The Dog’s Bollocks

Truth is like a dog’s bollocks – pretty obvious if you care to look.

Nelson has relevance bypass

The Federal Opposition should seriously consider saying nothing for the time being. Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Brendan Nelson SMHAt this early stage of a new government, the opposition seem only able put forward ideas that were just soundly beaten at the polls or destroy all credibility by criticising the same things they were doing only a few months ago.

Brendan Nelson Federal says the Government should focus on the basics instead of considering an apology to Indigenous Australians. He says that rising food and fuel prices are more urgent than saying ‘sorry’. I thought the Liberals had determined that it was not possible for any government to do anything about food and fuel prices? Clear message there.

“Whatever the attitude of Australians towards this generation, apologising for things that were done by earlier generations, you’ve really got to ask yourself whether this is a high priority for the Australian Parliament,” Nelson said.

Given that it was part of Labor’s election mandate and that the majority of Australian’s would like something in the way of an apology I can’t really see why it shouldn’t be a priority.

What Nelson hopes to gain by such petty announcements eludes me, apart from keeping his name in the media (and reminding us what a goose he is). Rudd is going to issue an apology regardless of Nelson’s opinion, and it will be long gone by the next election, and quite possibly ancient history by the time Nelson would need ever worry about the matter in government.

Show some grace, man and stop being an irrelevant twat.

Filed under: Politics

The IPA and other fossil fuel fossils

skeptics.jpgJennifer Marohasey, environmental fellow for Liberal Party think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, has been ringing in the New Year with her list of climate change sceptics – the “400 dissenting scientists”. “If 2007 was the Year of Al Gore, with his movie, Academy Award and Nobel Prize, 2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack.”

Marohasey has small coterie of loyal fans on her website eager to battle with any who dissent from her campaign to prove that global warming is not caused by human activity and to argue that climate change is a plot by leftist academics and others keen to milk the tax payer’s purse to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an evil attempt to destroy our entire way of life and the future well-being of our grand children’s grand children. Long time contributor Luke, Jennifer’s token greenie who owns an ecotourism property in the Daintree, appears to have departed with a scathing assessment of Marohasey’s blog site.

It strikes me as incredulous that Marohasey could have a PhD, conducted field research for more than a decade and yet is now happy to push a denialist agenda in the employ of the IPA. I guess it pays better than field biology.

The IPA receives support from corporations and corporate interest groups (including Gunns Limited, Monsanto and tobacco, mining and oil companies) and provides regular op-ed fodder for the MSM pushing the Liberal Party line. As the Liberal Party struggles to establish what it stands for I’d argue that the IPA also needs to look at what it believes in. Corporate Australia wants action on climate change, if for no other reason than needing to stay competitive in a changing global political economy. Yet the IPA is still pushing the denialist agenda, as if they can somehow reverse overwhelming global political sentiment. They would server their masters better, and advance the quality of public debate, by turning its attention to how Australian businesses and corporations might best respond the forthcoming carbon emission limitation mechanisms.

Regardless of the dissenting opinions of climate sceptics there is no sound scientific argument for continuing increasing global CO2 emissions at an exponential rate into a closed system. Sceptics are simply motivated by the desire to avoid the financial inconvenience that curbing CO2 emissions might entail. If, as the sceptics would argue, the science is far from clear, then the precautionary principle should apply. Curbing CO2 emissions is sensible and prudent precisely because we don’t exactly what the long term ramifications might be. In the meantime, it will encourage more efficient and sustainable energy usage and consumption which will have real long-term benefits for our grand-children’s grand-children.

Filed under: Big Picture, Environment, Media, Politics, Science, Technology, Wingnuttery

The Dog’s Bollocks

What they say

The Dog's Bollocks: "Bollocks" is one of my favourite words, and this is now one of my favourite blogs and I've only been reading it for five minutes. – John Surname

This is the person who tried to analyse Hayek. This is actually a person who needs a shrink. – JC

Shut up slim. You’re an idiot.
Just you stay honest and keep that thinking cap on. – GMB

Insightful perspectives on politics and discussion of matters epistemological? I’m sold! - Bruce

Add to Technorati Favorites

Flickr Photos