Rudd lets the Coalition have it and he is correct. An excellent speech – to the point and accurate – with sound economics – I have a strong intuition about who wrote it.
It is 20 days until the Senate vote on the CPRS and 31 days to the meetings in Copenhagen. The deceptions coming from the Liberal and National Parties, the lies told by the IPA and the other delusionists, that have reached a crescendo in recent weeks, are designed to prevent national and international deals on climate change. The protagonists in these debates exclude practising climate scientists and include a mix of suckers and fools who deserve contempt more than sympathy. Nor is it useful – or a successful evasion – for some of them to say that they agree AGW is a problem but then to deny every attempt to deal with it. It is a fact that many in the Liberal Party only support moves to deal with AGW because they see votes in it – I have heard these sentiments directly myself. (Update: Many like Nick Minchin are outright denialists. Watch Malcolm and the Malcontents on Four Corners tonight for an update).
Climate change is a problem that 4,000 principled IPCC scientists recognise and one that can be addressed at relatively low cost. It would be irresponsible to avoid taking action now. There is no credible evidence from denialists or sceptics that negates the core science claims and procrastination has continued for too long. As Rudd argues:
‘Climate change skeptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They are radicals. They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence. The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government’.
This is an accurate characterisation. If the Liberals and Nationals continue to oppose the ETS legislation in the Senate they lose credibility as a responsible alternative government for Australia. They would be rejecting legislation they they themseves endorsed while in government. Even former PM John Howard admits the current ETS is close to the one he proposed:
“So I’m scratching … even with the ETS, what Mr Rudd is proposing is not all that different from what I took to the last election.”
If the Coalition vote against the CPRS then they were either unprincipled in the past in adopting election policies that they really did not agree to or unprincipled now in rejecting policies that they previously supported. They will come be recognised as such irrespective of the outcomes in Copenhagen and, irrespective of recent shifts in world public opinion against dealing with AGW, they will be recognised as part of the team of wreakers who helped prevent an agreement to deal with an international crisis.
It is time to stand and be counted. In my view Malcolm Turnbull should resign as Leader if the Liberal Party refuses to endorse a program close to that proposed by the Rudd Government’s CPRS. It is not worthwhile attempting to lead a party composed of suckers, fools and hypocrites. You wouldn’t want them to be the national government and they won’t be anyway given such a cowardly, dishonest stance.
More from John Quiggin.
HC: I am really very disappointed by your latest. To make allegations like the following without citing chapter and verse with accompanying refutations is of course no more than armwaving: “The deceptions [which?] coming from the Liberal and National Parties, the lies [e.g.?] told by the IPA and the other delusionists [mere abuse], that have reached a crescendo in recent weeks, are designed to prevent national and international deals on climate change. The protagonists in these debates exclude practising climate scientists [not true – Lindzen, Carter, and Kinimonth have more credentials in this area than either hc or John Quiggin] and include a mix of suckers and fools [really?] who deserve contempt more than sympathy.
“…Climate change is a problem that 4,000 principled [all of them including Tom Wigley, Ian Enting and David Karoly? - they have all used or relied on the inapplicable Michaelis-Menten hyperbolic function to "prove" that the biosphere cannot maintain its average 57% take-up of CO2 emissions since 1958] IPCC scientists recognise and one that can be addressed at relatively low cost [how much and when? and for what benefits when?]. It would be irresponsible to avoid taking action now [even in the absence of any firm evidence relating the statistically insignificant discernible evidence of climate change anywhere on earth with any evidence of correlation of that against the marginal growth of atmospheric CO2, at only 0.41% p.a. since 1958?]. There is no credible evidence from denialists or sceptics that negates the core science claims and procrastination has continued for too long. [NOT TRUE, name just one place in Australia where using BoM data you can find a correlation between changes in mean minimum temperatures, either monthly or annual, and changes in [CO2]].
