Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Dead department walking

Dead department walking

We live in a secular age and in this country we expect that there should be a well defined separation between church and state, however when the government of the day “gets religion” which encourages them to set up a huge edifice to promote the tenets of their faith who would be surprised that the shear cost of the instrumentality and its lack of any immediate benefit for the billions it is costing should lead them to consider shutting it  all down to help a budget bottom line that is in a  rather perilous state for a plan due to be delivered just prior to the  next federal election:

click for source

click for source

The thing that I find amusing about this is that it actually a wise move politically for the government to contemplate this sort of departmental pruning on  a number of different levels.

Firstly the staff in this department will not be missed by the public because the work they do is pointless anyway

Secondly you can bet that as a recently  created instrumentality that the majority of the staff are employed on short term contracts which would make them easier to sack/dispense with

Thirdly those public servants have been on notice since the rise of Tony Abbott that they are going to be gone as soon as he gets the lodge  so being sacked by Labor won’t be much different to what they were expecting anyway.

Fourthly  Most work in Canberra which is a solidly Labor town so their votes would still be mostly delivered to the government anyway because you can bet that most who work in the department are likely to be Greens supporters.

Fifthly it will save lots of money on the expenditure side of the Ledger  which is desperately needed to try to balance the budget to recover Wayne Swan’s  economic credibility.

Then on the other hand the Coalition must be delighted at the prospect of the Gillard government wearing all of the political pain  for doing that which they will be planning as one of their first items of business after September 15. They will be able to achieve the abolition of this monument to leftist hubris with out being blamed or daemonised for doing so during the election campaign. The beauty of it all just sends a shiver down my spine , further it lends  a fair bit of weight to my prediction that in a post Gillard parliament a very much chastened ALP will not oppose any bill to dismantle the Carbon Tax et al because they will be so despairing about the issue that they will just want to get it behind them and move on .

As for the Greens, well I expect that they will be rather like that Shakespearean storm, all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Cheers Comrades

Trust Me


  1. Litigious liability might also be an issue!

    “I am not prepared to sit back and let the liars, cheats and fraudsters win.”

    Christopher Monckton


  2. GD says:

    Good comment and a great link. Jo Nova’s stuff is always on the mark.

  3. GD says:

    Firstly the staff in this department will not be missed by the public because the work they do is pointless anyway

    Precisely. Climate Commissioner Flannery has proven that time and time again with his ludicrous predictions.

    The run of the mill, work-a-day man in the street votes with his feet, not with some esoteric vision of a ‘greener’ planet. The Greens and Labor have missed the boat of this zeitgeist. Their scare tactics have revealed a minuscule temperature variation in a hundred years and attempted to turn it into a catastrophic, life-threatening situation that, frankly, that no-one believes or cares about.

    Students of history know that in Medieval times the temperature was much higher. Greenland and Britain experienced increased productivity from the increased warming.

    Apparently any change in climate is now cause for concern. Like King Canute, the climate scaremongers reckon they can turn back the tides, the oceans and the carbon dioxide that we breathe out everyday. Like King Canute, they are misguided and foolish beyond belief.

    As Iain said:

    Firstly the staff in this department will not be missed by the public because the work they do is pointless anyway

  4. Craigy says:

    Yep, looks like this issue is going away Iain….


    Monckton and Jo Nova…..Bwahahahah…..Really??….I must have missed their peer reviewed research…..

  5. Craigy says:

    Hey noncarborundum, do you also believe, as Nova and Monckton do, that we are being controlled by Jewish bankers?

    Or that Obama wants to create a communist world government.?

  6. Brian says:

    Students of history know that in Medieval times the temperature was much higher. Greenland and Britain experienced increased productivity from the increased warming.

    Students of history (I am certainly one, I very much doubt that “GD” is too) also know that the Middle Ages produced no verifiable climate data. Most of our understanding of the ‘medieval warming’ comes from anecdotal evidence or supposition. It is hypocritical that the denialists who demand concerete proof of warming in the 21st century are so willing to accept flaky yarns from the 15th century as evidence of a ‘medieval warming’.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    As loathe as I am to buy into the never-ending global warming debate, I have to point out that we certainly can trace back the earth’s temperature and climate records. Usually by the extraction and analysis of ice cores. Scientists don’t rely on ‘anecdotal evidence’, only information gathered from more concrete sources. Or from rock & ice.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Ray there are myriad of sources used to reconstruct climate and Ice cores would be very low on the list, what they do provide however is a record of the atmospheric compositions from the tiny bubbles of air trapped inside the ice.
    As for the Medieval warm period its existence is well supported in a number of different ways, for instance the viability of Greenland Viking settlements was very much dependant upon the much warmer climate that allowed the farming of sheep which was fine until it became consistently colder, at which point the surviving settlers switched to hunting seals before admitting defeat and abandoning their colony altogether. The evidence is right there in the archaeology, likewise during the same period it was possible to grow grapes for wine in England, something that was subsequently impossible due to a cooler climate.

  9. Brian says:

    But paleontological and archeological climate data is not verifiable, particularly when looking at short periods. In other words, it can’t be cross-checked. It provides us with an informed guess at what climate was over a short period of time, but that is all. In any case, the most trusted assessments of the medieval warm period show that it was actually slightly colder than the first half of the 20th century. In other words, it wasn’t that warm at all.

    I’m normally loathe to engage in this debate too because it is full of pocketbook opinions and uninformed jokers all claiming expertise of some description. It’s a debate best left to those with some idea of the issue, which as far as I can tell is nobody posting here (myself included).

  10. Iain Hall says:

    It may surprise you but there is far less alignment of lots of climate proxies than you may think and when it comes to archaeology its actually as good as or better than many of the climate proxies that are almost deified by the faithful.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes Brian, it’s a bottomless pit of quicksand – count me out.

  12. Brian says:

    Yes, I should have kept my mouth shut and not roused the armchair experts!

  13. GD says:

    Fun Quotes:

    like the IPCC – set up on the assumption that manmade warming is significant and charged with both finding the evidence and selling the idea to the public.

  14. Richard Ryan says:

    We need the expert views of the Uni. drop out here, the one and only Andrew Bolt.

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Richard, do you have a degree?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: