A huge round of applause for Kevin Rudd, Australia’s Prime Minister, for lambasting, basting and roasting the Climate Change deniers :-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/06/2735769.htm
“Rudd wages war on Coalition climate deniers : By online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers : Posted Fri Nov 6, 2009 : Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has upped the pressure on the Opposition over its emissions trading stance, accusing it of being full of climate change deniers intent on delaying action. In a speech to the Lowy Institute today Mr Rudd launched a strongly worded attack on the Opposition and climate change sceptics worldwide for holding up countries’ efforts to combat climate change. “It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change sceptics in all their colours, some more sophisticated than others,” he said. “It is to destroy the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at home and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad. And our children’s fate – our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with them. It is time to remove any polite veneer from this debate; the stakes are that high. The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change sceptics simply do not care.”… Mr Rudd accused those who question climate change science of “holding the world to ransom. Climate change sceptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country,” he said. “They are a minority. They are however powerful and invariably they are driven by vested interests [and are] powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia.” Quoting several Opposition frontbenchers at length as proof of scepticism and a “do-nothing” attitude within the Coalition, Mr Rudd accused the Opposition of political cowardice and a “failure of logic” in so far refusing to pass the scheme. “The tentacles of the climate change sceptics reach deep into the ranks of the Liberal Party and once you add the National party it’s plain the sceptics and the deniers are a major force,” he said…”
I expected the American right-wing free-trade lunatics to try and chew him up :-
“Australian Prime Minister Goes Hysterical Over Global Warming : Written by William F. Jasper : Monday, 09 November 2009…”
But I was still surprised to find that the Wall Street Journal was so nasty-mean about Kevin Rudd, written anonymously as far as I can see, and using evidence from what I think could well be a dubious opinion poll :-
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525031879821944.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
“NOVEMBER 9, 2009 : Climate-Change Panic Down Under : Kevin Rudd’s attack on ‘skeptics’ is instructive-and bodes poorly for Copenhagen. Tough economic times have a way of clarifying political priorities and forcing people to distinguish among needs, wishes—and fantasies. So you might think a politician as canny as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would know better than to blame his country’s new-found skepticism about the risks of global warming on something other than an evil conspiracy. In a speech in Sydney on Friday, Mr. Rudd claimed “climate-change skeptics, the climate-change deniers, the opponents of climate-change action are active in every country.” The prime minister then linked this global conspiracy to “vested interests” bent on “slowing and if possible destroying the momentum towards a global deal on climate change.” Mr. Rudd went on to attack, by name, “the vocal group of conservatives who do not accept the scientific consensus”; opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, who has questioned the wisdom of taxing the most productive sectors of Australia’s economy during the downturn; and “world government conspiracy theorists” who worry about devolving tax-and-spend powers to unaccountable United Nations bureaucrats. Well, who’s left? Inconveniently for Mr. Rudd, who based his election in 2007 on his environmental bona fides, the public. Electorates all over the world are starting to question the climate-change received wisdom. A recent poll by the Lowy Institute—where Mr. Rudd gave his speech Friday—showed climate-change had fallen to the seventh “most important” foreign-policy goal for the public—down from first two years ago. There is receding support in the U.S. and Europe too, which is why next month’s Copenhagen confab is expected to be such a dud. Like the U.S., Australia is ignoring this common sense and pushing ahead to impose an expensive cap-and-trade regime on its economy. At the very least, such a fundamental change deserves a lively debate, not a defensive denunciation of anyone who disagrees with Mr. Rudd.”
But then I read this :-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/09/2737160.htm
“Murdoch blasts ABC’s global ‘didgeridoos’ plan : By communications reporter Michael Rowland : Posted Mon Nov 9, 2009 : Mr Murdoch is confident he’ll be able to work out a way of charging people for online content. News Corporation’s media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been in town and he has had a lot to get off his chest, opening up on everything from the treatment of asylum seekers to Kevin Rudd’s personality. Mr Murdoch gave expansive and remarkably candid interviews with The Australian and Melbourne’s Herald Sun… Mr Murdoch also took a swipe at US President Barack Obama, saying he was “going badly”. But his comments on the Prime Minister were the most striking. Mr Murdoch described Mr Rudd as “delusional” for thinking he could shift global thinking on climate change, and accused him of being over-sensitive to criticism. He also said Mr Rudd seemed more interested in running the world and not Australia. It is no secret that Mr Rudd and News Limited papers have been at odds of late, but Mr Murdoch says this simply goes with the territory and effectively told Mr Rudd to harden up…”
Who owns the Wall Street Journal ? Wikipedia tells me, Dow Jones, of course. And who owns Dow Jones ? News Corporation. And who owns News Corporation ? Why, strangely, Rupert Murdoch.
5 replies on “Kevin Rudd versus Rupert Murdoch”
Alan Jones of Sydney on his programme on radio 2GB recently interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton here
http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanage r&task=view&id=4998
For additional resource information about climate change here is another link
http://www.excelerate.com.au/downloads/ls1/ryzz/Mo dification-Leons_AGW_pres entation.pps
Below are the YouTube video links in 3 parts to a very recent (yesterday) interview of former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton & Lord Christopher Monckton by Glenn Beck
Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEzXGSYI1Yo
Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAk320K3-wM
Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KlSjOKciY0
“Electorates all over the world are starting to question the climate-change received wisdom. A recent poll by the Lowy Institute—where Mr. Rudd gave his speech Friday—showed climate-change had fallen to the seventh “most important” foreign-policy goal for the public—down from first two years ago”.
——————————————–
And the reason why people have downgraded climate-change is due to people like you Jo.
Your aggressive, unfactual and boorish behaviour turns many people away from supporting measures designed to protect the environment.
Do you really think that the general public are going to be browbeaten into accepting your ‘claims’?.
When the taxpayer looks at people like Al Gore who is making hundreds of millions of dollars due to his unethical carbon trading schemes, is it no surprise that this turns people off from any environmental policies?.
Climate Change Alarmists should be banned from the media until they learn to accept that people are allowed to have different views. Your rantings just make you look stupid.
“Your rantings just make you look stupid.”
And yet here you are, ranting at Jo and trolling. Posting complete rubbish by a man who holds NO SCIENCE QUALIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER, (maybe an A-level, if that) and saying that this one man contradicts every scientific body and association in the entire world.
Now who was “unfactual” [sic]?
Sim1,
Exactly who are you claiming holds no science qualification?. Please clarify your strange post.
Perhaps if you made some sense I could agree that you are being factual.