What's truly wondrous about Piers Akerman - known fondly as Akker Dakker to head bangers everywhere, and to connoisseurs as the Billy Bunter of commentariat columnists for his fat owl of the remove 'yaroop garooh' ways in print - is the way he'll seize on any club to hand, whatever it's size, weight, meaning or relevance - providing he can use it to give that weasel Chairman Rudd a good whacking.
Or should that be "whack a mole"?
Whatever, it's a fun game. Akerman for yonks has been a leading light in the climate sceptics game, or the denialist business, call it what you will - show him any evidence that there might be a human hand in what might be a trend to global warming, and he's agin it. The human hand, and the warming.
So it's a real hoot when he joins with the chief climate negotiator for China, and the small African nations to give Chairman Rudd a good whacking.
Would Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lie to the Australian people? The chief climate negotiator for China and the small African nations at Copenhagen think so.
According to Lumumba Di-Aping, an African who lives in New York, the “message Kevin Rudd is giving to his people, his citizens, is a fabrication.
“It’s puzzling in the sense that here is a prime minister who actually won the election because of his commitment to climate change.”
Welcome to the real world of Rudd Labor, sir, where commitments last as long as a Darwin snow flake.
Yep, the enemies of my enemy are my friend, because of course the Chinese and the Africans have been giving Australia - the leading per capita carbon offender in the world - a hard time because of lack of ambition when it comes to climate change.
In the ordinary course of events, this might lead an outraged columnist to valiantly defend Chairman Rudd's noble stand in defending Australia against the ravages of the world's leaders and the charges of hypocrisy - after all, endorsing China and the African countries might be seen as endorsing their desire to do even more about climate change. Which of course doesn't exist.
But you haven't reckoned with the adroit capacity of Akker Dakker to do a 180 degree turn on the head of a pin, because the next move is a pox on the lot of them:
That the Copenhagen conference has turned into a quagmire is no surprise. With an agenda based on a concocted, manipulated consensus reliant on corrupted data, the global warming crowd could only flounder as their emotion-driven fictions evaporated.
That the Copenhagen conference has turned into a quagmire is no surprise. With an agenda based on a concocted, manipulated consensus reliant on corrupted data, the global warming crowd could only flounder as their emotion-driven fictions evaporated.
Now of course given the previous point scoring, which celebrates the role of climate change believers in attacking another climate change believer, this makes no rational, coherent or logical sense. Welcome to the bizarro alternate world of Akker Dakker, in Snowflake will last for longer than PM's pledges, where rational discourse makes about as much nutritional sense as a snow flake in a corn flakes packet.
Al Gore underscored the lack of scientific credibility by telling the conference that the latest research showed the Arctic would be ice-free in five years. “These figures are fresh,” he said. They sure were. Gore had made them up.
Yep, the scientist concerned had merely said that his latest results suggested, in a six year projection for the melting of the Arctic ice, that only 80% would disappear and that some ice would remain beyond 2020 (here).
Phew, that's a relief, only 80% gone.
Never mind, don't panic, if chairman Rudd did what China and the African countries want him to do, it would be grossly irresponsible. You see, you can't have a gotcha going one way, without a gotcha going the other:
In the real world it would be grossly irresponsible for Rudd and other national leaders to sign anything that commits the West to destroying their economies.
And in the real world, don't you worry about projections of 80% of the Arctic ice going. The use of figures is only pertinent when it can be used to give Chairman Rudd and Al Gore a good whacking.
But who will save us from these fiends? Who will save the environment, even though the environment doesn't need saving, because there might be votes in saving an environment that doesn't need any saving, as we merrily go on our way shitting in our nest.
You mean you don't know the answer? Are you always that thick, or don't you read Akker Dakker regularly?
Yesterday morning, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott delivered a blast of fresh thinking on climate change to a Sydney meeting of Liberal Party members.
Yep, cue Tony Abbott, blaster of fresh thinking, the freezer mind capable of cooling the whole planet. He'd give those Chinese and African negotiators what for - after all, climate change is crap - and at the same time, he'd save the environment, though I'm not quite sure what he'd save it from, because after all everything's spiffing and jolly well great with the environment. After all, only eighty per cent of Arctic ice might disappear in the next decade or so.
Perhaps he has some secret insights because he likes to surf and fight fires?
Abbott pointed out that as a local surf lifesaver and volunteer “firey”, he had always been an enthusiastic supporter of responsible measures to improve the environment. His first big local campaign as an MP was to prevent Telstra from installing a mobile phone base station next to a kindergarten.
Oh I say, well done, well played, I guess that would save the sweet young things from the cancer causing effects of mobile phone base stations. Or is that just another case of moral panic and Nimbyism, and equivalent to the kind of nonsense preached by Al Gore?
The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, states that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects. (here).
