The Liberal Party:

Shirley Colless writes: Re. “Scare tactics again the order of the day” (yesterday). I think Norman Abjorensen has misinterpreted Bob Hawke’s belief that Tony Abbott’s leadership will be a “temporary one”.  Surely Hawke meant that, while Abbott may either survive or not face a leadership challenge before the next election, he would definitely face such a challenge after the (presumed) drubbing the Liberal Party will get at the next election, particularly in view of the one vote majority he achieved on Tuesday.

So in the meantime every time Abbott opens his mouth at any public opportunity he will scream (he is not noted for the sotto voce approach) about saving all Australians from the threat of a “great big new tax”, ably supported by his electoral neighbour, Bronwyn Bishop.  One wonders where Abbott was when Howard reneged on his  promise “never ever” to introduce the “great big new tax”, the GST, which replaced sales tax on the wholesale price of goods with a tax on the retail cost of goods, and then added that tax onto the cost of a multitude of services.

Anyone with half a brain knows there is a considerable increase between wholesale and retail cost so even at the supposedly low rate of 10% GST (even higher than Westpac is now charging its housing customers) the money would roll in.  This of course has made every Australian consumer from infant to elderly a taxpayer.  But then hypocrisy is an essential part of a politician’s tool kit, isn’t it?

David Lodge writes: Re. “Coalition enters a policy-free zone on carbon” (yesterday). Does Crikey really consider itself independent, fair and un-biased when throws personal insults around with abandon?

Yes, I’m referring to the use of the word troglodyte to describe Liberal members. Is it really necessary, intelligent, insightful or even fair to refer to an individual as “a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character”?

I thought Crikey was supposed to be above baseless character insults. For goodness sake, act like adults and play the ball, not the man.

Ben Aveling writes: The decision by the greens to reject the CPRS is either naive, or cynical.

The Greens know, or should know, that they will never be in a better position to negotiate amendments to a CPRS.  True, after an election, the Greens might have the balance of power in their own right, but with two Liberals prepared to cross the floor, the Greens already had the balance of power on this issue, and they decided not to use it.  They could have negotiated amendments, and they decided not to.

The Greens will have another chance to negotiate the CPRS they want, unless this ends in a double dissolution, but they will never have a better chance. If this does go to a double dissolution then there will not even be another chance – in a combined sitting the government’s numbers in the lower house would give them an absolute majority and the current, unamended legislation could be passed even against the opposition of every other party.

If the Greens don’t understand that, then they are naive.  If they do understand it, and still voted no, then they have demonstrated that they are as cynical as any other political party.  Either way, their supporters should not be pleased with the outcome.

Barry Everingham writes: Re. “Abbott and women are an unholy mix” (yesterday). The women’s vote will surely go down the drain … not only do our sisters have His Madness to contend with … they will never come to terms with Bronwyn Bishop and the dreadful Sophie Mirabella. Put them on the front bench by all  means and give them oxygen; they’ll start to believe  own PR … more women lost.

Martin Gordon writes: Whilst I was surprised the Liberal Party took a leap into the unknown with Tony Abbott, I am struck by some of those who as their partisan want, predictably paint him as socially conservative, and overly religious. Our current PM current Kevin Rudd is the most religious PM since Labor’s Andrew Fisher (i.e. about 100 years). They are both remarkably similar not different on that front.

Malcolm MacKerras writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday). I notice from today’s Crikey that October continues to be the fancied month for our 2010 general election. However, there is a simple reason why the election will not be in October, November or December. In those months there cannot be a double dissolution election. So those months are out, as far as I am concerned. August is only a 10 per cent chance, according to yesterday’s Crikey. That is my pick, however.

If readers care to consult the edition of Crikey dated September 30 they would see my reasoning as to why I pick August 21 as the date for our double dissolution election. However, in addition to my reasoning contained in that article there is another point. The calendar for 2010 is identical to that of 1943. It just so happens that on August 21, 1943 John Curtin led his Labor Party to its biggest ever victory.

On August 21, 2010 Kevin Rudd will lead his Labor Party to its second biggest  victory ever. There will be one technical difference, however. The 2010 election will be a double dissolution election, for the reasons explained by me in that September 30 Crikey article. By contrast the election of August 21, 1943 was a general election for the House of Representatives accompanied by the normal periodical election for half the Senate.

Grant Corderoy writes: To Messrs Keane, Rundle and Farmer, Being a long term subscriber to Crikey and always enjoying quality commentary from yourselves (not always agreeing, but that is the point is it not?) it is time to “flush out” the ultra-conservative and non-secular forces that dominate the Federal Opposition.

