Dr Dennis Jensen in Parliament
Dennis Jensen spoke out about the hype around global-warming as long ago as 2004, when there were almost no politicians (or anyone for that matter) daring to publicly mention any skeptical thoughts. It was so risky. What he said then is still largely true.
Jensen obviously knows what science is, can see through the sacred cows, and has the background to foster and filter good science from bad. Science is much more than “climate”, and vested interests pull at it from all directions. We need a science minister who won’t be fooled by slick press releases or activists wearing lab-coats.
Science is broken, web sites are funded to smear senior scientists, namecalling is rife to the highest levels. Government funded work no longer belongs to the public — instead so-called scientists and their universities fight legal battles to hide it from critics, while they run away from public debate. Science has been misused, exploited and corrupted, to justify sweeping changes to the economy, our laws, potentially our way of life. The ARC has lost its way, funding political research disguised as “psychology” that is transparently designed to denigrate voters who disagree with the government. These millions could have gone to medical research instead.
No matter what Jensen says, he will be attacked by the religious acolytes of climate change (see Graham Readfearn) for the most ridiculous of things (like things that he has never said). The country needs to rise above the frivolous and naked attempts to control policies by childish verbal intimidation.
Dennis Jensen has a PhD in Materials Science and Physics, experience at CSIRO and in Defense Science and Technology Organisation. He’s the most highly qualified member of Parliament in any area of science.
He foresaw in 2004 that the theory of man-made global warming was “suspect” and would probably come unstuck — the models were failing, some of the data was being hidden from view, and other data was questionable. This was not a full time research project, nor his specialty, and he held no full time position requiring him to investigate man-made global warming, and yet almost all of what he said then stands the test of time and all the newer results since then has borne out his judgment.
Dr Jensen’s Maiden Speech– Nov 2004
Governor General’s Speech: Address-in-Reply – House of Representatives
“… Being an analytical person, I tend to take a dim view of sacred cows that are not backed up by verifiable facts. One example of these sacred cows having wide currency is the issue of global warming.
This issue has been taken up by parts of the community with almost religious fervour; however, the problem is that the science backing the claims is suspect. The warming trend that has been covered repeatedly in the media has been generated from ground based measuring stations. Problematically, these stations are affected by urban heat islands. Of course, this is not mentioned by the proponents of global-warming theories. There are far more reliable ways to measure global temperatures, such as through the use of Aerosonde balloons and satellites, which are unaffected by urban heat islands. Unfortunately for the global warmers, the data from these sources do not show the warming trend, so, disingenuously, only the ground based readings are used.
There is another piece of evidence that runs counter to the global warmers’ view. The major scare issue with global warming is that of melting polar caps, particularly the Antarctic ice cap. All models for global warming have the maximum increase in temperature occurring at the poles, for good reason: the absorption of heat by greenhouse gases occurs predominantly at temperatures that are common at the polar regions. So, given this, maximum heating should be observed at the polar regions. The problem for the global warmers is that this is not happening. Of more than 10 measurement stations in Antarctica, only one, on the Ross Ice Shelf, shows the warming trend. The rest exhibit no such heating. There is much other data pointing to the fallacy of the global warming scare campaign. Despite this, the global warmers want us to not only bet our economy but, more likely, significantly damage our economy on a theory that will probably go the way of the flat earth theory: restricted to a few adherents who have become totally divorced from reality.
Do not for a moment think that this makes me an antienvironmentalist. I believe that there are significant benefits to be had by controlling harmful emissions. In fact, in many cases a reduction in emissions can result in economic benefits as a result of converting some of the pollutants collected into useful products. This leads me to conclude that during this term of the Howard government we should be focusing on positive solutions to the many challenges which we face.”
Jensen meeting troops in Afghanistan
He visited Afghanistan as Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (more photos here).
About Dennis Jensen
Dr Dennis Jensen is the Liberal federal member for Tangney in Western Australia. A former air traffic controller, CSIRO and later Defence research scientist, and defence analyst. He’s played an important part in Australia’s air capability debate. [From Online Opinion]
His website: Dennis Jensen’s home page
Seems a shoe-in for Science Minister, doesn’t he.
With Bob Carter as climate advisor. A powerful and very knowledgeable team.
503
“Jensen would make a good Science Minister because he takes a contrarian sceptical and minority view of AGW science.”
That is all this post says. In other words, Jo wants the Coalition to force through a position on science that is totally at odds with the mainstream science position and that of every single reputable scientific organisation on the planet – and nearly every reputable climate scientist.
Utterly bizarre and utterly warped thinking. Not to mention autocratic and dangerous.
Those like Jo Nova that claim that they have a “lukewarm” stance on AGW are the most dangerous of all types – the position they say they have is utterly disproved by their associations with every crackpot, conspiracy theory and theorist who helps to provide them with their notoriety and following. See Monckton.
Rest assured, the Jo Novas and Andrew Bolts of this world will not be around when the AGW excrement really hits the fan. They will quietly slink off and pretend they were “just saying”. They are counting on being long gone when they are to be called to account. I wouldn’t be too certain about this.
“Hate to see a good civilisation going to waste…” Even her banner lies – there is not a single study that predicts the loss of civilisation or even a severe degradation of the economy through mitigation of the effects of AGW. But there are studies that show catastrophic consequences for economies if AGW is not mitigated.
Irresponsible and, ironically, alarmist.
788
It is painfully obvious that it is utterly futile arguing with deluded acolytes like this gentleman.
But at the risk of boring even myself:
Science is skepticism. It is an immutable and inherent part of it, hence healthy skepticism and an open minded approach to evidence should define the credentials of a good science minister, not the ability to nod one’s head without recourse to thinking critically.
Secondly, consensus is a reflection of three things: belief, confirmation bias and bullying (or if you prefer, fear of reprisals- whether loss of career, reputation, etc)
Thirdly, there are a number of well credentialed Climate Scientists who do not conform to the consensus view. Those such as yourself cover for this by either: pretending they don’t exist, or diminishing them by adjectives like “discredited” or “crackpot” etc, even though people like Richard Lindzen are hardly either of those.
Again, like all you religious types, you confect AGW with CAGW, the latter of which has been completely disproven by observations, and many recent climate papers now acknowledge climate sensivity less than 2 deg C for doubling CO2. Extreme weather events are no more prevalent than they have ever been, the only difference being the forensic coverage of the media and the relentless spruiking from alarmists, who have little actual evidence to back up their contentions that any recent extreme weather event was related in any way to warming, no matter what the attribution.
And when CAGW is seen to be the false paradigm it is, anonymous trolls like yourself will slip off into the ether of the Internet looking for another political bandwagon to jump on to satisfy their need to decry the actions of their fellow human beings, who don’t require clowns like you dictating how they should live their lives.
602
“the position they say they have is utterly disproved by their associations”
Positions can’t be disproven by associations.
I regularly associate with such diverse groups as Atheists, Catholics, and even Southern Baptists; that doesn’t disprove the Preterist position one iota.
190
I think TAboat is misspelled it should be TAbot
mindless machine made posts
42
A democratic government wins a big victory. IF the PM chooses the highest qualified scientist and elected rep to be a science minister that is somehow (wait for it):” autocratic and dangerous.”
Takes a special kind of narcissism…
The Coalition isn’t forcing anything.
412
WHAT IS THE SECRET to making mind-numbingly stupid flunkies such as these? If it could be understood, maybe the effects could somehow be reversed, I don’t know.
They live in a society with access to clean water, electric power, access to health care – and they despise the whole lot of it. Nothing but dead weight upon civilisation that gives them a life span longer than about 28 years, it’s almost a waste.
201
Interesting that while TAboat replied to AndyG55, its comment isn’t actually a reply to anything AndyG said. The comment is actually a reply to Jo. See how that works.
So TAboat has gotten its comment put at the top of the comment list despite showing up to the party 8 hours too late to do this legitimately. A queue jumper, basically.
We were then treated to several paragraphs which, in order, amount to:
Argumentum ad populum and Argumentum ad Auctoritatem and Argumentum ad Hominem,
Argumentum ad Hominem,
Argumentum ad Hominem and Association Fallacy and Red Herring,
Argumentum ad Hominem and Argumentum ad baculum,
a Strawman and Reification fallacy, and
a final Argumentum ad Hominem.
Note also the name is a facetious corruption of “T.Abbott”.
Well you can’t say TAboat has done nothing of value here. Jo just finished telling us:
“The country needs to rise above the frivolous and naked attempts to control policies by childish verbal intimidation.”
Thanks to TAboat for providing us with a real live example of a “frivolous and naked attempt to control policies by childish verbal intimidation.“
331
I never read such TRIPE in a long long time.
This guy is a totally brainwashed drone.
192
Poor shipwrecked one. You are obviously hurting.
You see Labor wiped out, the one Green MP reduced to an irrelevant pathogen.
Greens no longer with power over anything, thanks goodness.
I do understand your confusion of possibly putting someone with knowledge into a portfolio, it could never happen with the Lab/Greens.
So, sorry dude, the adults are back in charge.!
LIVE WITH IT ! 🙂
192
TAboat,
Are you off your rocker? The shit just did hit the fan in Australia. And you should know better than to make empty threats.
You’re just another one armed with nothing but ignorance and fear. And you’ll disappear again too, just like a long list of others who swoop in, make fools of themselves and get nowhere.
112
I just had to give this one a green tick.
It is so stupid that it deserves recognition for all the wrong reasons; does that make sense? –
doesn’t matter, none of the contribution makes any sense anyhow – is that clearer?
Just to be clear about this, (is that a Kev Echo? ….. clear about this) the tick was given for overall presentation; from the
running Abbott motif and the contributors well thought out name, right through to the unique double lined spacing.
As usual, content doesn’t matter.
KK
20
Could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment if you had waited a day for the latest information!
00
Shoo-in. Nothing to do with shoes.
10
Sounds very good
213
Agree100%
Just tell the political commentators such as Peter Van Onselen who made Jensen his “twit of the week” in his Sunday Telegraph column today! Just because Jensen is a climate change sceptic who wants to be a science advisor.
350
Peter Van would obviously is an expert on ‘climate change science’ with his Bachelor of Arts and specialisation in political science and Policy Studies as there is no science in ‘climate change science’.
280
If Abbott appoints a “sceptic” as science minister the gig is up. Everyone will know Abbott’s CO2 reduction scheme is just a facade. So much for his conviction politics. It will show Abbott gained Government through telling lies to the electorate.
231
TAboat-the-anonymous, Abbott would be showing how serious he is by choosing the science expert in the cabinet, surely you’d have to like that idea? Isn’t the warmer-philosophy that the most expert credentialed person should be in charge? Don’t tell me it’s not the university qualification but the “side” that matters?
Your attempt to premptively declare a “lie” based on nothing but your own error must be a mistake. Try to concentrate when you type or we might get the idea that you would stoop to anything…
392
It pretty much looks that way already.
41
No, you are WRONG again.
With Jensen as science minister, the Liberals can make sure that the “Direct Action” funds go towards something that is scientifically and economically advantageous to Australia, rather than the mess that was the carbon tax or would have been an ETS.
The very best direct action would be to upgrade the coal fired power stations to modern burning systems. The efficiency gains would be great for bringing down the price of electricity, plus we could easily reach the unnecessary CO2 reduction of 5% of very little.
Many of us Liberal voters have been arguing, and emailing the Lib bosses, to get rid of the Renewable energy target and drop the direct action plan, Both are a waste and a burden on the economy that is not needed and have basically zero effect on anything except pushing up electricity prices and slowing down real progress.
We relish the day that the Liberals actually do what they should be doing and get rid of all the junk that comes with the AGW fraud/hoax.
Fortunately, China and India are doing their bit to raise the global CO2 level while keeping the Australian economy ticking over.
The gas of life will not be in short supply again for a very long time. 🙂
171
He’s the only qualified scientist around. He is the best qualified for the job. Just because you don’t like a decision, does not make it wrong.
100
“Just because you don’t like a decision, does not make it wrong.”
When someone of this type doesn’t like a decision you can almost BET you are on the RIGHT path.
80
Tony Abbott has left you out of the picture altogether. He didn’t appoint a science minister.
One of the smartest moves I have seen. Bring on the debate!
00
Thank you Jo for the work you do. Another donation on the way.
00
I also totally understand why supporters of the recently deceased Labor government would really struggle with the concept of putting someone who actually knows something, into a portfolio.
513
Actually, they did, once.
The Hawke government made Barry Jones minister for science.
Barry committed the cardinal crime of actually taking an interest in the science.
So they shafted him and made him national president of the ALP, where they could bludge off his reputation without giving him any authority.
20
read and try to comprehend..
“recently deceased Labor government”
This was not the Hawke Labor government.
This was a very different, more putrid version.
20
I beg to differ on the “more putrid” bit. I see little difference.
For starters: Hawke’s deregulation of the banks + Hawke’s promotion of Alan Bond = The crash of 1987.
Note again that that is just for starters.
Nobody was watching closely enough. The supposedly “educated” people never saw the connection.
Keating wasn’t the world’s greatest treasurer any more than Swan was.
10
The link – “Dennis Jensen’s home page” is not working.
10
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=DYN
30
A good choice indeed. Great that he can separate the climate scam from sensible environmental matters. I have great admiration for the likes of Patrick Moore, ex Greenpeace, and David Bellamy, ex TV presenter and botanist.
354
Hey Jo – perhaps you could start a weekly award or list of bone rattlers and finger pointers like Van Onselen who seem to think science is by vote – Political scientists dont wear lab coats.
A name-shame game might make these people think before they comment. Especially when they are high profile commentators with wide range of readers/viewers.
140
Dennis Jensen sounds like someone who’d uphold the scientific method to make observations and decisions whilst in a government position.
Above is something I haven’t dreamt about let alone dared to believe for over a decade.
There will be a huge glitch in the AGW Matrix if this occurs.
444
It’ll put the big clowns in the local climate circus together with their media sycophants under an awful lot of performance anxiety, people like The New Zealand Prime Minister’s chief
science advisercourt jester, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.200
Vonniestone
I think Maggie Thatcher called it “evidence based policy-making”. I’m lookling forward to it.
As opposed to “Policy-based evidence-making” (as in hockey sticks).
Cheers,
Speedy
100
Thank you Jo.
