My FAVOURITE "Minchinisms"
...
Quote:NICK MINCHIN, SENATOR, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE:
"For 10 years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting peoples' innate fears about global warming and climate change to achieve their political ends"
"For the
extreme left
it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion"
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2737676.htm I'm assuming Malcolm Turnbull and World Vision CEO,the Reverend Tim Costello,
are card holder's in Nick's
?
Also of relevance ...Minchin's climate conspiracy
November 12, 2009
AND they say that conspiracy theories are the domain of the left ?.
Not so, if you listened to this week's Four Corners program in which the Opposition leader in the Senate, Nick Minchin, outlined his explanation of why efforts to tackle climate change had gained such momentum.
''For the extreme left, it provides the opportunity to do what they have always wanted to do, which is to sort of de-industrialise the Western world.
The collapse of communism was a disaster for the left and, really, they embraced environment as their new religion.''
Which would be funny if he didn't mean it and didn't hold such a senior leadership position in our parliament.
To a large extent, this week's Four Corners program simply laid out in detail what we already knew: that
the Liberal and National parties are home to a significant number of climate-change deniers - those who would deny that human activity is a significant contributor to climatic changes
.
Whether they are in the majority remains an open question, despite Minchin's bold claim that they are
The climate scepticism of the senior former Howard government minister is well known, but Minchin's comments aired this week are so inflammatory as to require a response.
There can be no more denying his denial.
Clearly his belief is deeply held.
Clearly he is at odds with his party's leadership on the matter.
It is time for him to examine seriously whether it is appropriate for him to hold the office of party leader in the Senate when he has no intention of falling into line with his party's leadership on this issue.
Having the nation's Opposition party in the Senate led by two
trenchant climate-change deniers - Senator Barnaby Joyce for the Nationals and Minchin for the Liberals - is untenable.
Minchin should demonstrate the same level of honesty as Malcolm Turnbull, who has staked his leadership over the issue: back me or sack me.
Australia has more to lose than most from a changing climate. Reliant on agriculture, we already are suffering from limited water resources. And yet our cities cling to shorelines that will disappear as seawaters rise.
We should be at the forefront of efforts to tackle climate change, which the vast majority of the credible scientific world tells us is happening - and is the result of human activity. Business leaders have also accepted the challenge and are demanding solutions and certainty to thrive.
The time for conspiracy theories, and their exponents, is over. The time for action is upon us.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/minchins-climate-conspiracy-20091111-...The junk science behind Minchin's climate change denial
14 March 2011
ABC News reported on Friday that Senator Nick Minchin rejects a recent Australian government report about climate change, because Minchin claims the globe is more likely to be cooling than warming.
Ross Garnaut, according to Minchin, "knows nothing about the climate", because Garnaut is an economist, rather than a climate scientist. Minchin went on to cite the work of a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who says that models have generally overstated the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas emissions, and recent warming has likely been due to a "natural cycle".
This unnamed scientist is almost certainly Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, in the United States.
In climate science, there is a clear consensus. Two recent peer-reviewed studies have shown that 97-98% of working climate scientists think humans are significantly affecting the Earth’s climate.
So why does Senator Minchin glom onto the work of a single scientist, whose views are representative of such a tiny minority?
It turns out that Roy Spencer’s views are on the fringes for good reasons.
Spencer published a 2008 paper in which he used a simple model of the Earth’s climate to show that standard methods for estimating climate sensitivity were greatly overstating warming effects.
It turns out that other climate scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favourable review) have now published a paper showing Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.
If realistic values are used, the effect Spencer described is negligible.
Spencer has done further work in which he claims to show with his simple climate model that, not only is climate sensitivity low, but most of the global warming in the 20th century can be explained by a natural cycle he called the "Pacific Decadal Oscillation"
Dr. Spencer tried to get this work published, but it didn’t pass peer review.
Politicians like Senator Minchin usually want to be seen as tough-minded iconoclasts who boldly go where the evidence leads them. In this case, however,
we can clearly see that there is no compelling reason to think Roy Spencer’s work trumps that of the rest of the climate science community. In fact, much of his work is of demonstrably poor quality.
The sordid truth of the matter seems, instead, to be that Senator Minchin simply believed whichever expert would tell him what he wanted to hear.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45086.html"What Makes Nick Tick ?"
I'm damned if I know what makes ANY climate change denier "tick"
ESPECIALLY those with all the DATA and FACTS at their fingertips
But MORE importantly ...
i