Tony Abbott 3
Foreign Affairs

Tony Abbott on Europe's migrants: "All countries that say 'anyone who gets here can stay here' are now in peril"

 

Last night the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, former Prime Minister of Australia, delivered the second annual Margaret Thatcher Lecture at a Gala Dinner and Banquet to celebrate The Lady’s 90th Birthday at the Guildhall, London. It was organised by the Margaret Thatcher Centre, and half of her Cabinet was present (along with half the present one). The transcript is below.

It is not a left-wing speech: indeed, Tony Abbott was robust in his Christian belief that the imperative to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” ought not to mean that “anyone who gets here can stay here”.  With millions living in poverty and peril throughout the Middle East, there is no logical end to the waves of refugees who would prefer to live in the West. And the moment they reach safety, they all become economic migrants by definition “because they had already escaped persecution when they decided to move again”.

The more you preach peace and security to those in regions of poverty and conflict, the more will risk their lives to reach the shores of prosperity, and so the more will drown in the process. What moral clarity, political maturity and complete common sense:

I am both honoured and humbled to give this lecture in memory of Margaret Thatcher, who revived the “great” in Great Britain and whose leadership was the gold standard to which so many others have subsequently aspired.

She was, indeed, the longest serving British prime minister since Walpole; but she was so much more than just an election-winner.

A “mind-the-shop” conservative she most emphatically was not. She didn’t just respond to events; she shaped them; and, in so doing, she changed Britain and she changed the world.

It’s true that the world she helped to create: of rising prosperity almost everywhere driven by freer markets; of declining international tension under benign American leadership; and of increasing democratic pluralism inspired by the collapse of communism, now seems a fading dream – but we, her admirers, are here to improve things not to lament them.

Obviously, the defeat of Stephen Harper’s government in Canada is a bitter blow – but he changed his country for the better and he proved that conservatives can win elections not once but three times running.

In this audience, some may be disappointed that my own prime ministership in Australia lasted two years after removing Labor from office – but as Lord Melbourne is supposed to have said “to be the Queen’s first minister (even) for three months is a damn fine thing”.

Set against the decisive victory of the Cameron government here – helped by Lynton Crosby – and John Key’s third straight win in New Zealand, recent developments are hardly the eclipse of conservatism, more the ebb and flow of politics.

The lesson of Margaret Thatcher’s life is that strong leaders can make a difference; that what’s impossible today may be almost inevitable tomorrow; and that optimism is always justified while good people are prepared to “have a go”, as we say in Australia.

I was a student, at Oxford, at the time of the Falklands War. I recall the shock Britons felt at the Argentine invasion and their visceral determination to reverse it. I remember thrilling to Enoch Powell’s parliamentary admonition that, by her response, the “iron lady’s” true mettle would soon be judged – because I sensed that she would not let us down.

And I now know, courtesy of Charles Moore’s splendid biography, how the response could so easily have been hand-wringing and impotent appeals to the United Nations had Mrs T not seized upon a military plan brought to her by a relatively junior officer.

That was the essence of her greatness: on the things that mattered, she refused to believe that nothing could be done and would work relentlessly to set things right.

She believed in Britain – in its history, in its institutions and in its values – and, by acting on her beliefs, she helped others to believe as well.

She refused to accept the post-war consensus that Britain’s great days were over. She instinctively rejected government-knows-best approaches to running the economy and to managing society. And she was convinced that the world was more likely to prosper if Britain was a serious country with a global role rather than just another province in the united states of Europe.

She inherited a Britain that was in rapid economic and strategic decline; and left it the most dynamic economy in Europe, and the United States’ principal global ally.

On Soviet missiles aimed at Europe, she didn’t see nuclear annihilation to be averted at all cost but an evil empire to be shown that aggression would not pay. On the Falklands, she did not see an Argentine grievance to be negotiated but a monstrous violation of British sovereignty. On council houses, she did not see a government service but a neglected asset that would better be looked after by owner-occupiers taking pride in their own homes.

She didn’t see unions protecting workers so much as bullying their employers into bankruptcy. She didn’t see state-owned enterprises as “national champions” so much as an endless burden on taxpayers.

There was a moral dimension and an intellectual clarity that made her a hero to liberal-conservatives everywhere, rather than simply another successful politician. To Thatcher, the prime ministership wasn’t about holding office; it was about getting things done. It wasn’t about achieving consensus; it was about doing the right thing.

It’s usually presumptuous to invoke the glorious dead in support of current policy – but your invitation to give this lecture suggests there was at least a hint of Thatcher about my government in Australia: stopping the flow of illegal immigrant boats because a country that can’t control its borders starts to lose control of itself; the repeal of the carbon tax that was socialism masquerading as environmentalism; budget repair so that within five years, the Australian government will once again be living within its means; the free trade agreements with our biggest markets to increase competition and make it fairer; the royal commission into corrupt union bosses; an even stronger alliance with the United States and a readiness to call out Russia for the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

But, like all driven people, Margaret Thatcher was more interested in the next problem than the last one. Today, we best honour her life and legacy by bringing the same tough-mindedness to the problems of our time that she brought to the problems of hers.

Parliamentary democracy and the rule of law; “freedom broadening slowly down from precedent to precedent”; the notion of civilisation as a trust between the living, the dead and the yet-to-be-born: this was the heritage she’d been elected to preserve and strengthen.

Her focus – were she still with us – would be the things of most consequence: managing the nation-changing, culture-shifting population transfers now impacting on Europe; winning the fight in Syria and Iraq which is helping to drive them; and asserting Western civilisation against the challenge of militant Islam.

Naturally, the safety and prosperity that exists almost uniquely in Western countries is an irresistible magnet. These blessings are not the accidents of history but the product of values painstakingly discerned and refined, and of practices carefully cultivated and reinforced over hundreds of years.

Implicitly or explicitly, the imperative to “love your neighbour as you love yourself” is at the heart of every Western polity. It expresses itself in laws protecting workers, in strong social security safety nets, and in the readiness to take in refugees. It’s what makes us decent and humane countries as well as prosperous ones, but – right now – this wholesome instinct is leading much of Europe into catastrophic error.

All countries that say “anyone who gets here can stay here” are now in peril, given the scale of the population movements that are starting to be seen. There are tens – perhaps hundreds – of millions of people, living in poverty and danger who might readily seek to enter a Western country if the opportunity is there.

Who could blame them? Yet no country or continent can open its borders to all comers without fundamentally weakening itself. This is the risk that the countries of Europe now run through misguided altruism.

On a somewhat smaller scale, Australia has faced the same predicament and overcome it. The first wave of illegal arrivals to Australia peaked at 4000 people a year, back in 2001, before the Howard government first stopped the boats: by processing illegal arrivals offshore; by denying them permanent residency; and in a handful of cases, by turning illegal immigrant boats back to Indonesia.

