Paul Sheehan, and the climate change magic pudding policy that just keeps on giving ...

As surely as the retreating glaciers pose a threat to Bolivia's capital of La Paz, and its neighbour El Alto, (here), Paul Sheehan writing on climate change will pose a threat to coherence, insight, and rational analysis.

Copenhagen backlash his a government in denial, he scribbles, and it's more of the same from a man who resents the term denialism, perhaps because he's a denialist.

He's outraged by Julia Gillard using the word to describe his denialism:

Gillard used the terms ''denier'' or ''denial'' 11 times, pointed words because they carry the connotation of Holocaust denial. The last time that tactic was used in the national debate, after the release of the Bringing Them Home report, it exploded on those who used it.

So this is going to get interesting because the political ground has shifted in the past six months. It is now the Rudd Government that appears to be in a state of denial.

Well unless of course there's a shift in the political ground, an exploding tactic whereby those who talk about a state of denial as a denial of their own denialism are in fact denied a role in the national debate, on the basis of coy self-referentialism of a way too cute kind.

Let me make that a little clearer: the term state of denial can only be used as as term to describe the deniers denying denialism by deniers outraged at denial of their legitimate denialism.

Now that's clear, a little detour, wherein Sheehan can knock the stuffing out of a straw man, Malcolm Mackerras, who predicted a swing to the Greens (good old Malcolm, where would we be without him miscalling an election), and then contrasting him with that ABC pundit Antony Green. Who amazingly suggested that Liberals would win in safe Liberal seats. No wonder he da man, and Sheehan worships at his feet, because Sheehan thought the greens had a chance and Fred Niles nine candidates were a virtual shoe in.

Thus Sheehan can manage to conflate the results in Higgins and Bradfield with a polling on climate change and climate denialists, in the manner of the misbegotten Mackerras, and come up with a triumph for Tony Abbott, who it turns out, isn't in a state of denial:

'' ... just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.''

Abbott reiterated this position at his first press conference as leader on Wednesday: ''I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution … [But] the last thing we should be doing is rushing through a great big new tax just so that Kevin Rudd can take a trophy to Copenhagen.''

Abbott is thus neither an extremist nor a denier on climate change. He is a sceptic about emissions trading schemes. It is a defining difference, because there is much to be sceptical about.

Why is it that at this point, I feel the need to revert to Nick Minchin, who orchestrated the Abbott takeover?

NICK MINCHIN, SENATOR, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: For 10 years the left internationally have been very successful in exploiting peoples' innate fears about global warming and climate change to achieve their political ends...

...NICK MINCHIN: I frankly strongly object to you know, politicians and others trying to terrify 12 year old girls that their planet's about to melt, you know. I mean really it is appalling some of that that sort of behaviour.

SARAH FERGUSON: Angry about what he sees as the indoctrination of children, he blames the left.

NICK MINCHIN: For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.

SARAH FERGUSON: Minchin encourages his junior colleagues to speak out too.

NICK MINCHIN: I don't mind being branded a sceptic about the theory that that human emissions and CO2 are the main driver of global change - of global warming. I don't accept that and I've said that publically. I guess if I can say it, I would hope that others would feel free to do so. (here).

Call it what you will, but I'd call it a state of denial. But then Tony Abbott is notorious for saying climate change is crap. Why not have a listen to the editor of the Pyrenees Advocate, explaining how his report came to national prominence for reporting Abbott's 'passionate response' which wasn't off the cuff, but certainly adamant and the words of a climate denier? Here. You can even download the audio file!

But you see there's personal belief and then there's public bullshit, and Sheehan is always adept when it comes to the matter of bullshit, as are politicians when it comes to spinning the wheel of hypocrisy.

Perhaps because he himself has always been inclined to the sceptical denialism in fashion on the right, ever since the scales fell from his eyes, courtesy of Ian Plimer, as outlined in Beware the climate of conformity.