Good governments require good oppositions, and good government requires changes of parties every two to three elections.  The coalition parties (Federally and maybe also in most States) are not only in disarray (not surprising when forced into opposition) but they are moving towards a very socially dangerous ideology. It may well keep them well away from the government benches for many years, but it serves little in the interest of democracy.

Could I ask (respectfully) that you now refer to the Opposition Leader as “Tony Abbot-Minchin” or “Tony Minchin-Abbot” from here on in. Possibly the latter is more reflective as to “who is on top”. Cheers and keep up the great work.

Peter Wotton writes: Why does it appear that the only Liberal senators with ball are women?

Doing evil:

Matthew Saxon writes: Re. Alex Joseph (yesterday, comments) who wrote: “And if the mullahs want to broadcast their calls to prayer, that is possible only when the churches in Saudi Arabia are allowed to ring their bells loud and clear.”

Is Alex familiar with the idea that ‘someone else is doing it, so why shouldn’t we?’ is the most banal of all excuses for doing evil. By that logic no-one would ever do the right thing for the first time. Were the British wrong to ban the slave trade in 1807 whist, for example, the Portuguese and the Spanish continued? The list could be endless.

Diary of a Surgeon:

Nicola Stainlay writes: Re. “Diary of a Surgeon: to err is human” (yesterday). Guy Maddern is quite correct in saying that surgeons can make mistakes inadvertently, but what about those who make an operation sound so good that a patient can hardly refuse it?

My mother died two weeks ago after having surgery to fuse bones in her ankle “so she could walk again”. She woke, paralysed down her left side and wrote 3 things on her whiteboard “They lied to me. Hippocrates – do no harm. Rage will keep me alive.” A particularly intelligent woman was felled by the surgeon, who by the way was very pleased with his handiwork.

She then developed bowel complications and died 2 weeks after the surgery. Had she been content to live in a wheel chair she’d still be alive, but the surgeon told her that the surgery was straight forward. He was set to make his mark as a new practitioner in the town and certainly has.

Climate change:

Adam Rope writes: Steven Evans (yesterday, comments) jumps into the debate about the recent CRU e-mail hack with both feet, blessed with that pure ignorance of the scientific process that delineates one who has swallowed the climate change denial line wholesale.

Steven, the reason that the “Climategate” saga has not made it to the front page of the papers here is because it is a massive, distortionist beat up by the denialist camp, and has little to do with the actual multiple strands of scientific data surrounding climate change. A few intemperate e-mails (only 60 MB of data over a 10 year period? Please give me a break) do not counter- balance years and years of confirmed, verified research by scientists across multiple disciplines.

I’m always amazed at the denialist gullibility in blindly accepting as “science” a dodgy petition (OISM) allegedly signed by 31,000 people, some of whom were allegedly scientists, and some of whom may have allegedly had some knowledge of climate change science. And yet these same people reject as somehow “manipulated” years and years of data, written and researched by scores of real scientists, accepted and peer reviewed in real scientific publications, and leading to a conclusion of 90% certainty in the facts of climate change.

Here’s a hint Steven, just because the notoriously biased anti-AGW source, Christopher Booker — writing in that old Tory bible, The Daily Telegraph, calls it “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” does not make it so.

Just because Dr Roger Pielke Sr claims his research was ‘suppressed’ by another scientist does not in fact make it true. Is it not possible that Dr Thomas Karl, and others in the peer review process, had entirely valid scientific reasons behind their decision, and that Dr Pielke does not accept that?

Try widening your reading, Steven, and start using credible scientific sources, rather than denialist blogs. Just because it is written on the net does not make it factual, valid, or true.

Richard Lawson writes: Steven Evans asks “Why is there a news vacuum?” on climategate beat-up . Well, you haven’t been studying the talking-points mate, what part of “conspiracy” don’t you understand!

The liberal media and that secret cabal of over 90% of climate scientists, indeed most of the so called scientific establishment, are not going to give up that easily. One world government and untold wealth is almost in their grasp!

Keep up the good fight, we can only be saved I’m sure by true sceptics, free from the confines of conventional “science”, working for instance in those few bastions of freedom unsullied by avarice, such as the New Limited empire, the IPA and as you suggest, that fountain of truth that is the letters pages of our newspapers.

Jeff Bye writes: Can we please stop referring to climate change “denialists”, “skeptics” and “naysayers”.  Everyone at some stage has denied, been skeptical or said nay and that on its own is nothing to be ashamed of.  From here on in, I propose we refer to these types as climate change “conspiracy theorists”.  Let them hang around with the 911 truthers and the Roswellites listening to speeches about the Illuminati by guest speaker Dodi Fayed.

Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with the job of reducing dependence on foreign oil, improving the productivity of our industry, creating new jobs, reducing the risk of catastrophic changes to our climate, leaving a legacy for our children,  conserving finite natural resources, saving money, minimising climate refugees and stopping the spread of tropical diseases.

Jim Hart writes: I thought you had decided a while back to send Doubting Tamas and the Tamas-squabblers off to a nice quiet padded cell in the dungeons of the Crikey website, but lately they’ve been allowed back into the front room where they distract the grown-ups who are trying to have serious conversations.

Is this a permanent change of editorial policy?

If you think they deserve their place in the main newsletter, how about showing only the first sentence followed by a “more…” link to the naughty room for any masochists who want to follow their antics.

Alec Dunn writes: I agree with Steven Evans. I look forward to contributions by Tamas Calderwood. Whether you agree with him or not (OK, I agree with him) you’ve got to admire his courage and persistence in writing again and again despite every letter being rubbished by four or five others. And he writes well, too.

Jim Gobert writes: The past days have been bewildering and I must admit, I am losing track of the state of the overwhelming science disproving climate change. Consequently I made a list of the main current arguments for Crikey readers :

  • Environmentalists hate freedom and humans and want to destroy all of our society forcing us to live in caves , eating only lichen & possum droppings.
  • Climate change is a global communist conspiracy created by Rudd to keep Australians out of church.
  • Climate change must be stopped immediately… or it doesn’t count.
  • Rudd’s ETS is a vicious tax designed to bankrupt the ordinary Australians who voted for him (I guess it is a similar argument to how pharmaceutical & cosmetic companies try to poison all their customers) but Abbott’s idea of industry paying for CO2 emissions & passing the cost onto consumers is … well, something not called a tax (its tentative name is “Roger”).
  • Electricity cannot power any machines.
  • We must immediately embrace nuclear energy to address the climate change crisis we deny exists
  • We know for sure that China & India hate the environment because they make all those nasty toxic chemicals we use on our farms, that we don’t allow to be made in Australia.
  • Although EU has had ETS for 5 years , involving 25 countries,  Australia was still planning to be first with ETS so Rudd can strut the world stage (even though we just know the rest of the world hates him … no , we mean ignores him).
  • The science of climate change is so complex that it is only understood by those with absolutely no science training who are therefore unbiased — consequently , a talk back radio host warning us about as communist new world order conspiracy, carries more scientific weight than 1000 climatologists.
  • In the 1970s scientists all claimed that there was an imminent ice age — that peer reviewed scientific journal , the Daily Telegraph, carried the story but dodgy rags such as Nature & Scientific American didn’t , thereby proving a conspiracy
  • It is an outrageous insult to call climate change skeptics “deniers” but what else you expect an atheistic rabble of Nazi , communist, do-gooder , chardonnay drinking tree huggers to say.
  • All the science of climate change is a disgraceful fabrication by scientists who fear losing their government grants – we know this because shock jocks & tabloid journalists , the stars of many previous cash for comments scandals, tell us so.
  • The Greens are a bunch of hair shirt wearing latte-drinking atheists who should be totally ignored & ridiculed except that they are to be admired & respected for their wisdom in rejecting the ETS
  • Everything the conservatives did on ETS prior to yesterday  (Howard signing Kyoto in 1997, Howard taking ETS to 2007 election, Liberals negotiating amendments to ETS for 5 weeks, Abbott berating colleagues to make them accept ETS, Abbott totally supporting ETS etc) is a wicked fabrication done by Rudd and never really happened…no , really…stop laughing when I am talking to you
  • Over 1 billion Chinese and Indian peasants deserve to remain in poverty, dreaming of a simple fridge, because limiting Australian families to only four cars is outrageous creeping socialism.
  • Australia should do nothing on addressing climate change (which doesn’t exist by the way) & should wait to see what the rest of the world will do – we had this idea first so no other country can take this position
  • Per capita CO2 emissions are totally irrelevant — because Indians & Chinese are irresponsible enough to be born in crowded countries, especially ones where inferior gods are worshipped,  they are only allowed per capita CO2 emissions one fiftieth of ours.
  • Climate change will double food production because plants love CO2 , the “farmers friend” — as grains such as wheat , maize, oats, new GM rice  etc utilize C4 photosynthesis and are relatively unaffected by increased CO2 levels , Sophie Mirabella will launch the Liberal Party 1001 Recipes for Weeds cookbook , prior to the next election as the pillar of the coalition’s action on climate change (which doesn’t exist by the way).
  • The loss of an SUV is far worse & more traumatic to fine hard working Australians than nuclear war or starvation of millions of damn foreigners .