There will be a federal election in Australia later this year and the leader of the Labor opposition, Kevin Rudd, has indicated he plans to make climate change a key issue.
There has been a big change in public opinion in Australia over the last year particularly following Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Various opinion polls suggest that Australians are increasingly concerned about global warming and they want something done.
Until the last couple of days the general impression from the mainstream media has been that the Prime Minister, John Howard, is politically very vulnerable on this issue because he is seen as something of a climate change skeptic, though he describes himself as a climate change realist.
But could the issue end-up working against the Labor party in the same way the Tasmanian forestry issues worked against former Labor leader Mark Latham just before the last federal election by alienating blue-collar workers?
Graham Young explored the issue at his blog two days ago in a piece entitled ‘Climate Change Could Work Against Rudd’:
“Rudd is an enthusiast for all things AGW, which is where Howard’s potential benefit lies. If he is going to win the next election Howard needs to renew his compact with blue-collar Australia. He can do this by painting Rudd as a trendy inner-city elitist who wants to impose every currently fashionable notion on Australians, whether or not they work.
Amongst these notions is ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Yesterday’s announcement by the Chinese government that while they accept greenhouse gases are a problem, they don’t intend to stop building CO2 emitting power stations because they can’t afford to, shows just what a political problem it is.”
Then today on the front page of The Australian in an article ‘Nervous Labor Moves to Reassure the Coal Industry’ Joseph Kerr and Matthew Warren write:
“Opposition frontbenchers yesterday insisted the future of the coal industry was safe, amid fears within the party that an aggressive stance on climate change could unsettle mining and power workers, becoming a potent election liability.
Still living with the political fallout of the disastrous timber policy pushed by former leader Mark Latham – which alienated blue-collar workers on the eve of the 2004 election – Labor yesterday rounded on Australian of the Year Tim Flannery as “irresponsible” for his plan to close the coal industry, calling it a recipe for massive job losses.
Some elements within Labor fear that by appearing too bullish on climate change, the party could raise concerns among workers that jobs will be sacrificed to the environment. This could push workers’ votes towards an economically hard-nosed Howard Government. Others want their colleagues who represent mining seats to be more vocal.
New Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull last night warned, during his first live television debate with Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett, that Labor’s climate change policies risked “enormous damage to jobs”. Mr Turnbull accused Labor of scaremongering on climate change, but Mr Garrett used the debate on the ABC’s 7.30 Report to accuse the Howard Government of failing to respond to the “crisis” of global warming.”
Some saw the announcement of climate change crusader Tim Flannery as Australian of the Year as a potential disaster for John Howard because he will keep global warming as an issue in the spot-light during this election year. But the appointment may in fact work to the Prime Minister’s advantage particularly if Tim Flannery continues to suggest Australia close down its coal-fired power stations and the Labor party forced to defined the industry and its policies.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, I know this is only a minor quibble with your otherwise excellent thesis, but it’s quite well known among, you know, Australians, that Tim Flannery does not actually speak for the Australian Labor Party.
More substantially, expecting blue collar workers to support Mr. Howard following the introduction of his anti-worker WorkChoices legislation appears to be an exercise in wishful thinking. Graham, blue collar workers aren’t the morons you suppose them to be.
J Gillard was saying this morn that “climate change” is the ALP agenda, lets see how she counters Flannery.
To be fair, we had the local Lib member on the radio talking about coal. energy etc…. dearieme…..
Once el Nino breaks voters will switch off.
Of course the main argument of himself, that of the absolute and total destruction to the economy of the Hunter Valley if coal mining was stopped, is a dead certainty. And it would achieve nothing, the coal would be sourced elsewhere.
lets hear what the ALP premiers have to say…
The resolve of the electorate remains to be tested – wouldn’t take too much economic threat or hike in power prices to see voters abandon ship. People think this issue can be solved by “having the right attitude”. There’s a bit more involved than that – and most of us won’t accept it if it comes to a crunch.
Which is why we should have started on this problem at lot earlier. Thanks for nothing denialists ! And welcome to adaptation because in the end very little will be done.
New buzz-term of the week – climate change realist.
Yesterday’s climate change skeptic is today’s climate change realist as the debate moves ever onward. Realist has a nice reassuring ring to it, doesn’t it?
I don’t think Rudd needs to make it an issue – it already is. A extended head to head on The 7.30 report is testimony to that. It’s in the media every day.
But whether Turnbull’s position that although there is a ‘challenge’ we shouldn’t do too much about it until/unless everyone else does too, washes with the electorate remains to be seen. An issue that’s a long time a’building is not likely to vaporise quickly either.
Meanwhile I guess there are many hoping el Nino blows over soon and that Rudd will be wedged.
I though it interesting that Kerry started by asking Turnbull and Garrett when they became “converts”???
Didn’t that jar with anyone else?
Jim – I guess that’s a reasonable media reaction given the evangelical status that global warming and climate change is given by both sides of the debate, and in particular, the skeptic/denialist argument that climate change protagonists are like religious zealots trying to converting the non-believers to the one true faith and steal all of our wealth.
