Climate change:

David Hand writes: Re. “We will decide how our climate changes and the circumstances in which it changes” (Friday, item 3). Bernard Keane is writing like a worried man.  Worried that “an army of Hansonite geriatrics” has suddenly got on the march to restore the Coalition’s fortunes. If only it was so simple, but with all these things, it’s not.

The ALP has been happy to ride the political wave of climate change, wedging the Coalition with it’s very public internal conflicts over the ETS.  The popular media, including Bernard et al have joyously parroted the “disunity is death” mantra and treated the Coalition travails as worthy of mockery and ridicule.  Well the ALP miscalculations are beginning to bite as they find themselves in a new post-Copenhagen reality.

The failure of Copenhagen is one factor, but more damaging is that the writings on climate action, pushed by the lunatic fringe, brought to us by Crikey over the last two years, which exerted such influence that it even infiltrated the key reports of the IPCC, are being exposed as the lunatic writings that they are.  Suddenly Saint Kevin’s “greatest moral challenge of our time” is beginning to look like a political millstone for the ALP and the Coalition’s strife looks eerily like a representation of the uncertainty within the Australian community.  Even Malcolm Turnbull crossing the floor is being anticipated as a principled stand rather than an act of bastardry.

Now I’m no visionary, so my view is with the benefit of hindsight and reflection on events but it seems logical to me that as our community approaches the big decision, “Are we going to reduce our standard of living to help protect our future on this planet” that people will have another look to make sure that the stiff medicine proposed is really necessary, a bit like getting a second medical opinion before major surgery.

It is at this moment of truth that all the lefties and loonies who have hitched their anti capitalist crusading to the climate change vehicle succeed in bringing the whole thing into a confused mess.  Adding to the problem is the continuing intransigence of the climate change lobby, led by Senator Wong, to avoid restating the science, maintaining that “the debate is over”.

So now we have Abbott making hay in the sun with the “great big new tax on everything”.  Sorry Bernard but it’s resonating with a lot more than just a bunch of white Anglo-Saxon geriatrics from Queensland.  My opinion, for what it’s worth is that I am convinced by the scientific evidence of man-made global warming, that we need a price on carbon, that we must pay more for our energy to protect our children’s future and this calls for genuine bipartisanship.

It is the Rudd spin machine, which has only ever been interested in the politics of the issue and the gross mishandling of the portfolio by Senator Wong, where every interview in the last two years was an attack on the Coalition, where the blame must lie for the confused state of public opinion and the embarrassment that every scientist involved in climate change must be feeling today.

Bernard, if you want to be a bit more positive, stop worrying about Pauline Hanson’s army sweeping the coalition to power, stop using emotive and destructive words like “climate denialism” and use your talents to exert some influence over the other side of politics, you know, the ones who are supposed to be actually running the country at the moment.

Gavin E. Greenoak writes: I am a government justified by my service to a people who elect it. I want to spend a great deal of money, and cause some financial pain, in order to avoid a catastrophe costing very much more money and more than financial pain if no measures are taken.

I am the relevant minister responsible for this issue.  I have read widely, and evaluated the probability of catastrophe, and called in experts whose evidence supports both a high and a low probability.  The important thing as the Minister is that I need to be intelligently convinced, via my understanding, as this alone provides the basis for my responsible decision making.

In other words, I cannot act on the basis of “the majority of scientists think or don’t think”, or  “there is a consensus of scientists who think”.  I am fully aware that the scientific community is as politicised as any other (Darwinian) group of people, and while conscious conspiracy is, if it exists, inconspicuous, whereas unconscious conspiracy as merely a function of group identity, is normal, irrational, and abundantly evident.

When I have completed this evaluation in good faith, and found without hesitation that the probability is high, imminent and menacing,  it is with a view to informing the people who are going to pay for the measures implemented, that I put together a programme for TV, internet, and DVD which presents the evidence in depth and detail for and against in a clear unbiased way, and the interpretative steps leading to my decision to act.  In this project, only reliable data/evidence is necessary as this is ‘the authority’ for my judgement.  This programme can be widely advertised and will be readily accessible.

