Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Tim Flannery’s Failings Ignored

By

‘The Government says it wants a “climate expert” to sell the message to the public, and who do they pick? A small mammal expert whose predictions on the climate are so wrong any normal person would slink off in shame. But not Flannery, the Teflon prophet, reality doesn’t stick to him.  How can it be that the outrageously wrong get away with it with reputations intact (and get rewarded too)? Blame the mainstream media. Blame also a government that thinks it’s a good use of public money to promote known failures.

‘Flannery will be paid $180,000 a year to be part-time chairman of the Gillard Government’s Climate Commission, to convince us to agree to her plans to “put a price on carbon”. In other words, he’s not an expert in climate science but in science-PR. Bolt describes how Flannery changes his PR tune to suit his employers. The man has no scruples.

‘He claims the “committee is independent”. But we all know that they will come to no other conclusion that to support a tax, call carbon “pollution”, and rave about all the evidence (that they can’t name specifically). That $5.6 million dollar committee is just a thinly disguised $5.6 million dollar advertising campaign…

 http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/do-you-want-a-carbon-tax-poll-on-today-at-the-age/

[Last time I spoke with Tim Flannery, after an ABC Television’s Q&A program in October last year, he reiterated to me that there was still a drying trend, that Australian rainfall was in decline, and would continue to decline.   I could not agree.  Since then we have had more and more flooding rains.]

Meanwhile a poll in The Age newspaper suggests there is not a lot of support for the proposed new carbon tax amongst the Australian public with 89 percent against when I looked close to 11pm on February 11 (Brisbane time).

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/environment/climate-tax/20110211-1aotb.html

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. rukidding says

    The only people left to hold this fool to account is the opposition and they seem to be not interested. Any chance of the MSM doing it are long gone.

  3. lmwd says

    Neville, I just wish there were more like Bolt in the mainstream media willing to remind the public of what a dud Flannery is. You really have to wonder what the Govt is thinking with Flannery’s appointment. As a poster over on Jo Nova’s blog suggested, Flannery may be the best weapon the sceptics have.

    Thanks for the link, I left a comment.

  4. Malcolm Hill says

    You know we are in trouble when idiots appoint other idiots to do their bidding in the hope that the public/voters/tax payers wont notice.

    What do you make of Govt that thinks so poorly of the masses that they believe for even a moment that this was a credible appointment…and to pay him ca $180k pa for part time work just beggars belief.

    It looks like he has learned his craft well from when he was in SA…they all have their snouts in the trough over here.

    What ever it is that Canberrites, and Combet in particular are on—- I want some.

  5. Luke says

    Perhaps it’s brilliant – does it matter if he’s a climate ninny – if Flannery can chair the process, manage the egos and politics and deliver THE result does it matter (to the proponents). Let’s not confuse the debate by introducing facts.

    Indeed your shrill ranting probably even increases the greenie resolve that you’re all evil/deluded/wrong/geriatric old codgers/retired geologists or economists/Xstrata shareholders.

    Greenies worked it out when they started wearing ties and suits.

    Blame Cohers – the sceptics party image doesn’t look good does it ? What a bunch of old codgers and miscellaneous coots. A veritable Dad’s army. And suffering dementia – they think the election is still on – http://landshape.org/news/

    Give Leon the shove – get him outa there !

    You have to get more serious, less shrill. AND sex it up – can’t you get Liz Hurley or someone?

    Here’s the prototype http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z206ipPhuFQ

  6. val majkus says

    I suggest you do this Luke ‘You have to get more serious, less shrill. AND sex it up – can’t you get Liz Hurley or someone’
    Can’t imagine it
    but I’ll applaud if you do

  7. Malcolm Hill says

    What the hell are you wanking on about Walker

    Flannery IS the ego that needs to be managed.

    How on earth can he possibly manage others when his propensity for talking b/s, is so well documented… and his predictions based upon the sure and certain science that he is fully qualified to spruik about …have been so disastrously wrong.

    But in truth they have probably done us all an favour having a nit wit like that being in charge.

    Its on a par with Railway Engineer Pachauri being in charge of the IPCC…snort…. what a hoot.

  8. el gordo says

    PM Dullard is no fool. She has chosen Flannery to head this non-scientific committee because it’s meant to fail.

    As the Age poll shows, going against the will of the voters will mean political destruction for Labor and the red queen has enough nous to drop the tax.

  10. val majkus says

    TonyfromOz has a very timely post at http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/shh-misconceptions-about-placing-a-price-on-carbon-dioxide-you-wont-hear-about/
    (quoting the opening paras)
    Here in Australia, the Labor Government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard is seeking to impose a ‘Price on Carbon’.

    Some of you may think that this is exclusively an Australian problem, but the same applies everywhere something of this nature is going through the processes of implementation.

    There are many misconceptions about placing a price on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions, and what I hope to do here is to explain some of those things, because the bland term ‘A Price On Carbon’ is easy to understand, while what it actually means is almost impossible to try and explain.

    The single most difficult thing to even attempt to explain is just how much money something like this will raise for Governments who introduce it, and that is what is most definitely not being explained to people, because if it was, then people would see it for exactly what it is, nothing more than a new revenue raising tax, and a whopping great huge tax at that.
    (end of quote)
    check out the post; it’s all about the money

  13. Travis says

    > A small mammal expert

    This coming from Jennifer, a small invertebrate expert! LOL!