Piers Akerman, hot air, Labor stooges, new dark age, meeting your nemesis and bring back Al Gore and Ian Plimer

(Above: come back Al Gore, we need rain and a sudden cold snap, maybe a blizzard. The lifesavers aren't on the beaches and we'll all drown. Ah well, at least it's not going to be as hot as that record August in the summer of 1995. Sorry, did I say summer? I meant winter).

As unseasonally warm weather sweeps across eastern Australia - remembering that the only use for one off events in climate change discussions is to crack a joke about how Al Gore takes blizzards wherever he goes - the time seems right to catch up on Piers Akerman ranting about climate change follies.

And the first question to loom in the mind is whatever happened to Ian Plimer in the firmament of stars? Sure the likes of Tim Blair have stayed loyal, but is there some kind of pop chart for sceptics, and has Plimer fallen out of the top ten?

The last four Akerman columns all deal with blowing hot air, the politics of envy, Labor stooges and Rudd's new dark age in relation to global warming. You can find them here, in descending order of currency, under Labor stooges blow hot air on emissions, Rudd's new Dark Age falls on Australia, Politics of envy with Coalition alternative, and Rudd's hot air puts jobs on the line.

Well sure they're repetitive - like stepping into a blast furnace to watch a wordsmith hammer out the same line like an anvil chorus - but while there's a remarkable level of consistent hysteria, there's also a deepening mystery. There's no Ian Plimer. For the life of me, I couldn't find the slightest mention of the top of the charts hit meister from March anywhere hitting the beat.

It's like he was a one hit wonder, and now he's off in the land where My Sharona dwells.

Did Akerman undergo some kind of profound emotional trauma as a result of appearing on the ABC's television program Q & A, surrounded as he was by Labor party stooges, including the head of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, Small Business Minister Craig Emerson, "sustainability" consultant Indira Naidoo, and the wretched opposition presence of Christopher Pyne, notoriously dismissed by Paul Sheehan as a fatally prissy, punctilious and irritating bore (here).

No wonder Akerman woke up like a bear with a sore head after a few hours of that mob of Labor stooges and fellow travellers blowing hot air his way, even  if the wretched lick spittle compere Tony Jones couldn't stand the amount of garbage being unloaded what is the dump of socialistic ABC television (watch it here if you're a glutton for punishment).

There was no discussion of the actual science of course - Akerman himself is a post graduate master of the intricacies of the science, but not so his fellow panelists, and so it's important to dismiss this kind of chit chat out of hand:

It then became apparent that - as none of these Labor stooges can rationally discuss the science that they claim supports their global warming hysteria - the principal strategy lay in demonising those who are prepared to undertake serious study of the issues.

Phew. Well as there's no science to discuss, let's get back to personalities:

But the demonisation of those who oppose the "consensus’’ view as extreme right-wingers has no basis in fact.

For foremost among those Australians who are profoundly concerned about the lack of decent science supporting this pseudo-religion are such luminaries as William Kininmouth, the former head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology; Professor Bob Carter, former chairman of the Australia Research Council’s funding panel for Geological Science and Technologies Grants (he is also a former director of the Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program, the premier global collaborative research program in environmental and geological science); Ian Castles, former Secretary of the Australian Finance Department, former head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and former director of the Academy of Social Sciences; and Dr David Evans, a former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office who developed the measuring model for compliance with Kyoto.

There are many more, but as with those named above, politics just doesn’t come into the equation, only respect for scientific knowledge. The Rudd government and its ideological fellow travellers scoff at this and embrace hypothetical models produced by those on their payroll.

Notice? No Ian Plimer. He's now dropped into the "many more" category. It seems the likes of Bob Cater is the new 'go to' guru, as shown by his lecture to a motley group of a dozen oppositionistas at a lecture organised by gadfly Senator Steve Fielding (here).

And just as a hero seems to have gone missing - how long ago it seems that Plimer was in Maitland in a pub chatting to the locals in company with a worshipful Janet Albrechtsen - so it seems Akerman has found a new voodoo doll in which to stick sceptical pins.

