TRAINING a donkey for The Everest would be easy compared to prepping the LNP for the big race. The big race isn’t the next election, by the way – a glittering but secondary event – but an older, weightier contest: the good fight to ensure truth wins out over lies. On the causes beloved of the left – most founded on fiction and cousins only once removed from psychological pathology – the Coalition has first given up and then feigned zeal for a tangential irrelevancy. Think Tony Abbott and free speech, Scott Morrison and religious liberty or Peter Dutton quibbling over the commas and font of the Voice. Liberals and Nationals are chaperones of decline. However disabused I am of their worth, last Tuesday I was still astonished to hear what Barnaby Joyce said to Paul Murray on energy and electricity. The homily was so shameless I thought it would be reported as news in its own right. Not so, as it happens. I guess there are few things more ex than a doubly former deputy. For your edification, I transcribed the quote from the video:
See, you wanted 2050 zero emissions, you wanted to be, you know, enlightened. Well, here comes the bill. The bill’s turning up. Every time you buy fuel, there’s your 2050 bill. Every time you buy groceries – because of the cost of fertiliser and the cost of transport – there’s your 2050 bill. Every time you pay for power – and it’s going to go through the roof, it is going to go absolutely through the roof – there’s your 2050 bill. And when you hear people talking about renewables, they are lying… It is not possible. What you will see – unless we decide to go nuclear; and they’re not courageous enough to go down that path – you are gong to suffer the sins of what’s happening now in the UK. It is coming to you. It is happening to you now. You are becoming poorer. You are paying more from your wallet. It is hurting. But you voted for it.
Correct me if I’m wrong but Australians had no choice but to vote for it in May’s federal election – thanks to… Barnaby Joyce. Beguiled by News Corp into a half-smart tactical accedence in October 2021, then Prime Minister Morrison was only a negative vote away from repudiation on net zero by 2050 when the Nationals held a party room vote on the subject. They meekly approved, convinced they could get away with it in their regional constituencies by all the “safeguards” on offer (read: pork). Joyce was known to be against the policy but he couldn’t win over his own colleagues and he didn’t resign on principle. What this meant for voters then – and does mean from now on – is that Australia is a one party state on emissions. By attempting to electorally neutralise climate, the LNP enabled a suicide cult and signed you up as a member. The day in early November 2021 that I saw reports of Morrison’s plan to spend $250 million on getting 1.7 million electric conveyances on the road by 2030 was the day I ceased being a Coalition voter.
Unfortunately, Opposition Leader Dutton’s way out of climate Jonestown – nuclear advocacy – is another mistake born of the foolish idea that ceding to your foe the moral premise and skirmishing for polemical leftovers is smart politics. It isn’t and never has been. Not because we shouldn’t have as many reactors as we need to power businesses, industry and households. A domestic electricity bill in a country with 1,692,700 tonnes of uranium (or 28 percent of the world’s reserves) should be a two-figure affair. No, the problem is this: to call for a revolutionary novelty that your own side of the aisle was too afraid to inaugurate for eight and a half years only entrenches the lie of ‘climate crisis’ still further and vindicates its promoters. Here’s Dutton last week: “If you don’t like coal and you don’t like gas, unless you believe clean hydrogen is about to be a reality, then what else firms up renewables?” The message here is that we’re all climateers now but only the LNP wants to have a “conversation” about going nuclear. Instead, the alternative Prime Minister should repudiate net zero and promote coal, gas and nuclear because they’ll keep the lights on, reduce the cost of living and make us richer and more powerful. The truth: give it a shot.
Apologies. I was referring to scientific authorities.
Would those be the scientific “authorities” who have a pretty much unbroken record of failed predictions, and rely on models known to run “hot”?
Well there’s a lot of them and I’m quite certain the insurers accept the science.
Climate “science” give insurance companies an excuse to raise premiums. That is the reason they accept “the science”.
Well I’m employed in that industry so I won’t take up that line. But you’d have to believe there is no competition if realised risk isn’t the pricing driver.