John Quiggin is no better when he states “Those who reject action to address climate change are doing so on the basis of lies propounded by tobacco hacks like Steve Milloy, bought-and-paid-for thinktanks like the IPA [who has bought Alan Moran or any other IPA staffer like Chris Berg? it is perennially hard-up, I suspect none of them earns as much as JQ from ARC], loony world-government conspiracy theorists like Lord Monckton [he has a point about the implications of the draft Copenhagen plans for all of us], intellectual cardsharps like Bjorn Lomborg [wow? does that include all the Nobel economists who have worked with him, when did JQ get his Nobel?] and reflexive contrarians like Richard (’the dangers of smoking have been much exaggerated’) Lindzen [what about JQ’s coffee drinking? too much caffeine produces brain death]. In years following this debate I have seen no-one (literally and without exception) on the delusionist side separate themselves from these hacks and cranks and present a coherent case [that is in part because any who might like Richard Tol are banned from or have abandoned JQ’s blog; Tol will be presenting at the maligned “bought and paid for think-tank” IPA on Tuesday 10th]. That’s because it is impossible for an intelligent person to reach delusionist conclusions on this issue while retaining their intellectual honesty [so Tol is not intelligent or honest?].”
Well, where is JQ’s intellectual honesty when he himself has never produced any econometric evidence linking changes in [CO2] to whatever rising temperatures he can find anywhere, e.g. for starters at Brisbane Airport. My Excel files with regressions on temperature and [CO2] for any location in Australia are available on request.
hc. Seriously, I beg you as an economist to read Wigley & Enting CSIRO 1993, 2000, where they use the Michaelis-Menten function as the basis for their MAGICC models which was used for ALL IPCC predictions of growth in [CO2] to 2100, but that function is nothing more than an example of basic economics’ Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns to increases in one factor of production, all others held constant – in the real world, there are generally at least constant, and often increasing, returns to scale from increases in ALL factors of production. That is why the Wigley prediction in 1993 of decreasing take-ups of CO2 emissions has been constantly falsified by the empirical evidence of at least a constant 57% biotic take-up of emissions since 1958. But your “4000″ don’t give a stuff for evidence to support their pre-Marshallian economics.
All nonsense Tim. Anyway you have had your final say – it is your final say – and repeated the usual points. Contributions on other issues possible but not socially damaging climate delusionism.
“I have a strong intuition about who wrote it.”
Are you going to tell us?
‘Climate change is a problem that 4,000 principled IPCC scientists recognise and one that can be addressed at relatively low cost.’ Such a statement shows who is truely delusional. Take a bex and have a lie down. When you get up, have a good think about what you have written.
I coudn’t believe it when I read the transcript of that speech. Ubernerd Rudd finally showed us some Keatingesque fire in the belly – I wish he’d do it more often.
Mind you, it would be more convincing if he hadn’t previously looked like he was more concerned to embarrass the opposition than save the planet – when playing those games he gets a look on his face that’s just like the one little Johnnie used to when indulging in the same sport. We could and should have had a decent scheme by now, after the DD that should have been called as soon as it became evident the crazies had enough oomph to veto any decent bill. Instead he’s enjoying doing Mr Turnbull slowly, at the price of a sensible ETS.
And yes, congratulations go to the speechwriter – he took aim at the right targets and scored bullseyes. Not that it was reported like that in the Murdoch press of course.
[...] Commentators are going to focus on the Prime Minister’s attack on “skeptics”, as if the only barrier to stopping global warming in its tracks is Barnaby Joyce and Cory Bernardi. [...]
“I have a strong intuition about who wrote it.”
Reading it, I had a strong intuition I had written it myself, but if so, it was in my sleep. Certainly, it was exactly what I would have written if I’d been asked to do so.
I was positive it was you John. I think that, as it wasn’t you, that somebody close to Kevin reads your blog.
Quite likely it was written by rudd’s regular speechwriter, Tim Dixon, who also wrote the leading economics textbook used for the HSC in NSW