Walking through Cairns Central today, and thinking about Howard’s National Plan for Water Security, I was struck by the incongruity of a storefront dedicated to the craft of nail care. Staff of Asiatic extraction, equipped with surgical masks, applied their expertise to the fingernails of (ostensibly) middle-Australian women.
I thought, where do we make our concessions? What do we sacrifice? Coal-fired electricity generation … I think not!
In the midst of last year’s monsoonal deluge (6.24 m over seven months), we were advised that our legislative obligation to generate electricity from renewable sources would have to suffer the State Government’s arbitrary imposition of $900 p.a. to drive a micro-hyro plant, because Queensland was suffering a drought.
In the meantime, fingernail care sustained a very reliable economy.
I also don’t know where Tim Flannery fits in this. I imagine he would like a hard-hitting bipartisan policy so that those afraid of economic impacts won’t have a major party to vote for.
I don’t feel this is a left-right issue. I reckon I would vote for Howard if he could deal with it better than Rudd. It would hurt though because of the negative effect he has had until very recently. Like most politicians he’s a global warming follower not a realist.
I think that the pollies should worry about the middle-class vote as much as the workers. I am willing to vote for whoever I feel has more credibility on the issue.
Ian K,
Flannery is essentially pro-nuclear and against coal. This is a problem for Labor. There are perhaps potential solutions if both Labor and the coalition seriously considered nuclear power as an option? But Peter Garrett stands in the way?
Jim,
I missed the debate/discussion between Garrett and Turnbull.
Assuming that the issue is worth doing something about which many here doubt.. .. ..
Australia would do well to chase the clean coal technology and try to get it installed in China (gift to the world).
For our own part (and P Garrett would agree) there is a huge market in solar which we used to be good at before we let it disperse – we should think about a reinvest. bUt that requires some seriously innovative thought as to how we use it.
That leaves lingering long term doubts about baseload – you might convince me on nuclear but not sure about everyone else.
So where does that leave both sides:
Howard treading all so carefully and slowly. Keeping coal going. Playing with nuclear futures.
Labor – seemingly anti-coal till it comes to the brink??, anti-nuclear – although we can still sell uranium ??, pro-solar, pro-efficiency measures
Both sides keen on water issues as that’s our long term climate change vulnerability.
Incidentally how’s fusion coming along?
Flannery is essentially pro-nuclear and against coal. This is a problem for Labor.
Maybe so, but only if the electors support the nuclear option. Recent polling suggests that this is not yet the case.
A pity Jennifer – it would have been a great post subject!
If I can grasp the logic here. If a party acknowledges greenhouse warming and wants to do something effective about it, they will lose the election. If a party acknowledges greenhouse warming, and wants to do nothing effective about it, they will win.
Also, the real issue is not greenhouse warming, but how to manipulate reality to stay in power.
It’s time to change the rhetoric.
We need to split commentators three ways:
1) Advocates of global warming
2) Advocates of global cooling
3) Advocates of seeing what is going on.
Oddly, advocates of global warming prefer global cooling. On the other hand, nobody seems to like global cooling. Meanwhile, advocates of seeing what is going on… are the nasty skeptics.
The ‘debate’, nothing revelatory;
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1843524.htm
Flannery is advocating the cessation of all coal mining in Australia now, the PM has come out swinging to protect jobs and the economy.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/PM-criticises-Flannerys-coal-suggestion/2007/02/08/1170524173182.html
From an article in CFP
“….There is no doubt that the Pandora Box opened by Dr. Timothy Ball has caused headaches for Al Gore and Company: Average Americans and Canadians from all walks of life want global warming debated by science not politics.”
If you follow the link you can view Dr. Timothy Ball’s qualifications as a climatologist.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm
Those who are genuinely “serious” about “what is going” on are welcome. The problem is many of the knockers aren’t serious.
Ball’s rhetorical approach tells you he’s a political activist not a scientist. Very few are saying he does not have a PhD in climatology. Rog’s article is a sideline to what the real debate was about. What the blue was about was his insistence that it was “the first in Canada” and that has been demonstrated to be false. He hasn’t published in the field in yonks i.e he’s far from “in practice”. These sort of guys simply lack credibility and are just seen to be part of the “think-tank” astro-turf scene. . You’d think the anti-AGW side would be getting a tad more sophisticated by now. He’s entitled to his opinion and maybe even has a cheer squad but don’t mistake that for a practising climate scientist.
Hands up those who think we can sell to the electorate that we close down the Australian coal industry. You’d wouldn’t get 50 metres before being felled in hail of political bullets.
At the end of the day it’s still a democracy in many places – if you don’t like AGW – don’t vote for it on mass and you’ll be rewarded with the CO2 and climate outcome you deserve. And if politicians don’t thoughtfully approach the problem (see Labor) – same result.
OK Luke, what is the diff between rhetoric of Flannery, Garrett and Ball?
Millionaire family man Garrett is against free trade, economic growth, population growth – he wants only for a good environment
http://www.tradewatchoz.org/AUSFTA/Article33.html
One’s a saint, one’s a shonk and one’s a dreamer.
I reckon the Hunter needs a bloody big nuclear reactor.
The Garrett/ Turnbull debate transcript can be found on this link
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1843524.htm
What I don’t get about the nuclear option is: in an economically rationalist world where we are all responding to AGW equally, we should only sell uranium (and buy back used fuel), not use it ourselves. Surely more overcrowded countries with poorer solar, wind, etc assets than us should push up the price of uranium to a point where we decide it would be cheaper for us to use the other options. Also we should be able to get a carbon credit of some kind for exporting uranium to set against our, hopefully dwindling, emissions from coal.
Politicians in Australia confuse me living in the U.S. John Howard was reponsible for taking guns away from citizens who wanted them for defense, which is a totalitarian action. Yet, he has doubts about global warming, which goes in the opposite philosophical direction. You never should have given up your guns. Now, don’t give up your economy to uncertain AGW claims and phony solutions.
Woody,
This is a bit off topic, but I cant let it go unanswered. Your bone headed comments about Australia not giving up its guns is complete bollocks. Although there may be debates about just precisely how effective it has been,there is one thing that stands out. It has been well worth doing so
If anyone wanted any proof just look at the fiugures still coming out of the USA for murder and mayhem.
Who in their right mind would want to live in society which still kills more of its own than it has thus far lost in the war in Iraq.
But mind you, this is the same society that also said the compulsory wearing of seat belts is/was also an infringement of civil liberties, even when it is the public purse that has to pick up most of the tab for the consequences.
Sorry mate, I would not live in the USA for quids, and yes I have been there, many times.
The cartoon in this morning’s Weekend Australian on this subject is absolutely brilliant.
‘The Australian Show Of The Year’, has Howard’s ‘Wedgie Productions’ presenting his puppet, Flannery, ‘The Prophet of Doom’ bursting through the curtain, arms outstretched, saying ‘Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid…’, to a rather frightened Rudd and Garrett !!!
John Howard no longer has doubts about global warming Woody. His mindset is dominated by economics and has had to scramble to catch up with the man in the street who has broader views on life. He is happy to join everyone else in solving the problem but he is unwilling for Australia to lead if it hits us economically. He calls himself a global warming realist, which really means that he knows it is happening but he is too timid to do anything major about it unless the electorate gives him a lead. As for AGW claims being uncertain. They are about as uncertain as that it was a good thing to make war in Iraq. If America can waste billions in Iraq on a whim, why won’t you allow Australians to spend a little on the folly of emissions reduction? As for being dictatorial, John Howard is quite willing to be so if he thinks it will work, in that regard he is a realist and not an idealogue like you Americans are over gun control and so many other issues. We Australians are more in the British tradition politically of muddling through rather than following an idealogical line. If it works why shouldn’t we try it mate?!
Woody – off-topic but. Single shot rifles are still legal under permit. Semi-automatics were made illegal. Hand guns are illegal except for sporting clubs. Local murder rate from fire-arm related incidents has dropped markedly. Proof is in the pudding. Pls keep your yank gun culture in the USA. What do we want to defend ourselves against – kangaroos, and possibly against you lot getting us into some stoush that you should not have started in the first place? We could debate the issue with at your own place but your fascist neocon blog doesn’t seem to allow posters from the southern hemisphere. Back to topic.
Woody thinks gun ownership is an important unalienable civil right; numerous innocent casualties of war in Iraq is acceptable in the quest to spread Christianity, yet he also has right to ownership of all women\’s wombs because abortion is murder. Reconcile that. Err, what will the guns be used for if not killing and maiming, eg shooting people who want abortions, ha hardy ha? How to reconcile right to life claims with guns in the hands of Joe Public who regularly goes postal. Are muslim-Americans equally entitled to guns too? And what of explosives and automatic weapons and hand grenades and h bombs, are they a civil right too? Right to life in US. Right to a fair go in Aust.
If right to life is SO important for all lives then shouldn\’t that gun and ammo money go towards buying food, water and medicine for those in need? But don\’t worry, John Howard\’s gun reclaim efforts led to criminals obtaining supposedly destroyed rifles. If we\’re lucky we might one day achieve the exalted status of the US with its abnormally high proportion of population incarcerated at some time, and unusually high proportions of those in solitary confinement and emerging with mental trauma as a result, and statistically more likely to reoffend. (Do some research if you doubt this). Yay free world! Yay world police! Yay for nutters with power. (last post on this)
Well I am amazed.
I actually whole heartedly agree with something Luke has said. Good on you.
As for single shots rifles being OK, I even had to go to TAFE to get my Fire Arms license, just to own an air rifle, and that is after winning a musketry cup in National Service. Do I object. Not one bit. An excellent piece of public policy.
Settle down Luke, there is no conclusive evidence that the gun buy back has reduced gun deaths.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/study-no-excuse-to-shoot-down-the-law/2006/10/25/1161749188302.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Thanks Woody for reminding us all downunder how united and lucky we are. True blue (except rog who will submit his Aust-US gun crime stats). Who reckons that John Howards $13m(?) fund to help us understand Americans will have any success? $13m later, it will probably conclude \”nah guv, you\’ve got Buckleys\”.
Look up Rog – http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
14 December 2006
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention. And no mass shootings.