For writing the article that needed to be written in response Readfern’s little diatribe, and should have been written in the first pace. Now at least we have something we can actually work with.
I don’t think many here realise just how important this is. If Dr Jensen is elevated the the Cabinet, either as Science or Environment Minister, it will mark the first “political”, as opposed to “science” win on the board for sanity. With him there, the rest eventually will have to disclose their true position on all things “climate change” sooner or later.
Alternatively, if he is passed over, it will be a clear indication that the Coalition have every intention of carrying on as “business as usual”, just with a bit of shuffling of deckchairs for show.
Now that we have this useable article, might I suggest that the rest of us email all federal AND state Coalition MPs, expressing our desire to see Dr Jensen in the Cabinet as Science or Environment Minister, and linking back to this article in support of our reasons why.
Those of you into social networking (Facebook, Twitter etc), might like to consider investing a half-hour of your time promoting the link on those outlets. Ditto for posting links at other blog sites wherever appropriate, including Bolt, Delingpole, ACM, Catallaxy, No Tricks, WUWT, plus, of course, all the alarmist ones. The last step won’t promote the message, but it will cause a lot of exploding heads.
.
Finally, JO, might I suggest a follow-up to this article in the next day or two, based on Dr Jensen’s subsequent attempts to table in Parliament peer-reviewed, published papers supporting the skeptical scientific viewpoint? That way the rest of us happy little vegemites can repeat the above exercise as reinforcement of our viewpoint.
463
It’ll be tough MV. Only the ‘remote’ media was talking about a Jensen tilt at being Science Minister. His ignored submission about climate to the Parliament has a link on this post, from memory it also came from Jonova.
100
Think of it as a character-building exercise, Tom.
My father used to brag that I was conceived while he and Mum were standing on their heads in a hammock,
as a way of imparting to me the need to strive against challenge.
But I’m not sure if I fully believe it.
100
Sometimes to triumph in great adversity allows far reaching benefits that would otherwise been unachievable in a mere cake walk.
Our gradual defeat of the warmist mythology, and the pseudo-religious cult it spawned, has been against the backdrop of great vilification, ridicule and personal smear campaigns, even threats to personal safety and unhindered employment. People like Dennis Jensen have had to cop a lot on the chin from the ignorant and the deluded who attempt to ram there belief system through under the guise of a thin veneer of “science”, and a consensus driven by statistical chicanery, confirmation bias and bullying. They are wrong, and even though they “know” it intuitively, they refuse to allow this intuition to surface but instead intend to carry on propagating the meme regardless to further their own narrow self-interest, political biases and personal agendas. Once overcome, however, the loss of trust in the institutions that harboured this false paradigm will be damaged for a generation at least. Never again, for example, will the CSIRO be mentioned with the pride Australians once associated with it, that being the price of allowing yourself to become the compliant lap dog to political masters who care little for scientific principle.
So whether Jensen becomes Science Minister, which he should obviously as the best credentialed member of the government in this portfolio, or not, and whether we get a Royal Commission into the way scientific research is funded and structured or not, and whether we get legal redress against those who have manipulated data to propagate this myth to the expense of the taxpayer or not, in the end is likely to actually be largely irrelevant. The big picture result being that the religion of Global Warming is dying a deserved death. It is very nearly now a fait accompli because trust in the community for scientists, politicians and environmentalist groups and NGOs is at an all time low. They have underestimated their opponent and have been bested, and real world observations have failed to reinforce the predictions of disaster and doom that have been predicted. The sun will have the last word. Once the lag in ocean heat loss begins to go over the top and match the declining solar influences upcoming, there will be nowhere for those who have preached loudest from the climate pulpit to hide, having successfully painted themselves into a corner with their zealotry and hubris. Hoist by their own petard. Couldn’t happen to nicer people.
261
Well said, Winston.
70
You are right on the money MV. I have written many emails promoting Dr. David Jensen to that position, starting long before the election. I always copy in Joe Hockey, my local member, Dr. Jensen, and Hunt when I promote this to Abbott.
However, this article that Jo has written is so poignant, it will bring tears to their eyes if only they will read it. Nice work!
161
Email sent to my local member (Joe Hockey).
40
You don’t suppose we could trade him for who we have now in the USA, do you?
150
.
Keep yer cotton pickin’ little hands OFF!!
We found him first.
190
no.deal.no.way.ever.gotit.end.of
110
I wouldn’t wish Holdren on anyone, Brian. What we need is a similar revolution at the voting booth. And I’m wondering if it has any real chance of happening.
40
Maybe make him environment minister as well?
After all, it seems the current raft of environmental activists seem to be pretty good at leveraging support from scientific institutions
170
Minister For Science and Environment ….. has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
170
And Greg Hunt can take a portfolio he actually knows something about. ! 🙂
180
What does Greg Hunt know besides macrame?
100
Knitting jumpers for cold climates.
60
That would be crossing sheep with kangaroos then.
(Groan face palm etc.)
10
Thanks M.V.,
Totally agree, but maybe we can recompense Brian G.V. with one Clive Hamilton, failed Greens candidate, Professor of Public Ethics and a similarity to Bill McKibben founder of 350.org.
After all Clive should lose his position with the Climate Change Authority, as the axe trims the dead wood in Canberra under the new Abbott lead coalition.
–
Dr Dennis Jensen for Science Minister !!
211
Amalgamate the Science and the Environment departments into one department of Science and the Environment. And make Jensen head of the new department.
211
Jensen is credentialed in more than just qualifications. Most importantly of all, he seems to understand how science works, he seems to have the right attitude.
00
Dr Jensen is on Twitter and Facebook, his latest comment: “Idiot of the week to van Onselen, who wouldn’t have a clue about science if it hit him. Clue Peter, science is about data, not a vote!”
Devastating, as Van Onselen has a ‘Political Science’ degree from UWA.
200
there is an interesting piece at WUWT on the subject of science, quite sad!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/14/a-window-into-academia-via-a-resignation-letter/#more-93829
80
“Despite this, the global warmers want us to not only bet our economy but, more likely, significantly damage our economy on a theory that will probably go the way of the flat earth theory: restricted to a few adherents who have become totally divorced from reality.”
Bet the economy on a goofy green theory – OK in Alice in Wonderland, but not in the real world. There are still far too many politicians in the Western World who refuse to understand Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever is a non-problem dreamed up by a leftist ‘elite’ to: i) provide a supposed reason for the existence of green advocacy groups, and ii) to perpetuate the comfortable lifestyles of a morass of dubious ‘scientists’ and ‘statisticians’.
222
Great David Rose article in the UK. See also Bishop Hill:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
122
Pretty much the same thing blogged by Matt Ridley (of Rational Optimist fame) in the WSJ, but I will also link to Breitbart’s repackaging of the story simply because its accompanied by an appropriate photo of the Goreacle (facepalm).
Ridley highlights an explanatory hypothesis:
When you take the ‘C’ out of CAGW there is no problem left to solve. Ridley is not going quite far enough though, since even the +0.6 degrees of 20th century can be 70%+ explained by natural factors (i.e. solar magnetic and oceanic cycle). When you take the ‘A’ out of CAGW there is no problem left we could ever solve with any level of sacrifice.