The second wave of illegal boat people was running at the rate of 50,000 a year – and rising fast – by July 2013, when the Rudd government belatedly reversed its opposition to offshore processing; and then my government started turning boats around, even using orange lifeboats when people smugglers deliberately scuttled their vessels.

It’s now 18 months since a single illegal boat has made it to Australia. The immigration detention centres have-all-but-closed; budget costs peaking at $4 billion a year have ended; and – best of all – there are no more deaths at sea. That’s why stopping the boats and restoring border security is the only truly compassionate thing to do.

Because Australia once more has secure borders and because it’s the Australian government rather than people smugglers that now controls our refugee intake, there was massive public support for my government’s decision, just last month, to resettle 12,000 members of persecuted minorities from the Syrian conflict – per capita, the biggest resettlement contribution that any country has made.

Now, while prime minister, I was loath to give public advice to other countries whose situations are different; but because people smuggling is a global problem, and because Australia is the only country that has successfully defeated it – twice, under conservative governments – our experience should be studied.

In Europe, as with Australia, people claiming asylum – invariably – have crossed not one border but many; and are no longer fleeing in fear but are contracting in hope with people smugglers. However desperate, almost by definition, they are economic migrants because they had already escaped persecution when they decided to move again.

Our moral obligation is to receive people fleeing for their lives. It’s not to provide permanent residency to anyone and everyone who would rather live in a prosperous Western country than their own. That’s why the countries of Europe, while absolutely obliged to support the countries neighbouring the Syrian conflict, are more-than-entitled to control their borders against those who are no longer fleeing a conflict but seeking a better life.

This means turning boats around, for people coming by sea. It means denying entry at the border, for people with no legal right to come; and it means establishing camps for people who currently have nowhere to go.

It will require some force; it will require massive logistics and expense; it will gnaw at our consciences – yet it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever.

We are rediscovering the hard way that justice tempered by mercy is an exacting ideal as too much mercy for some necessarily undermines justice for all.

The Australian experience proves that the only way to dissuade people seeking to come from afar is not to let them in. Working with other countries and with international agencies is important but the only way to stop people trying to gain entry is firmly and unambiguously to deny it – out of the moral duty to protect one’s own people and to stamp out people smuggling.

So it’s good that Europe has now deployed naval vessels to intercept people smuggling boats in the Mediterranean – but as long as they’re taking passengers aboard rather than turning boats around and sending them back, it’s a facilitator rather than a deterrent.

Some years ago, before the Syrian conflict escalated; extended into Iraq; and metastasised into the ungoverned spaces of Libya, Yemen, Nigeria and Afghanistan, I got into trouble for urging caution in a fight that was “baddies versus baddies”.

Now that a quarter of a million people have been killed, seven million people are internally displaced and four million people are destitute outside its borders and considering coming to Europe, the Syrian conflict is too big and too ramifying not to be everyone’s problem.

The rise of Daesh has turned it into a fight between bad and worse: the Assad regime whose brutality is the Islamic State death cult’s chief local recruiter; and a caliphate seeking to export its apocalyptic version of Islam right around the world.

Given the sheer scale of the horror unfolding in Syria, Iraq and everywhere Daesh gains a foothold – the beheadings, the crucifixions, the mass executions, the hurling off high buildings, the sexual slavery – and its perverse allure across the globe, it’s striking how little has been done to address this problem at its source.

The United States and its allies, including Britain and Australia, have launched airstrikes against this would-be terrorist empire. We’ve helped to contain its advance in Iraq but we haven’t defeated it because it can’t be defeated without more effective local forces on the ground.

Everyone should recoil from an escalating air campaign, perhaps with Western special forces on the ground as well as trainers, in a part of the world that’s such a witches’ brew of danger and complexity and where nothing ever has a happy ending – yet as Margaret Thatcher so clearly understood over the Falklands: those that won’t use decisive force, where needed, end up being dictated to by those who will.

Of course, no American or British or Australian parent should face bereavement in a fight far away – but what is the alternative? Leaving anywhere, even Syria, to the collective determination of Russia, Iran and Daesh should be too horrible to contemplate.

That’s why it’s a pity that the recent UN leaders’ week summit was solely about countering violent extremism – which everyone agrees involves working with Muslim communities – and not about dealing much more effectively with the caliphate that’s now the most potent inspiration for it.

Of course, the challenge of militant Islam needs more than a military solution – but people do have to be protected against potential genocide. Of course, you can’t arrest your way to social harmony – but home grown terrorism does need a strong security response. Of course, the overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t support terrorism – but many still think that death should be the punishment for apostasy. Of course, the true meaning of Islam is a matter for Muslims to resolve – but everyone has a duty to support and protect those decent, humane Muslims who accept cultural diversity.

Looking around the globe, it’s many years since problems have seemed so daunting and solutions less clear. Yet the worse the times and the higher the stakes, the less matters can be left in the too hard basket. More than ever, Western countries need the self-confidence to stand up for ourselves and for the universal decencies of mankind lest the world rapidly become a much worse place.

Like the countries of Europe, Australia struggles to come to terms with the local terrorism that Daesh has inspired. Like you, we are trying to contain Daesh from the air while waiting for a Syrian strategy to emerge. But unlike you, we have at least solved one of the wicked problems now afflicting Europe: we have secured our own borders.

All of us, then, must ponder Margaret Thatcher’s example while we wait to see who might claim her mantle. Good values, clear analysis, and a do-able plan, in our day as in hers, are the essentials of the strong leadership the world needs.

It seems that by appropriating Scripture to the cause of limiting immigration, Tony Abbott has “appalled, ashamed and offended” a number of Roman Catholic priests. Funny, isn’t it, how religious leaders presume to have a political monopoly on compassion and biblical exegesis.

  • IanCad

    A pretty good speech as can be expected, from Mr Abbott.

    But still, the beating about the bush continues. Solutions – none. Resolution – maybe, but why dosen’t he man up and declare that the greatest bulwark against ISIS is Syria. Yes!! That means Assad. He who the dopey Hammond says we must not talk with; and if after great bloodshed, prevails, must only be allowed to stay in power for three months!

    You couldn’t make this up.

    The depopulation of the Middle East is the direct result of our arrogance and stupidity.

    From Iraq, to our promotion of the “Arab Spring,” Western leadership has proved ill-suited to referee the brutalities and realities of the Arab world.

    Vlad has stolen a march on us.

    • Anton

      I agree with your views of the Middle (actually, Near) East, but you can hardly blame a man for what he doesn’t say, unless the subject of the talk was the Arab region – which it wasn’t.