Cherry picking again Luke; the *the rate of gun homicide was falling before the buyback*
“…Dr Simon Chapman, another author of the latest study, agreed that the rate of gun homicide was falling before the buyback. He said that while the rate had risen since then, the numbers involved were so small they were not statistically significant.
The most important impact of the buyback was that there had been no mass shootings.
He said 112 people had been killed in 11 mass shootings in the 10 years up to Port Arthur, and removing the semi-automatic weapons used in those shootings was a principal aim of the policy.
It was “bordering on academic dishonesty” for Dr Baker and Ms McPhedran not to have included that fact in their paper, he said.
The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that while the two papers might seem to be in conflict, they were not.
“Both found that the rate of gun suicide declined faster after the gun buyback and neither found any significant difference in the rate of decline in gun homicide before and after the gun buyback,” he said.
“The Chapman paper points out that there has been no mass shooting since the gun buyback. The earlier paper should have mentioned this, but didn’t”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
If the gun buyback had occured in the 20s & 30s, the Japs would have made it to Australia.
It was only the fact that 50% of our male population could head shoot a rabit at 50 yards, allowed us to quickly form militias to defend ourselves, when required.
This was, & may still be, important, as we have never been prepared to pay for an adequate standing defence force.
Hopefully, in this modern world, we may be able to avoid having to fight anyone. However, if the more fanciful predictions of the IPCC come to pass, the resulting turmoil may see such skils in great demand.
Perhaps I can remind Hasbeen some folks back in the depression did not have guns nor ammunition for shooting rabbits at a critical time. Also those that did could not spare their ammo on practice before dinner. I for one was taught how to catch the hapless creatures with bare hands despite the fact my tutor was an expert shot after the war.
Unfortunately kids today have no idea of such economy.
BTW my dear dad and others around suffered from the local gun culture. Hunting over generations of boys both on the farm and in the adjacent bush was quite a hazardous business.
I too was witness to a number of close shaves before we gave it up. Drive by shootings at common wildlife at night were our undoing.
Rog you bunny,
This is relevant to AGW as it indicates the inability of AGW sceptics to understand basic stats – there’s clearly a discontinuity in your graph. I would have fitted a quadratic as the curve slope is non-linearly and unambiguously down.
The whole statistical record of gun deaths is severely distorted by the single massacre at Port Arthur. The question is, was it a 1 in 10 year event or a 1 in 50 year event, or even a 1 in 100 year event. By any objective assessment of past records it was a 1 in 100 year event.
I know Simon Chapman from his days as an anti-smoking bureaucrat and have had great respect for his efforts then. But he, as with Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, have stooped to gross misrepresentation in relation to their anti-gun activities. It is as if they couldn’t find a worthier cause to play with.
The Courier Mail had a front page photo of Bob Brown with the headline “Lost the Plot” and the intro on the lines of “this man wants to put 20,000 Queenslanders out of work and destroy country towns in the next three years”.
I think he has had enough rope.
Port Arthur tended to cap off this decade of multiple homicides from guns.
Hoddle St, 1987 – the shootings resulted in the deaths of 7 people, and serious injury to 19 others.
And Queen Street, 1987 – the deaths of 8 people, and serious injury to 5 more.
And Strathfield massacre 1991 the shooting left eight dead, including the gunman, and six more wounded
Milperra Massacre, 1984 where seven people were killed
Central coast massacre, 6 people shot, 1992.
All of the above, with the possible exception of the Milperra Massacre, which was a shoot-out between rival outlaw bikie gangs, could have been mitigated if not prevented altogether if law abiding citizens were trusted by our government to carry firearms for self defence.
Gun prohibition in Britain has not lead to that country being free of firearms violence.
seeing a pattern: the illogical unreasonable* climate sceptics want guns in homes. (*adjectives included to exclude the rare couple of balanced sceptics)
They’ve got half a point though as lots of Canadians have guns but they don’t shoot each other everyday like the yanks do. Must be another factor. Hell if I lived in the US I’d want to shoot a few dozen people each year too. Britain meanwhile is getting kitchen suppliers to stop making kitchen knives with pointed ends. You could still get a pointy knife somewhere somehow but reduces the incidences and serious injuries from spur of the moment household stabbings if yu get my point. That’s why Jennifer doesn’t sell sharp knives on this blog either.
But marksmanship and trench combat with rifles is old hat like you hasbeen. Now it’s hightech distant warfare and terrorist guerilla warfare and a numbers game (we’re low on numbers quick breed some more) and perhaps impending water wars for the impoverished millions. Guns in homes and rabbit poppers and potato guns aint gunna protect our fair shores from neo-Jap invaders or others.
Back to the election then. Rudd has slammed bob brown’s coal plan too. Go Ruddy, go you tiger! Meow.
In some of those instances Paul the victims were unsuspecting until til late. You don’t think there might have been a little too much crossfire in Port Arthur? and explain the Hoddle, Queen St, Strathfield & central coast massacre exactly how the armed citizens would have realised, intervened and even prevented altogether the incident as you say, especially where it went house to house (c coast) or was in a public place. Shoot 1st just in case and ask questions after?
Haven’t we wandered off the topic? But gun control and the US is an interesting combination because it allows us to spew out all that xenophobic anti-US bile and sanctify our hatred with the anti-gun moral high ground. What an unedifying little spectacle. We are a small nation of insecure little people at times.