So here's the problem. If you don't believe climate change is a real issue - Minchin-like, it doesn't exist - how can you expect to debate rationally the best solutions to a non-existent problem?

That's the trouble with intellectual wolves suddenly donning sheep's clothing, and suddenly explaining that it's not climate change that's the issue, it's only the ETS. Wait until after Copenhagen, and all will become clear, and alternative policies will be devised, and they won't cost anyone anything, because if you own a magic pudding, all you have to do is cut off another slice and have a good feed.

Well Copenhagen is upon us, and it will be interesting to see just what kind of climate change policy Tony Abbott will devise that will cost us nothing, and which will be endorsed by the likes of Paul Sheehan. I suspect it will be a bit like me trying to devise a publicity campaign for the Catholic church to bring wayward drop-outs back in to the flock.

Sheehan puts great store in the many emails sent to Liberal party members - it isn't spam he says, and it's all real and it's all genuine and authentic, unlike Julia Gillard and her talk of extremists and deniers.

I guess about as real as Tony Abbott's sudden conversion to a belief that climate change is real and caused by people, in much the same way as Paul Sheehan's belief that climate change science is just a powerful form of ideology subverting evidence is now transformed into a sheep bleating - listen to the emails! Many emails good, few emails baaad.

But it wouldn't be a Paul Sheehan column without him trying to have it both ways, in a vacillating homage to his lack of decisiveness. Does the man ever place a straight out bet, or is he always trying for an each way result?

The point Gillard missed in her ''extremists and deniers'' pantomime was that her government had failed dismally to explain its legislation to the public. People crave authenticity in their elected representatives, not spin. Thus the unlikely hero to emerge from the Liberal carnage last week was Ian Macfarlane, the man with a gravel pit for a larynx.

People love authenticity and loyalty and Macfarlane has these qualities in spades. He should be promoted when Abbott remakes his shadow ministry.

Why on earth is Macfarlane a hero? He did the dance with the troglodytes and neanderthals, got stitched up in a deal, couldn't hold the deal and fell to earth with Malcolm Turnbull. What on earth does Sheehan mean, except perhaps wanting to evoke what a half-baked, half-assed scribbler he is, one who doesn't have a clue?

Authenticity? If you believe what Sheehan scribbles, surely Macfarlane is an authentic fuck up who helped generate the alleged 400,000 emails from disgruntled Liberals who failed to understand what Macfarlane and Turnbull were on about, because they failed dismally to explain their support for an ETS to their colleagues?

What gormless twittery and fumbling futtockry. Well at least we know where Malcolm Turnbull stands - Time for some straight talking on climate change. Talk of climate crap is climate bullshit?

Well at least he calls a spade a shovel. Turnbull savages Abbott over climate 'bullshit'.

But back to some double dipping bullshit by our scribe, to use one of Mr. Abbott's and now Mr. Turnbull's favorite terms:

Conversely, it is being speculated within the party that Abbott could appoint Kevin Andrews as his immigration spokesman and keep Christopher Pyne as leader of Opposition business in the house.

The Political Undertaker and the Parliamentary Mosquito. If Abbott were to commit this double folly, his political career may have already peaked.

Oh yes, it's always with the coy double speak, and the half-assed, half-baked attempts to have it both ways, so that if Abbott flames out, Sheehan will have spoken.

Well the trouble is that Sheehan speaks all the time with a forked tongue, and his latest column is as fine an example as has come our way since the white man promised the Indian that they'd keep vast swathes of land in North America.

But speaking of weather vanes, as we now are, it gives you a chance to decide on your preferred image for a weather vane for Sheehan's house (and perhaps Abbott's as well).

I must admit I vacillated and swung between the great white shark and the cheshire cat, before settling for a steaming blithering rooster. But which rooster? I prefer the vulgar one. With the hand painted details. You get to choose the colours, then let it swing in the breeze, the strength of said breeze coming either from the methane of farts, or the hot air talked about climate change.