  • Jon Sorensen

    Tony Abbott is a conservative Catholic who surrounded himself with conservative Christians when he was in power. His last budget was pretty much the worst in the history of Australia. Funny how in that theage video he bragged about his disastrous financial plan. Such nonsense.

    He funneled couple hundred million dollars to Christian scripture classes without oversight after supreme court ruling went against him while trying to implement “fiscal conservatism”. And in the video he talks about corrupt union bosses. Pot kettle black?

    He pretty much stop the illegal immigration to Australia unlike Labour party’s no-policy nonsense. Australia had several terrorist attacks under his watch. Tony supported Charlie Hebdo freedom of speech rally, but a week later wanted to implement more restriction of speech in Australia. Tony Abbott was/is very divisive and has offended a lot of special interest groups over the years. History might judge him harshly.

    • Malcolm Smith

      His last budget was pretty much the worst in the history of Australia. You don’t sound like you’ve lived 66 years in Australia, as I have. I can remember some pretty horrendous budgets in the past – particularly the ones of the Whitlam Labor Government, but the Labor Government which immediately preceded Abbott’s was notorious for ever-increasing deficits and debts. Indeed, Abbott’s last budget was very good. It’s main problem was that the Senate would not allow him to make the cuts necessary to reduce the debt and the deficit, but the blame lies with them, not with Abbott.
      And exactly what have you got against his surrounding himself with conservative Christians, and financing Christian scripture classes?

      • Jon Sorensen

        You can look for yourself. See what the “fiscal conservatism” Fiscal balance outcome was expected. It’s a disaster.
        http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/fbo/html/index.htm
        He was proud cutting carbon tax worth of Billions as socialism, but then he had to borrow that money – that’s his capitalism.

        “the Labor Government which immediately preceded Abbott’s was notorious for ever-increasing deficits and debts”
        That is true, but they had to deal with global financial crisis and managed to keep Australian economic growth as top three in the world. Labor had their missteps too like mining tax and focusing on infighting rather than economy. Rudd was a disaster.

        “It’s main problem was that the Senate would not allow him to make the cuts necessary to reduce the debt and the deficit, but the blame lies with them, not with Abbott.”
        Nonsense. Abbott cut government *income* like carbon tax and then had to borrow money. If you Senate is the excuse then you need to give that excuse to Labor and Gillard’s hung parliament problem. Abbott said he’ll get the job done. He didn’t and now you blame Senate. LOL.

        “And exactly what have you got against his surrounding himself with conservative Christians”
        He talked about multi-culturalism and inclusiveness, while only surrounding himself with conservative Christians. I guess that is the Christian way…

        “financing Christian scripture classes?”
        They lost the Supreme Court case twice and still promised to ignore the law. They were proud not to follow the law and give money without oversight to Christians. Peter Garrett is their hero surely. You probably don’t understand the issue…

        • Ayn Randall

          That wasn’t even his last budget. Do you even ‘Straya m8?

        • Ayn Randall

          That wasn’t even the latest budget. *This* is the new budget:
          http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/index.htm
          Do you even ‘Straya mate?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Abbott will not take responsibility of 2015-16 budget. It will be Turnbull’s baby. I linked to outcome document from 21 September 2015. That is Abbott’s and I-can’t-do-GST Hockey’s handy work

        • sarky

          Peter Garret. Heard he’s reforming ‘midnight oil’…….Every cloud.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Peter Garrett was given a Labor safe seat so he got a free pass to Parliament. Liberal Party (which is actually a conservative party) hated him because his antics in Olympic games taunting Liberal leader Howard. He was as Minister for the Environment and did ok job I guess. He was made a scapegoat by his Prime Minister but later reinstated. He said couple of stupid/questionable things (don’t we all), but I think history will be fairly kind to him. People seem to either love or hate him, which is usually a sign of success.

            Not sure about his future music career…

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Regarding your pronouncement on the budget, how is anyone to believe you, concerning that or anything?

      Every contribution of yours is so hate-filled that one automatically resorts to the Argumentum ad Astorem. For those who have not encountered this in their philosphy course, it relates to the famous riposte of Mandy Rice-Davies, when it was was pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, and she replied, “Well he would, wouldn’t he?

      • Jon Sorensen

        Nice to meet you too. I’m sorry you are only used to an echo chamber. The good thing is that you don’t have to believe me and you can ignore me.

        So how about you verify the facts:
        If you are not familiar with Abbott’s politics, he got to power on economic platform by promising to balance the budget. (you can verify this easily). You can also go the link I posted to see that depending on year he missed that ~$40B-$50B or 10% of Budget. (Final Budget Outcome 2014‑15 page 2). You can’t claim that he was somehow surprised what Senate would do. Australian Senate is always weird. (Have a look what Shooters Party achieved in Gillard’s years to verify).
        So how about you give an assessment on Abbott’s economic performance…

        • IrishNeanderthal

          I’m intrigued by your reference to an “echo chamber”, though I can’t be quite sure what you mean by it.

          You may well be better informed than myself over Australian budgets. However, that does nothing to allay my suspicions. We have had many complaints recently about our own Mr Osborne cutting tax credits, on our media mostly from our Labour Party. In that case, what would one expect from a pig but a grunt? However, yesterday I encountered someone without socialist leanings who not only confirmed my misgivings about what Mr Osborne is doing, but gave me much more solid grounds for them.

          Moreover, concerning the type of people who are now marching into Europe, I am something of a cultural omnivore, and probably much better versed on the likely impact of these large numbers than most contributors to this column. And that was the main topic of this article and Mr Abbott’s speech.

          And even if on economic matters he’s a Klutz Kabīr (how’s that for a mixture of Yiddish and Arabic?), that does not make him wrong on the present matter.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I never get people who insult me and ask me without fact checking “how is anyone to believe you” even when I put a link to the info. Then when I provide even more data and sources they still don’t want to fact check. If you are a “cultural omnivore” you might consider more tactful approach when first encountering new people and perhaps do the fact checking too.

            Abbott did stop fairly successfully illegal immigration as he promised. His offshore immigration processing politics didn’t go smoothly, but he got the job done. So you have to give him credit for that. He was less successful dealing with immigrants already in Australia. Government did stop some illegal funding sent by Australians to ISIS and arrested a lot of terrorists. So overall you have to agree that he implemented his immigration policy (like it or not) well as he promised and is worth listening.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            On reflection, all too often, tact is not my strong point.

          • Klutz Kabīr? Yes, quite impressive.

    • The Explorer

      I read a statistic that Muslim immigrants to Denmark are around 5% of the population, but consume 40% of the welfare budget. Do you know if this is accurate? If it is, then it ties in with the sort of financial point that Tony Abbott is making.

      • David

        I remember reading that some time ago. It was, as I recall, on a Danish website arguing for stricter immigration controls, but I can’t be absolutely certain.
        The points made were not surprising. As elsewhere many of these immigrants are badly educated and fail to secure jobs, hence their welfare dependency. To make a general point, even for the educated and skilled, to move to another country that speaks a different language would be an enormous challenge. So for those uneducated, even in their own language, it must be almost impossible. The only hope is for the second generation to succeed. But the best plan is to drastically reduce immigration.
        Denmark is rapidly moving away from the open doors, multiculti stance, to an altogether more realistic and responsible position under its new right of centre government.

      • Jon Sorensen

        Not sure about current number. 40% by 5% figure is from 1998
        http://ftp.iza.org/dp6220.pdf

        Stats from Finland seems to show that a lot of refugees will never find a job. Only 10% of refugees/immigrants from Afghanistan/Iraq/Myanmar/Somalia/Kongo are working. While immigrants from Vietnam/Turkey/Russia about 35% have jobs. Immigrants also seem get in trouble with the law more often than indigenous populations. So refugees/immigrants do need more government services as expected. In Finland Fake-Right wing ex-Prime Minister Stubb should have listen to Abbott as the Populist party leader Soini become popular with anti-immigration policies. Now Foreign Minister Soini is committing political suicide with all the refugees coming in. He should have followed Abbott’s policies if he wanted keep his credibility.

  • A damn shame any British politician giving that speech would be castigated by each of our main parties.

  • Anton

    Australia’s new PM is the Member for Goldman Sachs.

  • David

    What a splendid speech from a thoroughly Christian and deep thinking man.
    The vast majority of the political leaders of the west are proving to be very inadequate in the face of the strategic problems of historic proportions that now face us.
    It seems that clear headed thinking, coupled with a defence of Christian derived culture, has departed from the historic west and is now to be found elsewhere, including the easternmost parts of the EU, Australia, and most surprisingly Moscow.
    We desperately need clear, level headed, principled and long term, strategic thinkers to step forward.

  • Good values, clear analysis, and a do-able plan are the essentials of the strong leadership the world needs

    World leaders’ good values and clear analysis identified Europeans as a problem requiring attention. The leaders’ do-able plan is to wreck European countries by flooding them with the Third World, and Europe’s ruling classes have been putting the plan into effect for nigh on 70 years.

    What is beneficial for world leaders and Europe’s ruling classes could not be more destructive for the white race. With due respect to Mr Abbott, Europe needs the world’s strong leadership like it needs a hole in the head. Europe needs its own strong leadership, which will only be provided by nationalist governments. I believe the people of Europe are waking up to that.

    • Anton

      What God hath divided at Babel, let no man join together.

      • David

        Yes, indeed.
        Encouraging mass immigration from utterly alien cultures is immoral because it creates social strife and confusion. This is the opposite of the “diversity is good” mantra, which lacks substantive supporting evidence.

  • Manfarang

    “and left it the most dynamic economy in Europe, ”
    Left it with serious structual problems.

  • dannybhoy

    The man speaks absolute Christian commonsense, and for this reason he will not be listened to. Our ‘social worker interventionist’ approach dictates that no one should have to accept the consequences of a failed nation.
    Rather, those free prosperous nations whose systems work should be filled with a sense of guilt and shame and make atonement by doing whatever may be necessary to make these folk feel at home.

  • dannybhoy

    The man speaks absolute commonsense, and for that reason he will be branded heartless, racist and xenophobic.

    • CliveM

      Dannybhoy

      HJ makes a good point about the difference in the two situations.

      • dannybhoy

        “Reading the talk, it might have been better if Abbot discussed more clearly the need for national leaders to balance the common good of those they were responsible for with the Christian duty to do all that is possible to render assistance to refugees.”

        First off, the governments of Europe including our own government, are not Christian governments. They represent multicultural, inclusive. equal societies with equality for all. They are mostly democratic secular humanist governments.
        But even if one were a Christian State, why would it be obliged to take an unknown number of refugees into its midst?
        Why is it less compassionate to set up more well run, secure refugee camps nearer to their home countries? I can think of a number of reasons why that’s a more sensible approach. But if Jack wants to show solidarity with the AofC and join him in offering his home as a refuge, who am I to tell him no?

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/opinion/germanys-real-refugee-crisis.html?_r=0

        http://www.christiantoday.com/article/austrians.mostly.women.rushing.to.gun.stores.to.buy.weapons.amid.fears.of.muslim.invasion/68875.htm

        • It’s kinder to keep them in their own lands and together with their own people and language and a climate they are used to.

          • magnolia

            Which is what if the great “international community” who are supposed to have all sorts of wonderful ideals, and put things right, according to the BBC and other media , were doing something called

            listening

            to the people concerned they would already know, and factor in.

            Instead they feed us nonsense that having the latest consumer gadgets is so vastly important that people are leaving their relations,nations, friends, familiar loved scenery, and cultures, flocking over for the chance to own i-pads, TVs and all the other stuff we are supposed to (over)value so much.

            Fed up with the warmongers. They and mostly they only have caused misery. It is interesting to watch John Simpson being soundly floored in debate by Putin here. I particularly like the “have you no commonsense at all?” question and the pointing out that Russia spends one tenth of the military budget of the US:

            We are being spun to. But I think Putin had a fair idea of his expected direction before he began from previous encounters, so he stood no debating chance whatever.

          • Putin’s got a point and I think Russia is deeply disappointed in NATO and the action of the west in regard to the exiting of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. For the US to simply just withdraw and walk away because it doesn’t suit them anymore instead of getting round the table with all signatories to discuss any changes undermines all the wonderful hard work Thatcher,Gorbachev and Reagan did,and it doesn’t reflect well for the US or us for that matter when other international agreements are negotiated.

          • Ivan M

            The fact is the West has dealt in a totally dishonest way with the Russians. This in turn has made it difficult for honourable men to call out the Russians when they are in fault. Someone like Richard Nixon would have treated them as a worthy enemy turned friend.

  • The Inspector General

    Interesting. Having made the speech, as far as the Inspector is aware, there have been no screamed demands from outraged socialists for the man to be returned to Australia, in chains, and on board a convict ship, having been convicted in absentia of crimes against (unpleasant) humanity. That really is rather good, as some of our own politicians may now take courage and gingerly mount the platform to speak of the fears of this county’s population. To wit, that there must be no encouragement for the populations of failing countries to decamp en-mass and parasite off civilised nations.

    • Anton

      Yes, can we have him as PM if Australia no longer wants him?

      • Ivan M

        Abbott is a clown. If he is that good how come they threw him out in about a year?

        • IanCad

          Ivan,
          You are displaying a touching faith in the good judgment of the average voter.

          • Anton

            He wasn’t defeated in an election!

          • IanCad

            Of course! I should have realized that.

          • Ivan M

            IanCad, the first time I heard of Abbott was when the search for the missing MH370 was in full swing. He is a good man, with sympathy for those who suffer. But what good is a PM who cannot last a year.

        • Anton

          Find out who “they” is.

          • Ivan M

            Money interests? I already sensed that but his job is to be vicious like Keating. The man is too earnest, too honest, too soft.

  • “It seems that by appropriating Scripture to the cause of limiting immigration, Tony Abbott has “appalled, ashamed and offended” a number of Roman Catholic priests.”

    According to the linked article two Catholic priests have expressed concern. One, a retired bishop and the other a Human Rights lawyer and Jesuit priest. Hardly leading lights in Australia’s Catholic Church. The latter made a valid point too.

    “He said that, while Australia could return asylum seekers to Indonesia because they were not fleeing direct persecution, no European leader could return asylum seekers to Libya with a straight face. “Mr Abbott is confusing the situation regarding Australia,” he said.”

    Reading the talk, it might have been better if Abbot discussed more clearly the need for national leaders to balance the common good of those they were responsible for with the Christian duty to do all that is possible to render assistance to refugees.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “Hardly leading lights in Australia’s Catholic Church”
      The leading light would be George Pell. LOL

      “no European leader could return asylum seekers to Libya with a straight face”
      Good point. Many Australian commentators have said that too.

      • Malcolm Smith

        There aren’t too many Libyans actually in the refugee stream. What there are are people who have come to Libya as a staging ground for Europe. I don’t think it so unreasonable to suggest that the Nigerians (say) who decided that the dangers of Libya were worth the attempt on Europe might consider the dangers not insurmountable on their way home.

    • Sam

      Dude

      You read Johnny’s post below and he is correct in so much as there will be a big European backlash against this from normal, non racist people and it will not just be at those refugees but the other minorities established here, including Jews (who will be caught as in France between the far right and the increasing militants of Islam).

      Europe is in austerity mode (thanks to Mrs Merkel) and many states are already in crisis with high unemployment , budget cuts where at the worst extreme of what Nigel Farage has called “Europe’s Brezhnev doctrine” as governments have been overthrown (Greece) or being prevented despite being elected from taking office (Portugal) . This is all in the cause of the European project, but the result is that European states are being turned into satellites of Berlin/Brussels and liberal democracy is being overthrown by stealth. Such things slowly erode the rule of law and people’s willingness to use elections as a vent for their frustrations.

      Europe as a whole cannot absorb (again thanks to Mrs Merkel) the many millions of mostly poor , Islamic refugees who will want to be homed, fed and watered , who will find austerity and hostility , not the metaphorical Dick Whittington streets of free healthcare, benefit or employment gold they think they are going to getting.

      When combined with existing Islamic populations and seeing that they are at the bottom of the pile , they too will react against their situation, probably with rioting and violence and a call for Islamic sharia, believing Europe is too weak and not as ruthless as middle east dictators. Except at that point Europe will see a revolution with far right populism : the Christian religion will be that first victim as the far right take this up in a cultural nationalist way as a way to rally people against the other (and it will be all minorities who get sucked into this vortex). I would suggest France is the canary in the mine here.

      On the other thread we’ve been chatting about General Franco. Read Johnny R’s post below and substitute the white race with Catholic or Anglican or Protestant, e.g.

      “is beneficial for world leaders and Europe’s ruling classes could not be more destructive for the Catholic church”

      You will find a lot of General Franco’s popping up over Europe by the 2020s or 2030s in the name of religion as a front for nationalism and it will not be nice to watch . I don’t like this , but I see a clash or low level civil wars to be almost impossible to stop. It won’t be now , but 10 to 40 years time if nothing changes.

  • chiefofsinners

    One suspects that Jeremy Corbyn will find Tony Abbott a tad less attractive than Diane Abbott. Apparently she flung her borders wide open…

  • len

    I believe Tony Abbot is quite right with his comments regarding migrants.The ‘good Samaritan’ dealt with the needs of the injured man at the point that they occurred He didn’t take him home with home with him and offer to set him and the rest of his family up for the rest of their lives.
    Muslims have a desire indeed are commanded to make their religion dominant in the areas that they claim as’ theirs’ merely by residing there.
    Some Christians have no discernment at all regarding how an aggressive religion such as Islam will affect them and their freedom to practice Christianity as regards free speech and spreading the Gospel.
    Atheists too are seemingly unaware of the impact of how Islam will change their ‘brave new liberal society’ indeed already is changing secular society.
    So showing compassion for those in need is definitely ‘a good thing ‘ but discenment is needed to the potential threats.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “Muslims have a desire…”
      Nice generalization
      “Atheists too are seemingly unaware…”
      Nice generalization
      “Some Christians have..”
      Nice generalization.. oh wait. it’s not.

      Your world view is very black and white. Go talk to some non-Christians.

      • len

        Sorry have i broken your PC code? LOL.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Nothing to do with PC. Read it again.

  • Albert

    My understanding is that the problem is not just that we are letting the wrong people in, we are keeping the right people out – namely, persecuted Christians. Someone told me that there’s a reason why the Government will not call what is being done to Christians and other minorities “genocide” – it’s because, if they do, they will legally have to do something about it.

    • len

      I think both are correct ‘letting in’ and ‘keeping out’….Secularists(generally) seem to prefer Muslims to Christians?

      • Albert

        It does appear that way, Len. Though quite why escapes me. Perhaps some helpful secularist will explain.

        • sarky

          Don’t know any secularists who even make the distinction. I think it’s the usual christian ‘persecution complex’ kicking in on your part.

          • The Explorer

            Is it just that they don’t make the distinction, or that they CAN’T make the distinction? Most secularists I’ve talked to (and I’ve talked to many) think both religions tell you to love your neighbour and hate gays, but would be hard put to tell you much beyond that; or in what way the religions differ. (You are an exception to the general rule.)

          • sarky

            But isn’t that your fault?
            I would suggest that the biggest thing putting people off christianity is the treatment of gay people. People hear about it, then look no further. They can see the blatant hypocrisy – ‘love thy neighbour’, unless they are gay.
            Many people will think that becoming a christian means they have to stop being accepting and become bigoted. When people think that secularism treats people better than the religious, then you get the diminishing of the church we see today.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, those secularists looking for reasons not to believe would be delighted by an opt-out clause. But homosexuality is not nearly such a big deal in Christianity as some secularists would like it to be. In the Calvinist TULIP, for example, it doesn’t even rate a mention. In ‘1 Corinthians’ 6 Paul lumps homosexuals in with fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. He certainly doesn’t hold them up for special condemnation.