But to contribute to the side issue, as the gun buy-back became likely, the supply of 7.62mm ammunition for all those ex-military SLRs and automatics sold out very quickly. There was also a spate of “thefts” of the licensed high-powered guns. The people you should worry most about have their little armouries still intact and well out of sight.
Tightening the control of guns was necessary (my suburban-dwelling brother in law legally bought a 9mm military bolt action rifle when he was a teenager) but it was handled badly because the strategy employed allowed Howard to milk the issue for political gain during the period of post-massacre shock.
Which brings us back to the original topic. Global warming and the-end-of-all-things is being exploited by all sides of politics to the detriment of an effective response to a serious problem. It looks like yet again, Little Johnny is going to make some political mileage out of it while his opponents fight amongst themselves. Bob Brown and Tim Flannery frothing at the mouth about coal is forcing Labor to make itself indistinguishable from the Coalition and allows the Coalition to demonise Labor by inference. Bob B is a Liberal Party secret weapon (which ties in with the gun control issue) and the Libs must be hoping he survives for many years into the future. Labor can look forward to a few more years in the wilderness and yet another leader after the next election. Howard will be remembered as the luckiest PM in our history.
And CO2 emissions? Business as usual.
I am wondering if Paul Williams and Woody are one and the same. They both come up with the strangest things. How could the massacres have been prevented had citizenas been able to carry guns? Why should we hang on to our guns? How can these two be pro-life yet be so pro-personal weapons? Ah, the rich tapestry of human kind.
I reckon Bob Brown is bored. So he’s just shoved the scissors in the power point to see how much press havoc and bow-wave he can create.
How many people are seriously going to vote for shutting down the coal industry. I fail to see why the coal industry are getting upset. Actually they should be back on the front foot explaining what they’re doing e.g. the CRC for Coal in Sustainable Development.
They could just tell Bob to have a cup of Valerian tea and good lie down.
Rudd needs to get away from this diversion (Look a feral Deep Green rabbit – Hasbeen get your 303 out) and make a stronger case for solar, efficiency and clean coal.
Sharp as a tack Pinxi, you’ve realised I’m old hat. I would have thought the “Hasbeen” may have given you the idea, but never mind.
Its just as well you are such a sweet young thing, you would have hated my day. Coming up to Anzac Day, my country school used to issue 63 WW2 army 303 rifles to the school cadets to take home, & clean up, to bring to the Dawn Parade Honor Guard, which we stood, every year.
The sight of 30 or so 15 year old boys, riding home, on their bikes, with a rifle over their sholder held no fear for a 50s country town.
It might tell you something about me to know that, one of the proudest moments of my life was when I commanded that guard, in my last year at school.
Gavin, may be you weren’t in a good area, but you could earn enough for an old 22 single shot, by digging out burrows, then that would earn enough to buy the football boots, or even the bike, that your folks could not afford.
Only a fool would sail around the Pacific, in a yacht, without some weapons, & I still have mine, all licensed, of course.
I still use my guns in anger, each year, & I think even Pinxi may approve. I was silly enough to let my wife plant some Cocas palms near the house. These things, now mature, & 40 ft high, drop hundreds of little nust, many of which germinate. I’m too old to climb the things to cut the seed pods out, now, & to remove the palms would be ridiculously expensive.
However, a couple of rounds from the old 303, through the seed pod stem, [4 from the 22], & it dies. No more nuts.
No, your right, Pinxy won’t aprove.
The reason the urban trendoids lept so fervently onto the anti-gun issue was that they knew perfectly well that Martin Bryant and all his victims were casualties of their failed mental health policies. There were no mass killings on the scale of Port Arthur 40 years ago because 40 years ago Martin Bryant would have been in an institution where his medication could be supervised.
But that wasn’t cool enough for some so they were all let loose under the assumption that crazy people are safe because they always take their medication, don’t they? This way the health authorities avoid their duty of care and any liability for harm caused by or to the patient.
And Bryant now costs ten times more to support in jail than he ever would have cost in institutional care. And feral animals are much less likely to be culled because gun ownership is discouraged.
Which is why I went out of my way to teach my kids to shoot this christmas hols.
Ian, I don’t have the stats here right now , but I’m sure that most killings occur by people who know the victims, most killings are acually domestic violence and not murders by people who suffer from some kind of mental disease.
Good grief. I didn’t mean to bring up a discussion on seizure of guns by the Austrailian government, which is highly off topic. Sorry, Jen. However, it seems that issue is still a point of debate in your country, based on the responses, and it’s clear that many of you are clueless when it comes to causes of U.S. crime and our philosophy on rights.
Just as one clarification, in the U.S., the citizens do not get rights from the government. We have inalienable rights, which are documented in the Bill of Rights or our Constitution, and citizens only grant government the power to run our country, which means protecting rather than seizing those rights, and that includes the right to bear arms and to defend yourself against even government tyranny. To elaborate, there is a car bumper sticker which I’ve seen that reads “Only criminals, dictators and Democrats fear armed citizens.”