Come on down Sharan Burrow arch unionist fiend, making claims about the creation of a million green jobs in such a cheeky way that it sends poor Akker Dakker into a frothing, foaming frenzy.

Silly thing, she should have said five million and perhaps he might have given way to apoplexy.

But in what is a predictable rant, Akkers saves the best for last:

Little wonder such unlikely allies as the Greens and the Opposition had no qualms about joining forces and knocking this monster on the head before it had a chance to cripple the Australian economy.

The Greens helped knock Chairman Rudd's monster of a bill because they were worried about it crippling the Australian economy? Or because it wasn't strong enough for their tastes?

Akker Dakker and Sharan Burrow have more in common than Akker Dakker might allow.

So disappointed in Akker Dakker's reliving of his traumatic ABC on air nightmare, you might turn instead to his earlier column's rant about Chairman Rudd bringing a new dark age to Australia, and you will be in luck, because you will find him in exceptional wordsmith form, much better than the sorry sorehead ABC battered bear. 

Who else could end a column thusly?

There is simply no advantage for Australians in this legislation, only hubris for the Prime Minister and an inevitable nemesis for the nation.

You will of course remember that nemesis (here) is most usually thought of as a Greek goddess, and when applied to popular discourse, is a term used to describe one's worst enemy - but strangely while the exact opposite, also with alarming similarities. Thus Professor Moriarty was the nemesis of Sherlock Holmes, while the Joker surely is the Batman's nemesis, displaying a sense of humor singularly lacking in the caped clown, unless you think Adam West's performance is post modernist ironic.

Again there's no actual need to discuss the science, when simple assertion will do:

The supporters of the ETS mock its critics as dinosaurs but their ignorance of the science and economics of global climate change and their failure to address the most fundamental questions shred their arguments.

So we won't bother either, and instead let's frolic through the fields of Akker Dakker's wordsmithing. My personal picks?

Customary mendacity, small symbol of gloom, dangerous lie from start to finish, there are 93 pollutants listed on the Australian National Pollutant Inventory and CO2 is not one of them, phoney urgency, draconian impositions, sheer lunacy, blinded by hubris, appalling effect, green pseudo-religionists, totally destructive, and so forth and etcetera, a wonderful assembly of bile, spleen and indignation.

But Akkers is also unfortunately, Sharan Burrows style, not above a few little distortions to make his case:

Around the world, the nations that have reduced pollution the most over the past century are those which have achieved the highest standard of living.

The nations which are striving to lift their populations from poverty, are now becoming the greatest polluters and they show no sign of crippling their economies to humour Western greens.

The Rudd CRAP Bill will inevitably erode Australia’s standard of living but will not affect global pollution, global poverty or global climate in the slightest.

Um, the nations that have reduced pollution the most are those with the highest standard of living? Do tell? Is that the cheese eating surrender monkey Europeans? Because it sure as heck ain't Australia and the United States of America.

Last time I looked - with 2006 figures - Australia topped the world chart amongst the top twenty emitters on a per capita basis, at 20.58 (tons/capita), with the Americans working hard to regain number one (19.78) and Canada a respectable 18.81. Is there some kind of correlation between CO2 emissions and skill in swimming?

It was pleasing to note that Saudi Arabia managed a respectable 15.7, while France could only manage 6.6, up against the strident Germans at 10.4. Poor old China could only manage 4.58 while India was a wretched 1.16. But of course because the Chinese and Indians happen to have the odd billion or so souls they easily get into the top five when it comes to total emissions. Which is a worry, but which hardly supports Akker's argument that the highest living are also the best at belt tightening. Unless of course you think a growth in CO2 is wonderful for the planet and the plants and the trees, and a bit of acid water will do wonders for the oceans. The more the merrier, and heap it on. Greenhouse? Well it works great for tomatoes and marijuana.

The point? Well of course Akker Dakker is great at verbiage, but the reason he ducks the science and the statistics, is because he so often gets them wrong, and it's so much better to hide behind a list of fine and distinguished names to prove his point.

But what's happened to Ian Plimer? Why isn't he the 'go to' guru any more? Has the nemesis got him? 

Sharan Burrow,  please explain.

(Below: Energy Information Agency data, Department of Energy, 2006).