did not try to reproduce my results, because they were confident that I’d have been careful, or did not question my analysis because I was(!) the leading expert in the field.

      By the way, you are wrong to suggest that results should be reproducible using different methodologies. To reproduce someone else’s results you have to follow their methodology exactly.

      In this case, it was indeed possible to come to a conclusion in just a few hours. The methodological and statistical errors made by the realclimate scientists are clear and undeniable. Their peer review is obviously very weak, and their defiance in the face of correction is contrary to the principles of science.

      The nature of true science is that is does not have to come from a reliable source. It stands alone. If the methodology is sound and the results are reproducible, then it does not matter who did the work. Conversely, someone who has been right 100 times, can still make an error the next time. Research has to be assessed on merit alone every time.

      GC, you appear to have only a weak, lay person’s understanding of science. I suggest you refrain from pretending to know what you are talking about.

    • iansand says:

      06:15am | 08/12/09

      Not to mention the sceptics who post here.

    • Steve says:

      05:48am | 08/12/09

      I’m a scientist, but have not paid attention to the climate debate previously. Yesterday, I read some of the stuff at the realclimate and climateaudit.org blogs, which represent opposite sides of the debate. My verdict: The skeptics are much better scientists. Try reading http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohioshort.pdf for example, and make up your mind for yourself.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      02:25pm | 08/12/09

      I too am a scientist and have read your link. It is full of dis-information and simple errors. I question whether you have been rigorous in your analysis of the information within.

    • stephen says:

      01:08pm | 08/12/09

      A skeptic isn’t a scientist. A skeptic is a Humanist who has had a bad run of luck, and owes money to a Realist.

    • kamran says:

      11:45am | 08/12/09

      yes you are a scientist. wow. great. a computer scientist is also a scientist. You could also be in the field of biology or chemistry. that may also make you a scientist. what it DOESNT make you is an expert on climate change because that wouldnt be your field. wow. you can use the internet blogs!! oh how SCIENTIFIC OF YOU. i guess we should TOTALLY ALL JUST LISTEN TO YOU NOW BECAUSE YOU ARE A “SCIENTIST”!!!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

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