The only point that I was raising is the seemingly inconsistent positions of one national leader embracing both conservative and liberal views, with the conservative one being methodical movement on AGW solutions. Making citizens defenseless against government is a liberal view and taking informed, appropriate action on AGW is a logical conservative view.
P.S.
Luke wrote earlier to me: “We could debate the issue with at your own place but your fascist neocon blog doesn’t seem to allow posters from the southern hemisphere.”
Luke, it’s not my blog. I only contribute to help out the owner, who is a friend and who spent the past year fighting cancer. While I’ll pass on the fact that you don’t understand the definition of “fascist,” as you’ve applied it to the site, I will mention that G.M. Roper, the blog owner, encourages polite discourse by people from the left, such as yourself. There are regularly left-wing commenters that participate in these exchanges. Try it.
P.P.S. Wouldn’t it be great if we could take the money being wasted on phony and hyped global warming studies and solutions and apply that money to find preventions and cures for cancer? That’s the point that I often make. There are finite resources, and we should allocate those resources to serious areas, such as education and medical research, that have the greatest return potential.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could take the money being wasted on the Iraq war and apply it to find preventions and cures for a large number of diseases? That is something that is definately happening and causing massive loss of life via guns and bombs. I am beginning to think a greater threat to the world are those that don’t think AGW is happening, don’t want solutions, don’t want women’s rights, and want the world armed with guns.
Yes Travis the Iraq budget could better address poverty, HIV, malaria etc. $$$ = Weapons of Mass Salvation. Under Bush the US military budget has increased each year by the amount that it\’s fallen behind on its promised ODA. War a bigger priority than aid. Wars create more insecurity, more tensions, more suffering, attract more resentment and terrorism.
Woody you were told before this thread that your US-centric political distinctions are not relevant to Aust but you didn\’t listen. We\’re not so black & white here, no surprise, and we respect pollies who\’ll cross the floor on important issues, whatever their persuasion and party pressures. Throw away your US blinkers to consider Austn political issues. You didn\’t just raise US rights to bear arms, you stated that Austns shouldn\’t give up their arms. Well you shoot each other over there, we\’re happy enough over here without you dragging us into more wars.
And you blokes, for the record I learnt to shoot in my youth and I have a number of rifles, mostly heirlooms, call it my glory box ha ha even though I\’m an old spinster. But Australians are a violent lot (refer international comparisons) so let\’s not go the way of the US with their high prison numbers, slum areas, crimes, unsanctioned wars, excessive consumption, deprivations of other personal liberties under the name of Christ and the habit of shooting each other at whimsy. Nah I\’m not putting that all down to guns but you can see that the conservatives are clustered on these issues but refuse to consider how or why their approach is unsuccessful. If there\’s a God would it be so dumb? Boxer it\’s not anti-US sentiment, they are specific issues and my American friends agree.
Is it just me, or does the thought of Ian with guns seem disturbing ?
P.S. Woody – next you decide to invade somehwere don’t invite us and consider what spending your war budget on cancer research would achieve.
P.P.S. I want a rocket launcher coz you can get more roos in the one shot. I’m rational. I’m not mnetal. You all know me don’t you?
Its just you Luke.
Before you wind up all those tired old anti american cliches consider the enormous sums of money the US spends on cancer research (NCI spends +$4.6B)
The US is prepared to spend more on defending their nation than the EU, the EU is now aware of just how vulnerable they are now and in the future.
Well the thought of you with a gun too is equally disturbing given your predilection for biffing people with 4 x 2. One trillion bucks wasted Rog and hundreds of thousands dead – it’s utterly indefensible and you know it. So in terms of the tired old cliche they can spend some more on cancer research.
Pinxi wrote: “Woody you were told before this thread that your US-centric political distinctions are not relevant to Aust but you didn\’t listen.”
Pinxi, are only Australians supposed to be involved on this blog and are the views of people from the U.S. not relevant to discussions on global warming? Thanks for letting us off the hook. And, don’t ask us for any money to fight AGW.
I don’t know how you guys think, but, human nature being somewhat universal, it’s not a stretch to believe that people with a common heritage and both living under democracy might think somewhat alike. But, I have noticed that professors who live in universities don’t have to think like citizens in their country, much less being able to think rationally at all.
Woody, its called the ‘cultural cringe’ and there is plenty of it here.
Anti americanism is rife all around the world, Mark Steyn thinks that when asked “are you with us or with the terrorists” the EU ticked “Neither” whilst the ME ticked “Both”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21199392-28737,00.html
Woody reread and try not to make up something that wasn\’t said. Your response wasn\’t rational. Earlier and again today I pointed out to you that US political definitions can\’t be applied directly to Aust. Our political system is different (a mix of US & UK systems) and our parties can\’t be understood in the exact same terms eg the use of Liberal or assumed to have such strict policy demarcations as your Democrats & Republicans. From your posts you didn\’t realise this, so you\’re welcome for the pointer.
Now having cleared that up, how did you bend that to reckon that I said US views aren\’t welcome here on GW discussions? You regularly distort and fabricate your own meaning as I do recall asking you before if you misinterpret God\’s meaning with the same regularity. If you see how far you depart from what is written, ask yourself how accurately you interpret other more important issues. To answer your new question I think US citizens have a massive and important role to play in GW. And on blog welcomes, Schiller is often good for a belly laugh. As long as he doesn\’t try to move here. (smile)
How many people die of cancer in the ODA recipient countries? Their needs are more basic, cheap and urgent than cancer research.