10
And I’m happy to he a headless chook, if that’s what this right Charlie calls me:
“Climate change deniers are headless chickens”, Prince Charles has claimed.
00
I hope Abbot has the courage to make Jensen science minister. It will be fun watching the talking heads explode at the ABC.
Most people don’t realize that most published science is junk, and it needs a real scientist to spot the stuff that is junk.
301
If he should be made the Rt Hon Minister of Science, then what are his
policies?
About a decade ago, governments around the world cored their univer-
sities. ‘Publish or Perish’ is now so true:
– Universities must do research.
– All teaching staff must be active researchers. (Non Ph.D’s need not
apply!)
– Grants are influenced by research proposals abilities to be ‘monetized.’
– Grants are influenced by the researcher’s quantity of previous
publications and the quantity of citations those papers receive.
All this goes under the acronym PBRF, or Performance Based Research
Funding.
The present state of science as evinced by the Church of Climatology is
a perfect example of the results of this polictial interference in the
functions of universities. Researchers now have to spend about 40% of
their time and effort writing and filing proposals for funding. if ‘Climate
Change’ or ‘Disastrous Climate Warming’ words are used often enough,
funding might be better assured. And the more papers which can be
wrung out of a subject, the higher the PBRF rating of the researcher (the
triviality or even sense as in the lack of it of any of all of those papers is
irrelevant) If these charades can gain heaps of citations, then the which
PBRF rating further improves, which further raises the probabilities of more grants….
Then the researcher has to spend 40% of his/her remaining time,
assuming her/his funding was granted, on doing the research (this
can be handed off to a post-grad student or two) and the remaining
40% goes on teaching. (and you think SkepticalScience.com invented
these statistical methods? They didn’t, they just adopted government
department stats and research methods.) This too can be handed off
to the above post-grad students, who also have to put in 40% of their
time on their own research. Ah, they’re young, they can handle stress!
Quality? You want quality? Who in-a-hot-place do you think you
are? Einstein? Don’t worry about quality, feel the quantity, check
the width. Depth? Are you insane?
Now, how will Jensen fix this broken system?
What are his proposals to turn research and researcher back to
real research?
Will be toss out the PBRF scam and put better funding methods
in place?
What will he propose to turn present psy-ence into real science?
Will lecturers still be forced to research and researchers forced
to teach? Or will he find ways of satisfying both demands, as it
used to be?
If you think I’m exaggerating, you could read Pascal Junod’s
resignation letter
80
The resignation letter I pointed to, I should make clear, is not
authored by Pascal Junod, he felt it should be published and
has made it available on his blog.
10
I saw the words in the letter that said..
“For those for whom obtaining a PhD is a *must* (usually for financial reasons)”
They are in it for the wrong reason. The reason that causes the problem in the first case.
20
“Rarely do I hear of advisors who actually go through their students’ work in full rigor and detail, ”
I guess I’m lucky then !
30
Sophocles,
What an indictment of academia. The authors point 5,
seems to describe climate research very well. But of course climate research is also being driven by politics.
I suggest that there’s no problem with the profit motive directly as this grad student seems to think. Industry does profit driven research constantly and advances science in useful ways by doing so. The difference is that industry must come up with useful things people will voluntarily buy in order to survive, otherwise they go out of business. Academia has no similar need to sell the result of its research, except maybe verbally, so all they need to do is what the letter’s author describes and they stay in business. I’ve thought for a long time that drastically reducing the amount of taxpayer’s money available to fund research would go a long way toward fixing the problem.
I doubt that the letter is much of a surprise jonova contributors. It’s more of a, suspicions confirmed, revelation. At least it was to me.
01
Dennis Jensen MP,
Don’t mind his style, this pollie seems to be more direct and forward than all the rest.
He’s been on twitter, (thanks MV) and he and van Onselen have been tweeting. (What do you call arguing on twitter? – Twisting or Agueeting?)
Here’s Jensen:
Here’s van Onselen:
This is on Sunday lunch time, and seems he doesn’t mind a verbal blue occasionally.
Then he’s added a Climate Fact v Fiction Facebook page.
And Dennis Jensen V Ed Husic on Capital Hill — on ABC Video
See his argument with van Onselen on Dennis Jensen Twitter site.
And finally Dennis Jensen on Facebook.
About time we had a politician that stands up and makes his own viewpoints known, even in the face of CAGW warmists that will come out of the rotten Carbon based woodwork to attack him.
Well done Dennis. (and Jo and Lord Monckton).
1/2 hour isn’t enough time to do all stuff you suggested MV, so I’m spending the next two hours doing all your social media suggestions.
220
Thankyou.
I’ve set aside all of tomorrow afternoon for the same purpose.
Even if it’s only the two of us I feel the effort will be as worthwhile as anything else done in the last five years.
100
Scratch that last comment.
Just on the news, Abbott will be announcing his ministry tomorrow.
So this time tomorrow night, we will know for sure whether we can expect change, of if we have all been sold up the creek without a paddle – again.
I hope you Liberal luvvies are prepared to eat crow – if needs be.
70
for mine Abbott has taken direct action to the election… so he’s going to keep a prominent skeptic on the back bench.
313
.
Actually MattB, for once I’m inclined to agree with you.
Which means three more years of “global warming” crap and subsequent taxpayer’s money wasted.
.
Still, people were warned and voted for these clowns anyway.
32
Maybe not MattyB,
80 emails over the last 6 hours from my friends, relatives and workmates to Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb etc – been busy to get a real scientist in the the MINISTRY OF SCIENCE for the first time ever maybe.
I don’t think Greg Hunt will be Minister of Science or Climate Change tomorrow.
Regarding this statement above:
MattyB, If I am right will you donate $10 to Jo’s fund?
If I am wrong, I will donate $10 to Jo’s fund.
N.B. All content of this comment and communicated by the is “AS IS” with no representation and/or endorsement whether written or implied with regards to the quality of content, suitability for a particular purpose, error-free representation of facts, validity of opinion, accuracy, compatibility, security and non-infringement.
40
200,000 names behind a “Please LNP don’t trash the NBN” has been dismissed by Turnbull as anti-democratic… so I can;t see them being swayed by 60 emails.
If he does get Science… someone else will get climate change/environment and Jensen will be told to keep to his portfolio at least.
01
Jo,
I lost (almost), so bet will go in tonight.
10
MV,
Yes, I agree totally. So many to add, but worth it. Mr. Jensen is the top of the list.
Also added links to TonyfromOz, Tom in WA, Pointman’s and heaps of others, plus all the links down the side here in Jo’s blog. Any other suggestions are more than welcome.
Plus I just sent Mr.Jensen an email congratulating him on his re-election, and hopefully his election as Minister of Science. Also in my electorate, the local LNP member did not reply to my email inquiries on Greg Hunts belief in CAGW prior to September 7th, so I did not vote for him, and passed this info onto Dennis Jensen, who can show Tony Abbott if he wants to. My local LNP member is now behind the giant killer vote count in the house of Reps. Serves him right, he could have at least given me his personal view, and I would have voted for him, but nothing. Voting for NONE OF THEM was quite pleasing in a way.
Also forwarded this article to the Dinosaur of golfing politics that these are my feelings on the CAGW lovers including lots of other stuff including the links mentioned above. If he is going to be our representative, he had better start listening to voters, regardless of motives.