In the process, as a Minister, I have made myself truly representative, in a way that can then persuade others without resorting to moral brow-beating or worse.  I am completely clear about that which I must do, and stand on good firm ground in the weather of every criticism.  Given the nature of the catastrophe, as it constitutes the greatest danger confronting (not only) humankind in its history, it deserves no less than this not so difficult project of objective evaluation and communication.

Since this is such an obvious and feasible (not to say obligatory) objective, in the face of no graver issue, why has no responsible representative of any government of any country done it?

Ross Copeland writes: I think Bernard Keane overstates the age factor as a cause of climate change denialism.  As someone rapidly nearing 64 myself, I am a climate change believer  and  while  I may not  be around  to feel the full impact, I am concerned about the future for my grandchildren.  I think age influences denialists only to the extent it is linked to education, work experience, income, geographic location and exposure to a broad range of opinion through various media, including the internet.

While many over 60s do embrace the climate change argument, others have had limited worldly experience just because of the times they have lived through and embrace people like Pauline Hanson, John Howard, Alan Jones or Lord Monkton because they tell them what they want to hear and they don’t want to listen to alternative views.

This is not a criticism, just a reflection of reality.

Rundle:

Dave Long writes: Re. “Rundle’s UK: and so it comes down to two grapefruit bowls” (Friday, item 5). The problem when the never knowingly under-written Guy Rundle inveighs on stuff he doesn’t really know much about — in 2008 the US, now the UK — he makes basic mistakes. This sloppiness has haunted him over his Crikey journey, and diminishes the otherwise salient points he seeks to make.

The veteran British MP Gerard Kaufman Rundle writes of was not first elected to the Commons “in the dark days of 1983” as Rundle confidently asserts. Kaufman became an MP in the arguably darker days of 1970, when Labour lost government to Heath’s Tories, had his seat abolished in 1983, and was re-elected to the replacement constituency.

Nor is Kaufman “habitually clad” in a white suit, as Rundle ‘informs,’ or have a penchant for “ties like a tart’s window box”. Rundle seems sartorially haunted by a Martin Bell/Jon Snow hybrid.

Indeed, while making the 2009 speech for which Kaufman developed notoriety in hawkish Israeli circles, when he drew parallels between Nazi Germany and Israel, he did so in a shapeless grey suit adorned by an unremarkable tie, his normal clobber. Kaufman is no dandy.

Guy, it’s called research. Try it, your readers tend to like it.

Barnaby and Abbott:

Les Heimann writes: Re. Friday’s editorial. At the outset I must point out that the life views and attitudes eschewed by Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce are not much to my liking. However, I do like their approach and I don’t care if they make a mistake from time to time. These days  politicians who say what they thinks is rare indeed.

Contrast that with our waning star PM who says a lot but means little, who promises the world and delivers less than a mud puddle in a drought. Add to the mix Penny Wong whose Lateline interview was a classic Wong trip. Add a whole bunch of snake oil purveyors and verbal magicians and isn’t it just so refreshing to hear someone say something!

Good old Barnaby. Sure he stuffs up from time to time but hell we know where they’re at and it’s a whole lot better than trying to listen to those blowhards who talk a lot and say nothing. Labor, it’s time to change — or perish.

Mark Heydon writes: You ask in your editorial whether “voters are prepared to reward political leaders who display unvarnished naturalness ahead of those who stick to highly disciplined behaviour”.

I think the issue with Barnaby is not so much naturalness versus discipline. The issue is politicians who display their asinine stupidity every time they open their mouth versus those having a basic level of intellect and a solid grasp of their portfolio (and reality?).

This is a much scarier dichotomy, as I think someone who understands the issues yet at the same time sticks by party discipline is to be much preferred to a natural cretin.

My fear is that the majority of the population don’t agree with this.

Population:

Jim Ivins writes: I don’t care whether you publish this or not, but I’d like to add my support to the comment made by Tim Deyzel (Friday, comments) regarding Dick Smith and population growth.

Crikey is one of the few media outlets in Australia that might just be capable of examining this complex issue in detail, without resorting to racist fear mongering about the evils of refugees, or getting over excited at the mere thought of endless economic growth.  That said, on the other hand, I think Richard Farmer’s comments failed to capture the complexity of the issue.

For Crikey‘s sake, we’re still paying people to have s-x.

Keane?  Rundle?  Um, First Dog…?