Should a nation that expects to be admired spend more on hitting people with clubs while they\’re down or holding out a helping hand? Where was this great bringer of peace, Christian liberties and justice when Liberia (US founded) was begging for US intervention? I gather civil wars are OK while they\’re not boiling over into US economic affairs.
OK. So we are no longer ‘on topic’. But just a reminder, could commentators never-the-less be polite, avoid personal attacks, and try and limit their contributions to no more than 2-3 comments in any one 24 hour period. Please. Thanks. 🙂
Woody: in saying “human nature being somewhat universal, it’s not a stretch to believe that people with a common heritage and both living under democracy might think somewhat alike” you got me thinking about a little exercise I did last week after googling for who z who around Jen’s Pandora link.
Some far distant family connection had solved a mystery about my forbears. Sure enough there it was again the Irish connection. I now have two lines back to the Irish and no “dark” secrets.
Now if any one has ever seen a six foot Irishman king hit his six foot Aus wife and lay her halfway up the hall in the middle of a private birthday party over “dancing” then you may understand my drift. Add to that individual violent experience first hand the island gun/whatever culture that surfaces over and over I say there is a common madness in our Celtic heritage.
The small mindedness behind the Port Arthur type gun massacre starts somewhere way back in cultural isolation. Brooding over some normally forgotten trigger is something we from small communities tend to hide with in a family group. But note how we all joke about the Irish, the Kiwis and Tasmanians. I bet it extends to likewise to outback bits of America.
Let’s suggest there is another clue found with our roots in music. The Irish lament also goes on and on, here and there.
On the other hand on thinking alike’ my pommy lass born in the same year, living under the same roof driving the same car, either one to the same place can think a thousand different ways on how to get there. Any way it seems but mine.
Worth a read: In “Forum” Canberra Times (Sat 10th Feb 2007), ‘A climate for change’ by Andrew Fraser our political commentator, we are treated to a few voter views in the most drought suffering of the federal electorates.
Eden-Monaro has been a litmus seat for governments. Note there is no coal mining here. Watt versus Nairn is the contest to watch in the coming months on both the water issue and climate change.
Getting back on track, the consensus opinion is that Bob Brown is a dope
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/nation_united/
Gee wiz, it has finally dawned on mainstream Australia that Brown and Flannery are right off the planet. They, and their gonzo mates in the “Witless Group of Scientists” have had free reign on forest policy for more than a decade now and, surprise, surprise, they are all going up in smoke. Did anyone see the post fire hills around Licola on ABC Landline today?
And no-one finds it just a bit strange to be lectured on future generational equity by a guy whose sexual leanings preclude procreation?
Pinxi, my original comment was “Politicians in Australia confuse me living in the U.S.” Didn’t that make it clear that I was recognizing a difference in the mindset of your politicians? Maybe it’s you, not me, who should be more aware and respectful of views other than your own.
Having said that, there is still no problem in my stating that citizens, of any country, who give up their guns to the government are exposing themselves to government tyranny–a historical and universal reality.
It’s easy to take that my comments are unwelcome and considered uninformed by you from your false and condescending admonishment to me and by your making a blanket statement “conservatives…refuse to consider how or why their approach is unsuccessful,” which is certainly only your opinion and not a proven fact.
If liberals, the left, or idiots (however you classify people who primarily use the right half of their brains to think) were allowed to do everything that they want without conservatives (rational, logical, prudent) keeping them in check, we would likely exist in a totally government controlled world absent of individuality and liberty.
Also, it’s a fool’s errand to discuss my religious beliefs with someone who doesn’t accept the existence of my God. So, I would appreciate that you avoid such personal jabs, as they are totally unrelated to global warming.
Finally, living in the U.S. is quite good. There’s a reason that everyone tries to move here. Our history and situation is quite different from yours, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand why we are the way we are, but your inaccurate biases indicate that you get your ideas of our country from a left-wing press rather than knowing what you’re talking about.
To get back on topic, “Could ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Tim Flannery’ Cost Kevin Rudd the Election?,” here is my response. I think that is safe to say “maybe.”
Woody, It was you who brought up your religious beliefs whilst making degrading comments about women having abortions, it was you who brought up gun ‘control’ whilst others apart from Pinxi have expressed their opposition to your comment, it was you who went off topic by bringing up gun ‘control’, it is you who are assuming that the left are not rational, logical and prudent.
As I wrote above, the personal jabs are out, which is a good step, but it doesn’t stop people here from being totally insulting to certain groups and ramming their beliefs down other’s cyber throats. Reading this blog nowadays is like going to some small inbred town caught in a vacuum.
(Jen, I’m sorry to do this, but false personal attacks should not be left unchallenged. However, I promise to make this my last entry today, so as to not abuse you and your hospitality.)
Really Travis? Are you sure about what you’re saying? Let’s check.