            Secularists ought to draw a distinction between the Christian and the Islamic view of homosexuals. I think I’ve mentioned on a previous thread that when I was looking at Pat Condell on You Tube I came across a spin-off video of some sheikh giving his views on the correct treatment of homosexuals. It was, he said, an appalling subject even to be discussing, and the existence of such people a deep shame to his race. He favoured beheading, putting the corpse in a coffin, and burning the coffin. He conceded that others took a more lenient view and simply favoured throwing homosexuals off cliffs and hurling rocks after them.

            Even when Islam was at its most tolerant towards gays, and before it started imposing death sentences, it still favoured flogging and exile.So why aren’t secularists put off Islam if they don’t like the mistreatment of gays?

          • sarky

            They are put off radical islam. However, they are against the demonisation of 1.57 billion people because of the actions of the few.

          • The Explorer

            Christians can’t find authorisation in the New Testament for putting homosexuals to death. Muslims can in the Hadiths. That’s the difference.

          • sarky

            May be not to put them to death, but certainty to make them outcasts and to feel ashamed of who they truly are.

          • Albert

            That is plainly contrary to Catholic teaching at any rate.

          • sarky
          • Albert

            He’s not a good authority. What he means is that homosexual priests should be able to have sex. But they’ve taken a vow of celibacy, and couldn’t have sex even if they were straight. Thus this is not good evidence for anything except for the fact that this particular person has sadly become bitter or confused about decisions he has made for himself.

          • The Explorer

            He’s celibate because he’s never touched a woman. Says much for his powers of equivocation, but not much for his powers of reasoning.

          • The Explorer

            Anyway, we’ve strayed way away from the point I was making: which was that most secularists I’ve encountered seem to think Christianity and Islam say the same thing because they don’t actually know the central doctrines of either and go for the lowest perceived common denominator.

          • dannybhoy

            Gasp!!
            Could anything be more terrible than being told that your homosexual orientation is different to the heterosexual majority, and that Christianity and Judaism condemn the lifestyle as being contrary to God’s stated order?!
            I have yet to hear of a case of murder, whereby a gay person was battered to death by a swivel eyed Evangelical, wielding a bloodstained Bible…
            Most Christians I know don’t hate Gays, don’t wish to give them compulsory flying lessons from tall buildings, or throw large numbers of heavy stones at them…
            Get a grip Sarky, for Heaven’s sake.

          • sarky

            Ignorance can be just as harmful as sticks and stones…

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Hello Sarky! (Your appearance is always a guarantee of fun.)

            Interesting how history evolves.

            Alan Turing got done under the Labouchère Amendment to British law, which for the first time made all male homosexual activity a crime. But Labouchère could hardly be called a Christian. From Wikipedia:

            [he] returned to Parliament in the 1880 election, when he and Charles Bradlaugh, both Liberals, won the two seats for Northampton. (Bradlaugh’s then-controversial atheism led Labouchère, a closet agnostic, to refer sardonically to himself as “the Christian member for Northampton”.)

            Did you watch the series on “Sex and the Church” by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford (and quite gay, one is led to understand.) According to him, it was CoE clerics who were major players in overturning those laws.

          • sarky

            Thats all very well, but whenever you see christens in the media its always anti gay (and to be fair alot of commentators on here hold the same views) so you can’t really blame the public for calling the church out on its hypocrisy.

          • Anton

            Christians are simply being reactive to changes in the law about homosexuality. We are not drivers of this debate; the militant gay lobby (a minority of a minority) is.

            You presume it is hypocrisy because you know that Jesus Christ whom Christians follows said “Love thy neighbour” and you think that the Christians attitude to gays is unloving. But Jesus said that what they did was wrong. Will you call him a hypocrite too? (I’m not going to take offence on his part but I’d like to know.) The point is that Christians are told to preach the gospel to sinners – which means everybody as we all do different sins – and advocate laws that uphold righteousness. Where’s the hypocrisy?

          • sarky

            Yes I would call jesus a hypocrite. Because, what he should have said is ‘love thy neighbour, except……’
            The love he talks of is conditional love, it has all sorts of caveats attached. I love my children unconditionaly, I will love them no matter what they do and don’t condem them for their choices. How can I as a mere mortal offer love without condemnation when god can’t?
            I also really really hate the Christian get out clause of ‘love the sinner not the sin’. It may work in christian circles, but the rest of us can see straight through it. It allows you to condem others but at the same time maintain a facade of being loving.

          • CliveM

            ” I will love them no matter what they do and don’t condem them for their choices. ” really? Think about it, we all know as a statement that’s not true. How about a little bit of child abuse? Or rape? Or ……………….
            I’m sure they are no more likely to do any of these things them mine, but if mine did I would condemn them.

            “I also really really hate the Christian get out clause of ‘love the sinner not the sin’. It may work in christian circles, but the rest of us can see straight through it”.
            This is really confused thinking (also more then a little bit self righteous), so let’s ask a question. Your eldest is found to be bullying a kid at school, let just suppose he is calling them a ‘gay b£&@”!d”. Would you not condemn the act (the sin) while still loving him?

            Don’t you see, your responses actually make you the hypocrite?

          • sarky

            And don’t you see that the fact you have to resort to extreme examples also proves my point.
            As for your last example, I wouldn’t condem the action. I would sit them down and find out why, then point out how hurtful their actions are. Condemnation doesn’t work because it doesn’t address the underlying issues.

          • CliveM

            Real examples Sarky. As a matter of interest where did Jesus say you should hate the sinner?

            The point still stands, human love isn’t unconditional, it’s just as parents we can’t imagine our children crossing that line.

            Many do however.

            So you wouldn’t condemn bullying. You would just ‘understand’! You wouldn’t in all your discussions say ‘this is wrong”?

          • Anton

            Jesus always addressed the highest good for people, regardless of whether it caused them offence. The highest good is saving people from hell. Everyone deserves hell; non-Christians don’t get that, liberal Christians only half-get it, but anybody who has really seen the dark depths of their own heart will know that they need a saviour and deserve a terrible fate. Christians are to love all persons and where we have failed that is a matter for apology. Love sometimes looks funny to others though; Jesus was loving but got crucified for warning people of all this.

          • sarky

            Everyone deserves hell. Utter crap. You believe we were designed, but you also believe that just for acting as humans we deserve hell. That’s like punishing a dog for being a dog.
            Your god designed humans to fail, then punished them for failing, where is the love in that?
            Unless of course its all just stories to scare people into behaving, then it kind of makes sense.

          • Anton

            This is where we disagree.

            You say you were a churchgoer for many years, so you surely know the Christian answer to your main point: we were indeed designed but we are no longer as we were then.