Get rid of CO2 Tax first then all the RET’s etc, then let’s start enjoying life.
110
A few years ago csiro wanted to be “carbon neutral” by 2015. I wonder if that still stands. Megan Clark must be nervous at the prospect of Jensen as the science minister.
110
As Australia is already a carbon sink, seems she has her wish.
And we didn’t need to anything.
Actually, to become carbon neutral, we would have to start releasing quite a bit more CO2 from captivity.
132
Given that Dickson (LNP Qld) now says that Moreton Bay Green Zones were implemented using good Science and were properly consulted with the Angling Public, I’d expect that whether Dr. Jensen is appointed or not will be immaterial. The LNP, just like the ALP, will be tempted by the money, the taxation, and the control afforded by Big Green, and will shaft us just as much, though perhaps with marginally more subtlety. If you can’t spot that this (formerly) VERY dedicated LNP supporter is pissed, you are a grade A twit. I vocally supported the LNP in the Angling Community in Qld, and now I am so damned embarrassed by their lack of action that I want Independents. The LNP can go suck a lemon.
32
Please Jo, let’s start a petition to replace Greg Hunt with Dr Jensen. Greg can have the environment – green army, clean water – but NOT climate change!
121
Just scrap the Climate Change Ministery.
Trouble is Tony has to many “loyal supporters” he has to find jobs for.
Doug
20
Thank goodness at least one politician in Australia understands some reasonably basic science
141
Back in 2004, the Howard Government’s election policy statement “Meeting Australia’s Energy Challenge”, the Coalition plan for Australia’s resources and energy sector, strengthened my view that the Coalition was the best prepared to govern. The contrasting policies of the Liberal and Labor parties on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and introducing emissions trading, most differentiated my views of the parties and most influenced my voting intentions in that year’s election.
But what happened?
By May 2006 I was so concerned by indications that the government policy was shifting in response to international political pressures, that I wrote to my MP (John Howard).
I expressed my views that the prerequisite for political action to deal with climate change was scientific certainty about the cause-effect relationships and particularly, about the sensitivities of different human processes in affecting the climate outcomes- and that such scientific certainty did not then exist.
Of course I knew I was wasting my time.
Since then Australian governments appear to have been wasting our future. Will an Abbott-led government really put an end to that waste?
70
Let’s hope that Dr Jensen has the guts of Nigel Farage. We need more people like Farage in Australian politics.
Nigel Farage confronts Barroso on global warming scam (State of the Union 2013)
(Copy/paste above onto Youtube is the best I can advise with my limited IT skills.)
70
More important than courage, a science minister would need to have a clear sense of purpose and understanding. Dr Jensen has that. Problem is, does incoming Prime Minister Abbott have the courage to appoint somebody who will put the long-term good of the Australian people before the entrenched interests of the so-called experts?
50
From the Sydney Morning Herald
This goes beyond climate science, but is a direct attack on such pseudo-science. Dr Jensen’s view of science is diametric opposite of that which Prof Stephen Lewandowsky, and others practice. Innovation means letting people think for themselves, and questioning authority. It means adhering to independent measures of science and emulating the greats. This a huge threat to those like Stephen Lewandowsky who got paid millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to shut down questioning of dogma. That is why Readfearn in the Guardian, and others, pour out their smears.
The choice for incoming Prime Minister Abbott is to either have academics who are venerated by the UNIPCC, environmental NGOs and the Green Party, or scientists who make a real difference, and (at the pinnacle) become Nobel Science Laureates. Like any incoming government, Abbott’s greatest opportunity is now whilst he has momentum.
80
A research scientist? I cannot find a single research paper by him. I don’t get it. You do a PhD in one area, spend time as a report compiler (researcher, not research scientist) in a different area, and then proudly claim to be a research scientist.
And in 2004 he thought that there was no warming at the poles , and that the urban heat island effect was a major issue .
And how did his beliefs pan out?
Massive and ongoing heating in the Arctic, and UHI disproved by, of all people, Anthony Watts.
The role of minister is to administer funding and to do so under expert advisement. To do that he needs to be able to identify experts. Parroting some counterfactuals does not make him an analyst.
Still, for all that, he has to be better that Sophie’s Promise.
118
“Massive and ongoing heating in the Arctic”
Causing a 60% increase in ice extent over last year’s level,
and the Antarctic sea ice level still hitting new record after new record.
“and UHI disproved by” Where did you get that piece of junk from?
It has been shown that UHI has a significant effect on urban temperatures. even Jim Hansen’s NASA accepts’ this to be a fact.
131
Yahoo serious? Nobody is stupid enough to believe that unless, of course they buy into the denialist escalator.
Dead cat bounce! My reading of the record is that after every recent record there has been a recovery, and that’s how I bet last year. I’m $5 to the good.
This may help Not much of a record perhaps a bit of live cat spring.
Yup, I exaggerated a bit, mea culpa. I would have been much more accurate to say that UHI has been known about and taken into account for ever (OK, so for ever is an exaggeration).
Watts made the highly exaggerated claim that the bulk of the apparent rise in temperature was due to unaccounted for UHI (and he has gone so far to claim that the USA gauges were sufficient to do this). To his credit, he organised a test of that and published. I remember reading the first version of it. His findings essentially were that after classifying USA gauges and doing the figures again, that he agreed (within 0.002 degrees/year) with GISS. IOW he verified the orthodoxy. That paper is here in a watered down form.
Most of this is immaterial. Anyone can do the following back of envelope reality check.
There are two UHIs that people confuse. One is about urbanised thermometers which have always been urbanised. They are generally anomalous with respect to rural thermometers – but this alone should not affect trends.
The other is those that get built in – where it is presumed that readings in their rural phase will be lower than in their urban.
Now when you first learned to do linear regression you will have been taught that the average of regressions of separate data sets, is the regression of their pool.
So – let us assume want to explain 0.5 degrees of warming trend entirely to urbanisation of the second kind.
Let us assume that 10% of the Earth’s land based thermometers fall into that category.
Then the average rise in there areas due to urbanisation is 5 degrees – taking into account just land temperatures. This much already would be cryingly obvious – but isn’t.
But the land is 30% of the surface. So the land based urbanised thermometers need to contribute, on average 17 degrees
So UHI was never a credible explanation for what we see.
None the less Jensen bought into it, in Hansard.
00
I am becoming hopeful that Abbot will begin the process of dragging the climate hogs out of the public trough.
It will be difficult because they have their snout and all four legs in it, all one could see when Labor/Greens were in charge is the curly tails.
Mr Jensen will have his hands full, if he sees this as part of his job.
Amusingly I hear Mr Steffen is not returning phone calls from journalists.
Could the poor boy be in a funk?
70
ALthough I agree that Dennis would make a good Science Minister, apparently Tony Abbott didn’t agree.
I read the other day that Tony’s first pick for the position was Sophie Mirabella.
10
the science is there to facilitate shenanigans such as the following:
(5 pages) 14 Sept: NYT: Wall St. Exploits Ethanol Credits, and Prices Spike
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and ROBERT GEBELOFF
It was supposed to help clean the air, reduce dependence on foreign oil and bolster agriculture. But a little known market in ethanol credits has also become a hot new game on Wall Street…
A few worried that Wall Street would set out to exploit this young market, fears the government dismissed. But many people believe that is what happened this year when the price of the ethanol credits skyrocketed 20-fold in just six months, according to an analysis of regulatory documents and interviews with more than 40 people involved in the market, including industry executives, brokers, traders and analysts…
Industry executives familiar with JPMorgan Chase’s activities, for example, told The Times that the bank offered to sell them hundreds of millions of the credits earlier this summer. When asked how the bank had amassed such a stake, the executives said they were told by the bank that it had stockpiled the credits.
A spokesman for JPMorgan, when asked about the exchange with the executives, disputed the account, saying the bank does not trade ethanol credits for a profit in the way it trades other securities, but is registered to deal in credits through its energy business…
But other market participants, including Thomas D. O’Malley, chairman of PBF Energy in Parsippany, N.J., identified JPMorgan Chase and other financial institutions as being active sellers of the credits this year. He said the institutions had helped transform an environmental program into a profit machine, contributing to the market frenzy this year. “These things were designed to monitor the inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline pool,” Mr. O’Malley said. “They weren’t designed to become a speculative item. For the life of me I can’t see the justification for it.”…
But the activities, while legal, could have consequences for consumers. In the end, energy analysts say, the outcome will be felt at the gas pump — as the higher cost of the ethanol credits gets tacked onto the price of a gallon of gasoline. (The credits, which cost 7 cents each in January, peaked at $1.43 in July, and now are trading for 60 cents.)…
Though the ethanol credits are traded by many major investment houses, they were created not on Wall Street but in Washington, on Capitol Hill and at the Environmental Protection Agency…
An examination by The Times of participants registered with the E.P.A. found several people with troubled pasts, including one who was accused of helping run a Ponzi scheme, and another who pleaded guilty to illegal storage of hazardous waste…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1&
10
my take was govts & investors should finance it all for decades:
15 Sept: BBC The Forum: The Future of Renewable Energy
How do we develop a practical, reliable, cheap and globally relevant supply of renewable energy and improve on the meagre 10% of our power needs which renewables currently provide? Quentin Cooper travels to the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Challenges in Chemical Renewable Energy meeting in Cambridge, UK, to hear about ideas and latest research results from Brazilian authority on bioenergy Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz, Cambridge University’s creator of better batteries Clare Grey, Harvard pioneer of artificial photosynthesis Daniel Nocera and research director of the UK Energy Research Centre Jim Watson.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01g94yj
Challenges in Chemical Renewable Energy
http://www.rsc.org/ConferencesAndEvents/ISACS/ISACS12/
00
why conclude with “science” indicates we should reject coal!
12 Sept: ABC Breakfast: Carbon tax debate ‘a sideshow’
Guy Pearse, a veteran of Australian climate policy debate, has just co-authored a new book explaining the damage our coal exports are having on global climate. He told Gregg Borschmann why our carbon price debate is insignificant if we can’t tackle the larger problem of Big Coal…
The new book Big Coal: Australia’s Dirtiest Habit, which Pearse co-authored, also argues Australia’s environment movement has been fooled by the coal sector and predictions that the age of coal is on the wane.
Global banks like HSBC and Goldman Sachs, groups like the Climate Institute in Australia and the Sierra Club in America have all recently pointed to a crippling fall-off in the future growth of demand for coal.
But Pearse remains highly skeptical.
‘Well it’s understandable that green groups might look to highlight statements from large financial institutions suggesting that coal is on the wane,’ he says.
‘Unfortunately when you look more closely at those institutions, what you find is that they’re very heavily invested themselves in the coal industry now, and its expansion. For example, Goldman Sachs, which has recently got a lot of coverage for saying that the window for investing in thermal coal is closing, is a very heavy investor in thermal coal and even as recently as last year buying up thermal coal assets in Colombia.’
‘They’re (also) still involved in mountain-top coalmining in the US and in exporting new thermal coal from the northwest coast. So some of these institutions also have an interest at the moment in talking down the industry while the prices are low, to prevent new entrants, and to kind of prop up the industry.’
‘I think their actions speak a bit more loudly than their words.’…
Pearse points out that Australia is a land of coal. Queensland has thick basins of black coal inland from the coast. Victoria has some of the world’s largest deposits of brown coal. In NSW, Sydney sits in the middle of a vast underground saucer of black coal. Even in mostly hydro-powered Tasmania, coal is used for cement making.
***But Pearse says that science is clearly indicating that Australia should be seeking alternatives…
(SCROLL DOWN) (LINK) Queensland’s resources sector respond, arguing Guy Pearse is wrong and Australia coal exports are just keeping up with world demand for coal…
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/environmentalists-fooled-by-big-coal/4953006
00
Well done Jo.
A clear and balanced case on the subject, in stark contrast to the illogical but familiar bile that has flowed.
I’m sending your post to my MP, for forwarding up the line.
50
Forget appointing Jensen to clean up the High Priests in their Anthropogenic Climate Change Edifice.
Let them pursue their beliefs as a religion and let them raise money from their own parishioners. Good Luck! as I have rarely seen a Greenie cough-up, they generally spend other people’s money.
Jensen’s mission should be to free up industry, farmers, foresters, fishermen, etc to operate under the most effective State legislations to create wealth. Let the States compete to draft sensible legislation and let a healthy, wealthy, educated society look after it’s environment.
Jensen seems to have the nouse, but he has only had to compete with the likes of warming acolyte Hunt or Slipper with his wife’s worm farm experience.
50
I agree with all pretty much all of the tone and content of what you say here Jo, except I have issues with this statement:
“These millions could have gone to medical research instead”.
It’s not always true that directing funds to ‘medical research’ is noble, pure and untainted from political advocacy and waste either. Wasted money and self-serving agendas occur in medical research as well.
Medical research and health in general has its’ own particular political issues, self-serving scientists, activists, and so on. Look at a typical university course list, there are hundreds of different medical-type courses, most of which are there largely to satisfy people’s need to ‘help others’, which somehow makes it ok to generate a vast array of useless research and material and courses, whilst directing such funds away from other, more useful research. I would argue that enough is spent on ‘medical research’ already.
I would say rather, “these millions could have gone to others areas of neglected and necessary research, such as …..” .
Here is an example, just to illustrate the point: ‘research into the fundamentally unsustainable nature of localised mineral exploitation and how this affects local and national sustainable economic welfare and social services.” I suggest this because all the rage these days is about ‘sustainability’, but one of the fundamental units of extraction of pretty much all economies on a world scale-minerals-are NOT sustainable at a local level (they are on a world -scale-but that is another story). Local mines run out of ore, always have, always will. That is how nature is, and minerals are one of the key drivers of the Australian economy and welfare. (They also have their own particular sovereign risk issues, which is so misunderstood by politicians that one had to be recently removed from office about it. Another prominent politician suggested that landowners should be allowed to stop any exploration for minerals and energy on their land-which is akin to stopping community medical treatment, such as vaccination. The level of understanding of Senior Politicians and academics of Australia’s largest export industry is abysmal). Mineral economics courses have been taken out of universities at the same time that minerals have become MORE important to the Australian economy under Asian industrialisation. (There used to be one at Macquarie University, but no more). It is a neglected area of research, but there are numerous others one could also suggest.