Here’s how the exchange of religion and abortion was started and addressed:
Posted by: La Pantera Rosa at February 4, 2007 11:42 AM
“Shall I counter argue that Christians are breeding ignorant zealots and faking right to life concerns to spread their idealogy thoughout the world? Nah.”
Posted by: Woody at February 4, 2007 01:17 PM
“Finally, you reveal your own prejudices when you suggest that Christians are ignorant and that their concerns for the unborn are a ruse to spread an ideology. This may come as a shock, but I’m a Christian and meet intellectual standards higher than the masses who endorse socialism, and I oppose abortion because it takes an innocent life–period.”
So, you guys were the first to link religion and abortion and I immediately said that my religious views did not form my opposition to murder. Yet, you continued with that unstated and unproven assumption. Were you right or wrong?
How about gun control?
Posted by: Woody at February 10, 2007 08:24 AM
“Politicians in Australia confuse me living in the U.S. John Howard was reponsible for taking guns away from citizens who wanted them for defense, which is a totalitarian action. Yet, he has doubts about global warming, which goes in the opposite philosophical direction.”
Posted by: Pinxi at February 10, 2007 09:35 AM
“Woody thinks gun ownership is an important unalienable civil right; numerous innocent casualties of war in Iraq is acceptable in the quest to spread Christianity, yet he also has right to ownership of all women\’s wombs because abortion is murder. Reconcile that. Err, what will the guns be used for if not killing and maiming, eg shooting people who want abortions, ha hardy ha?”
Posted by: Pinxi at February 10, 2007 09:35 AM
Posted by: Woody at February 11, 2007 02:00 AM
“Good grief. I didn’t mean to bring up a discussion on seizure of guns by the Austrailian government, which is highly off topic. Sorry, Jen. …The only point that I was raising is the seemingly inconsistent positions of one national leader embracing both conservative and liberal views.”
I didn’t bring up gun control as the topic. It was just an example to illustrate the topic of seemingly inconsistent positions of a leader who holds both that view and also a cautious global warming position. It was you guys who went ballistic, so to speak, over the topic. Were you right or were you wrong on this?
Come again, Travis.
Admit it. The positions of most of you on Christians and the U.S. are often irrational, uninformed, and biased, probably because they don’t fit neatly into your left-wing agenda. So, then you try to shut up anyone who points out your shortcomings. You have a lot of prejudices, and they aren’t flattering. Maybe you should reflect on the sacrifices that the U.S. has made to the world in money and protecting freedoms and be thankful for that.
I won’t try to dominate the posts by any stretch, but I do intend to make opposing views known and to not let false information go unchallenged. If truth doesn’t meet your level of sophistication, then maybe you and others need to reevaluate your values.
To bring this on topic, don’t expect thinking people to go along with you and to agree to fund a global warming “science” driven by politics and emotion rather than a prudent, cautious, cost-effective approach.
Finally, this from the day’s news about the views of John Howard on American Democrats. I’m beginning to like your PM. He knows what he’s talking about on this subject.
“If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.” http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21206867-2,00.html
Good night.
Well lucky that God is dead thanks to Jean Paul Satre and Camus or he’d be very miffed at some of his foot soldiers’ criminality.
This thread ably demonstrates that AGW is definitely all about religion, guns, goons and gold.
An inability to think clearly, fairly and right through to the end.
God help us !
Woody, nothing I wrote at 05:33 has been discountered by your 06:45 comment. Try and read it without distorting it. Please.
As for you liking our PM, it is hardly surprising. He was sticking his nose into a comment made by an African American who wants the troops withdrawn from Iraq because he sees loss of life and loss of billions of dollars in a fruitless exercise. Howard was simply doing what the US does to us, which is trying to influence free-thinking citizens with “empty rhetoric.”
Glad to hear that some in the USA approve of John Howards views, Woody. All we got on the news here was that the democrats were spittin chips.
But it was, afterall, a simple statement of the facts. If you advise an opponent of your departure date then all he has to do to win is wait. Someone had to say it.
But Obama is part right to compare troop commitments. On a proportion to population basis, if the USA (pop 300m) has 140,000 troops in Iraq then Australia (pop 20m) would need 9,300 troops to match it, not the 20,000 claimed by Obama. But along with our 1,400 in Iraq we have troops in Afganistan, East Timor and Vanuatu, and our strategic circumstances place a disproportionate budgetary burden on Naval and Airforce elements and this limits our capacity to deploy troops.
Getting back to Woody’s point about Rights. The US Bill of rights is forever being challenged because it is so specific.
In Australia everything is allowed except for things that are forbidden by law.
What a wooden headed rant!! Woody you took quotes out of context and distorted meanings beyond any reason. Outcome? Your ire is largely misplaced. You want to express your personal opinions but you\’re intolerant of those in disagreement. It\’s ok if you declare that you don\’t understand something but you\’re mad if someone tries to explain it to you.
Your emotive rants are overreactions to your own fabrications, not reality. You\’ve had a couple of people asking you to try to read accurately and in context instead of distorting meanings. There\’s no point wasting time trying to have a reasoned exchange with you while you carry on like a raw pork chop.
Pink Personality Disorder has the gall to accuse Woody of going over the top? Now I have heard everything.
Better than rock bottom like you do Ian.