            Couples freely choose who to marry, yet so few are happy together. Doesn’t that indicate that something is wrong with human nature? And endless wars?

          • sarky

            Of course I know. But would a loving god put something as dangerous as the tree of knowledge where it would be easily found? or would he put it somewhere safe and inaccessible?
            Also, have you thought how a prefect being without sin could be tempted?
            Unless of course that the plan all along was that we fail, if so, I don’t think your god can be described as loving.

          • Anton

            It’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it means that we were instructed not to taste evil for ourselves but to trust God. If he hand’t that capability then we would have been merely God’s puppets, but he wanted to design something enough like him to keep him loving company.

            Jesus was tempted and he was perfect. The point is not to yield to it.

            To talk about God as loving in isolation is to miss the point. He is also righteous. With sinners, these two divine attributes collide. The cross is God’s answer.

          • sarky

            Don’t feel like you have really answered the question. As for the free will/puppet point, isn’t that exactly what god wants? Humans that praise him and follow him without question?

          • Anton

            Please rephrase the question.

            Yes that is exactly what God wants, but it’s futile unless it’s done by free choice. Millions praised Mao and followed him without question, but he surely knew that they weren’t doing it because they loved him. As to why it is the right thing to do – He made us!

          • sarky

            I’m pretty sure there are a fair few christians who follow god, not because of love, but through a fearof hell.

          • Anton

            It has its part; that’s what helps to keep committed Christians from yielding to temptation. But remember that Christianity is experiential; we also FEEL God’s love in certain of his actions in our lives.

          • sarky

            Like a serious illness or the death of a loved one?

          • Anton

            You know full well the Christian explanation for those things. Please don’t send this dialogue round in circles.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Sarky (not to be confused with Merky),

            Two things here. You mention “hypocrisy”, and one could start arguing until the genetically modified cows come home. But this afternoon, I was talking to an old colleague from work, and he mentioned a local dignitary from the 19th century who made his fortune as a brewer — but who would sack an employee for being drunk! Now that’s what *I* would call hypocrisy.

            However, there is one point I would like to make to all and sundry. People complain about the use of the word “gay” to mean homosexual, and they do have a point. But the word “queer” was similarly hijacked in the 1920s, and so a useful word, cognate with the German “quer” and meaning “at an angle” — as in “queering the pitch” — was similarly spoiled, and so one cannot logically blame the gays over this.

            But if we want to pursue this any further, someone should start another article closer to that topic.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Why on earth shouldn’t a brewer sack someone who turns up to work drunk? Do you think everyone who drinks beer gets drunk and do you think that everybody who gets drunk in their own time turns up to work still drunk?

          • IrishNeanderthal

            That thought did occur to me later.

            I may not have reported it correctly — the employee may simply have been drinking a little. And whether it was only one employee, even.

            However, my informant is a very local man, and this incident seems to have provoke enough comment at the time to have entered local folk history.

          • Albert

            But what is our treatment of gay people, sarky?

          • sarky

            Unless you’ve been living in a cave, I think you already know the answer.

          • Albert

            No, I want to know what you think and see if it is correct.

          • Albert

            Come of it Sarky, you know full well that there is a kind of secularist who bends over backwards to accommodate Muslims but who is quite content to knock Christianity. If you don’t then try this:

            http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/who-does-the-battle-for-gay-rights-stop-at-the-borders-of-islam/

            Then remember that some Christian refugees got thrown off boats by Muslims as they made their way to Europe, but that nevertheless the current UK policy on refugees actually discriminates against Christians despite the fact that their plight is far worse than that of Muslims. Remember also that the UK Government refuses to call what is being done to Christians in the Middle East a genocide, despite the fact that all the evidence is that it is a genocide.

  • Tony Abbot makes some important observations on the refugee crisis. It is vital that there is Biblical realism injected into this debate, as opposed to PC orthodoxy and the use of the word ‘compassion’ to silence any demurring from mainstream thinking.

    An ever open door in Europe to vast movements of peoples in not the answer to the crisis caused by the civil war in Syria. There are basic Biblical principles regarding nationhood and controlled borders which must be considered – for example, “The most High divided to the nations their inheritance … he set the bounds of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8) and “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark” (Deuteronomy 19:14).

    Scripture also teaches an obligation before God to uphold the law of the land. So in respect of the large numbers of migrants gathering around the port of Calais, it cannot be righteous behaviour to cut wire fences along railway tracks, for these represent a national border. Those at Calais are already in a safe country, and have crossed other safe countries to reach there.

    The same must also be said about those crossing the Mediterranean from Turkey to Greece in overcrowded boats. We do not diminish the reasons why they may still want to leave, but it is not flight owing to immediate danger to life, because Turkey is a safe country.

    It is certainly right that western governments give aid to the nations adjoining Syria – Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – in providing facilities for the refugees. What is really vital is that havens are established adjacent to the warzones. The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, last October, rightly spoke of the need for a militarily protected safe zone along the Turkish-Syrian border.

    It also needs stating that the Biblical verses about treating the ‘stranger’ well (often listed alongside widows and orphans) refer to vulnerable individuals already in Israel. Such verses are not remotely a justification for vast movements of peoples in their tens and hundreds of thousands.

    The horror of events in Syria is tragic indeed, but it must not be assumed that mass movements of peoples over nearer safe countries and across continents.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Well said. The parable of the Good Samarian is also often misused as a a Biblical justification for mass immigration. As far as I remember, the Good Samaritan stopped to help an injured man, took him to a safe place to recover, and paid for his subsequent care. He did not ask him and his family to take up permanent residence in his home.

      The knee-jerk response to the Syria crisis is to let them all come here and give them permanent residence. If instead, one stops to think, there are many ways to help these people. Safe havens are a good start, coupled with any humanitarian help they need.

      Angela Markel’s open invitation to the hoards of fit young men crossing Europe with their families, is as cruel as it is stupid. It is cruel because if she was serious about it, she should have arranged direct transport to Germany, instead of letting them endure the difficult trek across Europe. It is stupid because it is quite likely that political and social pressure will make it impossible to keep her promise of accepting nearly a million of them in a year.

      • I agree that Mrs Merkel’s stance is so unwise. It is also not fair to many ordinary Germans with, for example, the increased pressures on social housing, local authorities’ resources and the cultural transformation of localities. It is, however, an inevitable consequence of the secularist doctrine of multiculturalism.

        Another Scripture passage much abused in this context is the Lord’s flight into Egypt and the argument, “Jesus was a refugee”. 84 Anglican bishops used this argument recently in their letter to David Cameron.

        It is, however, singularly inappropriate, for Mary and Joseph were probably in Egypt no more than a few weeks, returned to their hometown, and did not presume upon any right to permanent residence.