Never mind. I'm glad they found a new home for that mobile phone station, which is now perched on top of the apartment block across the road. I keed, I keed, we love all the mobile phone stations scatttered around our suburbs, provided that they're nowhere near a kindergarten. After all, primary and secondary schools are much more convenient.
Now what else has Tony Abbott done? Well how's this for credentials when it comes to saving the environment:
Well I think that I have very good green credentials. My first job in government was, amongst other things, to run something called the Green Corps, which was an environmental action programme for young people. I’ve always regarded myself as an environmentalist. I think the first public spat I ever had with the former leader of our party was when I called for the draining of Lake Pedder as a backbencher in Opposition and the next spat was when I called for the burying of overhead cables and I notice that in this splendid new suburb the overhead cables are indeed buried. (here)
Great. Surely something in that doorstopper grab worth a 'little sir echo' or 'teach the parrot to write a column' moment:
Once in government, Abbott came into in conflict with former PM John Howard over Abbott’s support for the burial of overhead cables - a source of alleged global warming gases, incidentally.
His first big eco-initiative was the Green Corps, a scheme that gave thousands of young Australians six months of practical work in environmental restoration.
Dearie me, it's sometimes hard to work out what the fat owl of the remove is saying when he stuffs his column so full of facts and figures, and scientific wisdom. Is the burial of overhead cables a source of alleged global warming gases? Alleged or so-called we take for granted, as there's no such thing.
His first big eco-initiative was the Green Corps, a scheme that gave thousands of young Australians six months of practical work in environmental restoration.
Dearie me, it's sometimes hard to work out what the fat owl of the remove is saying when he stuffs his column so full of facts and figures, and scientific wisdom. Is the burial of overhead cables a source of alleged global warming gases? Alleged or so-called we take for granted, as there's no such thing.
But what are we talking about as a source for these alleged, so called global warming gases, which incidentally should not fool you into thinking global warming exists.
Does the burial produce increased global warming gas emissions (so called) because of increased costs in the burial operation? Or does the burial prevent alleged global warming gases, because of the reduced incidence of bushfires, and the energy efficiency induced by people not being able to crash their cars into power poles?
Who knows, and I guess who cares, since it's always wonderful when a commentariat columnist starts writing about issues deep down he doesn't give a toss about, and then with gob-smacking indifference to previous logic and rhetoric, starts to write about the joys of nanny state projects driven by government.
You know, like Green Corps initiatives that send thousands of young people out to learn about the environment in ways worthy of East Germany - in much the same way as our swimmers expect the East German funding system to operate for their benefit.
Oh did I mention sport? Carry on:
The former university boxing champion is now out to KO the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme which he says is “a great big tax to produce a giant political slush fund to generate endless wealth transfers to the Labor Party’s favoured constituencies, supervised by a newly-minted carbon police”.
Um perhaps I should have mentioned the power of the parrot instead.
His argument against Rudd’s wealth transfer program, bureaucracy and politicised hand-outs was compelling.
While arguing in favour of a Green Corps, an environmental action program for the indoctrination of young people at government expense?
The greening of Tony Abbott is a fascinating exercise, about as fascinating as Janet Albrechsten mooning over him because the man's a kind of hunk and a kind of 'bear'. (Hairy-chested candour will win Tony Abbott hearts).
Suddenly all the commentariat columnists who were dissing climate change with a kind of theological fervour have now discovered the importance of the environment and the importance of being environmentalists. Why the Liberal party is greener than the Greens, and its fearless leader is a fierce environmentalist with a wonderful track record in environmentalism.
By golly, what a make over. If we can green Tony Abbott, then maybe we can green the world. Forget all that talk about denialism. Here's the man himself:
Certainly I think that the environment is always an issue. It should always be an issue and I think that climate change is real, but what we need to do is make sure that we take effective action against it not action that will damage our economy but not actually improve the environment.
Certainly I think that the environment is always an issue. It should always be an issue and I think that climate change is real, but what we need to do is make sure that we take effective action against it not action that will damage our economy but not actually improve the environment.
Yep, climate change is real, it's no longer crap, and no, you won't find that highlighted in an Akker Dakker column. After all, sir, we have our limits. And no we don't need to brand Tony Abbott a liar, he's just adopting a different posture to make his sleep more comfortable. Sure it involves contortions and not lying straight, but any posturist will tell you it's important not to lie straight in bed.
Oh did I mention lying? Not only is Tony Abbott and his environmentalism compelling, so are his Copenhagen allies:
... he didn’t need to brand the Prime Minister as a liar.
Those Rudd has been courting in Copenhagen had already done that.
Um, the ones calling on Australia to do more about the environment because climate change is real? The ones working from an agenda based on a concocted, manipulated consensus reliant on corrupted date, the ones floundering as their emotion-driven fictions evaporated?
Like Tony Abbott?
Ah any day is a good day for surrealism on loon pond, but a brief visit to Akker Dakker, the fat owl of the remove, always provides the bestest surrealist moments of all ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.