My point is, it doesn’t have to always be ‘medical research’, as if this is somehow immune from waste and corruption. Funds have been taken away from neglected areas of research for decades to fund medical research, which isn’t always the correct thing to do.
50
True! Very true. It makes me wonder why it took so long for people to recognize the similarity to climate science funding.
But, even the wasted dollars in medical research have more value than the wasted dollars in AGW related research.
41
At least in Medicine they do occasionally find something that does work.
Climate science… not so much !!
51
Slightly O/T but I don’t think we need worry who becomes Minister for Science.
The leaking of the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers reveals that the IPCC is doing its best to discredit itself. Even though the Summary is written largely by environmental activists putting a spin on “The Science”.
They have admitted that the temperatures from ~950-1250 were above the present day. (1)
They claim that the rate of warming has been exaggerated at 0.2 ℃ per decade and it is 0.12 ℃ (2).
And claim that warming has occurred at the latter rate since 1951 (3)
(1) so world got warmer before there was industry (cars etc.) and CO2 emissions. Bang goes the ‘World is warmer than it has ever been’ and the claim that ‘only AGW can explain recent warming’.
(2) That won’t help any remaining credibility.
(3) With no warming in The Cooling (1951 to 1975) and none detectable from 1983 to the present day by satellite and balloons, the necessary 0.72 ℃ warming must have happened in the decade between. Wow! 0.72℃ in a decade. I’m surprised that no one noticed at the time.
21
The Hon D.Jensen MHR does not have a hope of getting the Science Ministry, he knows too much about Science.
I have always observed the principle of, “the worst outcome for a Public Service, and thus for a Government, is to have ministers in portfolios who actually have some knowledge, and/or expertise, in the ministry subject area”, apply in Australian politics.
There are far too many examples even in recent times to list a small representative sample, however, Swan, and Bowen, are outstanding examples of the Principle of Ministerial Oxymorons.
No, Science Ministries will be best served by having a minister who was “no good at science at school”, so that public servants, and external expert advisors, can snow them, and continue to carryout their own agendas.
61
I think you go too far in blaming the Public Service for Swann’s misdeeds. Unless you think that they are so in love with wasting money that they wouldn’t see that a backlash was inevitable.
10
Fancy putting someone with a background in Science in charge of the Science portfolio. What are these people thinking.
They need to follow the Labor example here.
Since Dear Leader Kevin was elected in 2007, the following 5 people have held titles with the Science portfolio in amongst them.
Kim Carr – A secondary School teacher.
Chris Evans – a Union rep
Chris Bowen – an Economist and former Council Mayor.
Craig Emerson – an Economist
and Kim Carr again.
Don’t you people realise that Science has nothing to do with ….. Science!
Tony.
61
The shame is he is a loose cannon. We are at the tail end of the fight and can’t afford to let cockiness expose us to an attack on our left flank.
Finesse is best.
00
Switch to 4WD, going Off Topic:
Been wondering where the next world wide scare will be?
Wonder no more. One word: Jellyfish!
Check in with tax payer funded Tim Flannery as spends his time considering his future & reviewing the book:
Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean
Says Tim, “As I came toward the end of this astonishing, if dismaying, book my spirits were lifted briefly when I discovered that Congress seems to be aware of the jellyfish menace.
On November 2, 1966, it passed the Jellyfish Control Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1205; 1966, amended 1970 and 1972).
Regrettably, today Gershwin and the handful of jellyfish experts in the world struggle for access to what is clearly pitifully inadequate funding.
.
Maybe they could fund how jellyfish are going to live in a acid ocean.
00
.
Reading between the lines of this morning’s news, it now appears unlikely that we will see Dr Jensen in any role above water boy to the Prime Minister’s Second Eleven. However, we will be given the honour of meeting the Liberal Party’s new wunderkind, white-haired boy, and future heir to the throne, Mathias Cormann.
Who, you ask?
Mathias Cormann. A Man with all the necessary attributes to be a Great Leader in Australian politics. University graduate. Straight out of uni into a top advisory job to the Richard Court government in WA. Ten years apprenticeship serving different, ever higher advisory roles in the Liberal Party at state and federal levels, then parachuted into number 3 spot on the WA Liberal Senate ticket in 2007.
Elected to the Senate that year, and almost immediately elevated to senior Shadow Ministry portfolios. Now about to be announced as the new Finance Minister.
Senator Cormann’s current area of interest? Figuring out how to diddle the rest of us out of our $1.4 trillion in accumulated Super funds.
.
Forget the Shiraz. Tonight I’m cracking the bottle of 15 year old Dimple I got for Christmas.
40
I’d much rather Jensen was Science Minister than have Mathias Cormann shout me a beer let along be on the front bench in a substantial role.
41
.
Do you realise this is the second time we’ve agreed on something in twenty four hours, Matt?
The Dimple wasn’t to celebrate, rather to drown my sorrows.
I have long maintained that the politicians are just there for show, and do not run the country.
If Cormann is named as Finance Minister today I think it can safely be taken as read that Australia is now being run directly out of the Lowy Institute in Sydney.
Andrew Bolt has already given his seal of approval. I now await only the blessing of cash-for-comments Alan Jones, to seal my misery.
30
That didn’t get past me. Now I have a case of the shivers and no Dimple. I’ll have to squeeze the last drops from an 18YO bottle of Dailuaine (for the medicinal effects you know).
Just tell me straight did Matt gain some sense or, heaven forbid, did MV suffer a micro stroke?
30
Jensen seems to be a reaonsable guy with whom I have a different scientific opinion. Cormann seems to be a pr*ck.
34
I have often wondered why Bolt promotes the Party wunderkind. He was particularly gushing about young Josh if I remember well. This practice is so out of character, my only thought was it is a survival tactic. If Andrew exposes the political parties for what they are we will never hear from him again.
He supports the ‘pay peanuts get monkeys’ fallacy, that has clearly failed the ‘in vivo’ test with Parliaments full of monkeys and the infection spread to the media, judiciary, even to the Captains of the Australian Cricket Team and of the NSW Rugby league team.
Maybe when he has enough shekels in the bank he may help to expose the failures of what is effectively a one party state.
See you I off to queue for bread!
01
Your other comment made sense. How much did you have to drink between comments?
10
No drinks, just working through the usual pile of invoices, body corporate minutes,centrelink crap for midddle class welfare I’m rarely eligible for, pay slips etc.
I’m curious as to which monkeys have saved us from the carnage faced by working Australians, wasn’t Fraser, not Howard, which ones?
10
MemoryVault,
Yum!
That and White Heather, my favourites,as long as the only thing in it (if there has to be anything) is ice, or perhaps maybe tap water at a pinch.
I once got our daughter a bottle of White Heather for Christmas.
Never again, not after I saw her drinking it with Dry Ginger.
Oh, and speaking of Superannuation funds, I see John Brumby wants to dip his hands into that pile also.
John Brumby’s infrastructure super push
Please don’t let that be wind towers!
Tony.
20
You forgot that Senator Cormann speaks with a credible, foreign accent. 🙂
20
Won’t be long until he earns the name Conmann !
Liberals destined to be a one term parliament.. DOH !!!
03
I suspect there’ll be a shake-down of the cabinet after a couple of parliamentary sessions. Ministerial responsibility and parliamentary performance both need to be maintained at a high standard.
Parties will tend to choose “company men” ahead of those who don’t play nice in terms of the party. That applies as much to the Liberal Party as the ALP. For the Liberals, dissent is allowed and doesn’t require immediate excommunication; but it does mean that the “obedient servants” get in the queue ahead of those who make their voice heard about something that is wrong.
It’s a shame that those who’ve won the election seem to have accepted politics as a priority over the formation of the best government for the country that they can, using all the talent at their disposal.
30
So did Malcolm Fraser.
00
I was lucky enough to get letter printed in the Age in response to Readfern’s article.Needless to say,I think he would be a great choice.
10
Dimple-a very good blend.As Rory Gallagher the pub -raising Irelander once sung: Scotch can make you drowsy;Gin can make you think, and a common cold can kill you;but my woman turned me to drink…
10
..and further I take Matthias Cormann to be a good man.
21
I was a little disappointed that Jensen did not get a ministry after reading his excellent first speech in Parliament where he touched on other important things as well as climate science.
I note some here don’t seem impressed by Cormann’s elevation so I checked out his response to the ALP’s Carbon Tax to see where he stands on this issue.
My guess and there are clues in his speech below, is that he like Abbott probably thinks CAGW is all or at least mostly crap. Not a bad position for a finance minister who may convince our PM that Direct Action is about as useless in its claimed goal:
Labor’s flawed Emissions Trading Scheme
Second Reading Speech
By Senator Mathias Cormann on 23 June 2009
http://www.mathiascormann.com.au/speeches/23-06-2009_LaborsFlawedETS.pdf
10
Okay children, time for tonight’s fairy story.
Once upon a time there was a young man from Belgium, home of the EU, NATO and just about every other “world” organisation. Anyway, one day this young guy, we’ll call him Mathias, decided to migrate to Australia. And so he did. Which is surprising, since he had no recognised formal qualifications or training in anything, and Australia’s immigration laws are usually pretty picky about that.
And so young Mathias arrived in Perth in 1996, with full immigration status intact. It is not known if he arrived by plane direct from Belgium, or came via boat from Indonesia. On arrival young Mathias, not having any formal qualifications in anything, took a job as a gardener at the Presbyterian Ladies College. Then he joined the Liberal Party.
The moment the WA Liberal Party became aware that they had amongst their numbers a Belgium gardener with no formal qualifications in anything (apparently only a matter of days), they immediately sent out a delegation to offer him the job of Ministerial Chief of Staff to the then Premier of WA, Richard Court. Young Mathias humbly accepted.
So impressed was the Premier with the young, totally unqualified Mathias, that he very soon appointed him his Chief Adviser, a position Mathias filled until 2001. Then he was invited to enter the federal political sphere, as Chief Adviser to the Minister for Justice and Customs, a position he must have impressed in, because two years later in 2003 he was elevated to the position of Senior Vice President of the Liberal Party. Not bad going for an unqualified gardener who had only arrived in the country seven years earlier.
Senior Vice President of the Liberal Party, despite the prestige, obviously doesn’t pay all that much, because at the same time the Liberal Party arranged for our hero, our formerly unqualified immigrant gardener, to become the Acting General Manager of the Hospital Benefits Fund, one of Australia’s largest private health insurance organisations. Who knows, perhaps young Mathias had done a first aid course as a boy scout, or something.
And so it remained until 2007, when Mathias was tapped on the shoulder to be parachuted into the Senate, much like Bob Carr for the Labor Party not so long ago. Once in the Senate young Mathias was immediately showered with all sorts of important Shadow Ministerial positions, culminating today with his elevation to the Cabinet as Minister for Finance.
.
Does this read like a fairy story?
It sure does.
Nonetheless, that is the “official” background story of Mathias Cormann, our new Minister for Finance.
.
I could tell you a different story, but you’d probably never believe it.
Then again, if you really believe the above story, you’ll possibly believe anything.
60
Intriguing.
Obviously there is a story there MV.
Usually such tales involve a mix of money, sex, money, power, greed, bribery, payoffs, vote rigging and Vaulting ambition, if you can excuse the pun.
I can’t wait for someone to try to guess the real detail.
KK 🙂
10
he has a legal degree.
01
.
He has a Belgium law degree which is not recognised in Australia.
Sometimes, GA, you need to dig a little deeper than a person’s current Wikipedia page.
20
I knew that – I was correcting your rhetoric. It would have been just as easy and convincing and more accurate to have written that he has “no qualification recognised in Australia”. Do your own homework.
01
.
So precisely how is my:
no recognised formal qualifications
different from your:
no qualification recognised
And just what does it change?
Totally unqualified man (in Australia) arrives in Australia and is immediately promoted to the highest ranks in the WA Liberal Party, thence to the highest ranks of the National Liberal Party, and thence to the Senate, and thence to Finance Minister.
And you don’t have any questions, only a quibble about the order of words in a phrase?
10
.
And speaking of accuracy, you apparently have no problem with Cormannn advertising on his website that he has a “law degree”, without him mentioning the fact that it is not recognised in Australia.
10
I also have two legal degrees from Australia.
A BSc (MET) and a BSc with majors in Psycho-biology, Neuroscience and Psychology and Statistics.
KK
10
Did you figure out how the Kink originated?
10
I’ll have to think about that Andrew, but it could be plain determination not to bend to the rules or a genetic effect.
KK 🙂
10
While Mathias Cormann was indeed selected to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Ian Campbell in 2007, he did however face the people at the 2010 election as Number One on the WA ballot, and was one of three Liberal Party Senators elected from that State.
Tony.
20
Anyway this thread can now be closed. There is no Science minister.
02
Dennis Jensen on ABC News 24 interview this morning.
Dennis seems to say what he thinks, and doesn’t toe the party line, great to see, but understandably hasn’t been rewarded with a higher post.
Honesty is not the best policy in the political party promotion plan.
10
That interview showed that Jenson is not ready for Ministerial position
10
Well, I did say up the page he was a lose cannon. Had dinner with him one night years ago, was rather offensive to his colleagues. He will never get a ministry after that performance.
10
It’s a shame Jensen has to live inside a vault at the Smithsonian now.
They keep the Honest Politician next to the Hen’s Teeth and the Unicorn Hoof.
Yeah, seems politics isn’t quite the same as engineering management. There’s new pressure from the AAS and CSIRO to have a Science minister, but even if it’s created I’d be surprised if Jensen gets it after being critical in public. Presumably he’s been critical in private and when that didn’t work he decided he had nothing to lose and went public??
Perhaps it’s just a sign that, for a few years, more of science funding is going to be contingent on delivering practical outcomes to industry.
I’m sure the Libertopians will find some way to keep their faith in the “We’re not Labor” party.
10
I think it was Humphrey Appelby who stressed the importance of “soundness and judgement”. In the context he was portraying, Jensen has failed”
We admire his honesty and lament his timing.
http://youtu.be/G5P34nJzsaY
20
It seems very silly of Denis Jensen to rush out and jump the gun like this.
Science is indeed in crisis.
What better way to address this crisis than to bring on a debate which goes right back to square one?
This is what Tony Abbott has done by refusing to maintain the status quo.
30