        If we abandon the concepts of nationhood and controlled borders, we abandon the ordinance of God since the time of the Tower of Babel.

        Where does the primary moral responsibility for the refugee crisis rest? It is surely with those conducting the war in Syria. They must rapidly cease their hostilities for the sake of their suffering people. The civil war also reflects to some extent the Sunni/Shi’ite division within Islam. This again suggests that the problem has to be solved within the region.

        As Christians we of course endeavour to help those in great need through refugee camps, the creation of safe havens and diplomatic efforts to bring the civil war to an end. This does not mean, however, that it is wrong for nations to control their borders. Nor does it mean that a civil war in one particular nation conveys the right of permanent residence in any other nation of the world, no matter how far away.

    • dannybhoy

      Well said.

      “It also needs stating that the Biblical verses about treating the ‘stranger’ well (often listed alongside widows and orphans) refer to vulnerable individuals already in Israel. Such verses are not remotely a justification for vast movements of peoples in their tens and hundreds of thousands.

      It depends how ‘vast’ your sense of ‘Christian compassion’ is….
      ;0)

  • magnolia

    I love that he saw through the carbon tax. Would that more politicians would work that one out. And church people for that matter.

    • Jon Sorensen

      But his answer was to fund that deficit with loan… spot the problem :/

      • magnolia

        He may not have found the perfect answer- and they can be hard to find, so maybe he went for a stopgap, I am fairly ignorant on Australian taxation and budget deficit- but at least he saw the absurd scapegoating of CO2, otherwise known as what all plant life needs to survive. Less Co2 fewer crops, more starvation and suffering; some are fine with that. To his credit, he was not.

        • Jon Sorensen

          “He may not have found the perfect answer”
          No. He found the worst answer. He added unfunded spending.

          “Less Co2 fewer crops, more starvation and suffering”
          You clearly don’t have any idea what increase of Co2 does.

          • You clearly don’t know that the only empirical evidence of CO2 effect on our environment is greening of deserts, forest health and increase of crop productivity. All else is politics and spculation.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Hi avi. I thought you got so upset that you were avoiding me.

            Of course plants like CO2, but we don’t have starvation due to not having enough food. Or less CO2 would somehow lead to less suffering. Warmer planet means more storms and probably more suffering. Some desert will decrease, some will increase. Some coastline disappear and appear elsewhere.

            “All else is politics and spculation.”
            LOL. Well you must have read all the studies and have now educated opinion.

          • Upset? Whatever for?

            *…we don’t have starvation due to not having enough food.* True, but having surplus food that is unavailable to areas of scarcity doesn’t do much.

            *Warmer planet means more storms and probably more suffering.* No actual evidence of a corelation between CO2 and warmer temps…except that it’s warmer temps that give rise to CO2. We are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, not even a third of the beneficial warming of the Medieval and other warming periods. No evidence of corelation between warmer weather and storms either; no theoretical nor ibservable basis…check NOAA chart for 1954-2014.

            *Some desert will decrease, some will increase. Some coastline disappear and appear elsewhere.* A bullet-proof hypothesis. Don’t let anyone say you lack a sense of humour.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “but having surplus food that is unavailable to areas of scarcity doesn’t do much”
            So. Those are market forces. Having more CO2 will not change that. Which was my point

            “No actual evidence of a corelation between CO2 and warmer temps”
            LOL. I see a climate change denialist…

            “We are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, not even a third of the beneficial warming of the Medieval and other warming periods”
            LOL. and let me guess… CO2 has nothing to do with this

            “No evidence of corelation between warmer weather and storms either”
            LOL

            “NOAA chart for 1954-2014”
            Link please

          • Having more CO2 has increased greening in previously marginal areas. Means more food in subsistence agriculture regions…your market forces point nakes no sense.

            *LOL. I See a climate change denialist* That’s your counterargument?

            *LOL. and let me guess… CO2 has nothing to do with this…* With what exactly? Temperature rise in say, Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval periods? There was no detectable rise of anthropogenic CO2 in those periods. You’re the first ever to suggest that hypothesis.

            *”No evidence of corelation between warmer weather and storms either”
            LOL* Glad to brighten your eveni g with all the lulz. Have another laugh the second time around; no, no evidence in historic weather data of a correlation between warmer temps and storm activity.

            *”NOAA chart for 1954-2014″
            Link please…* Better than that; here’s a superduperspecialsecret algorithm I developed: /Google > “NOAA chart for 1954-2014” Failing your ability to locate or interpret weather data charts, hire a cute research assistant.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Googled: No results found for “NOAA chart for 1954-2014”
            So if there is a chart you want me to look let me know. You just made it up and now can’t find any of it I guess.

            “Means more food in subsistence agriculture regions…your market forces point nakes no sense.”
            LOL. So you think people grow more food even when there is no additional demand. How is that working for your theory in Europe?

            “You’re the first ever to suggest that hypothesis”
            suggest what? my sarcastic comment? There was no anthropogenic CO2 raise Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval periods. You seem to make up a lot of assumptions about what others say.

            “no evidence in historic weather data of a correlation between warmer temps and storm activity.”
            LOL the second time around

          • *LOL. So you think people grow more food even when there is no additional demand. How is that working for your theory in Europe?*

            ??? What are you not getting? More CO2=higher food production. For normal people.. especially those who are starving … that’s a Good Thing. Get it? Mure yum-yum, fuller tummies, yes? Maybe not, as you astound with stuff like, “Of course plants like CO2, but we don’t have starvation due to not having enough food.”!!!

            *There was no anthropogenic CO2 raise Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval periods. * Yet it’s what you implied. If not, are you now agreeing that warming can occur due to other forcing mechanisms? Or perhaps…gasp!…as part of a hitherto unknown natural climate cycle? Imagine that.

            Now I see why you assumed I was pissed at you; you confused my rising frustration and growing boredom with your idiocy for anger. To wit, you think I make up NOAA charts? Seriously? Are you a rude punk or hopeless cretin who can’t even Google? Go here and check the Force 3 chart for clarity (and don’t expect me to spoon-feed you again):

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

            And here’s a sample of papers which show that cooling, not warming, in fact correlates to extreme weather. If you have a university library mebership you can access these papers in full…but I suspect tha abstracts alone might be more than a handful. Amuse me, tell me what you think they say in your own words:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064929/full

            http://m.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/540

            And you can LOL about as much as you want, but neither you nor anyone else can produce any empirical evidence for AGW. That’s somehow funny?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “More CO2=higher food production. For normal people.. especially those who are starving … that’s a Good Thing. Get it?”
            I think you flunked the economics class. There is already enough food on the planet, in fact there is oversupply in Europe already. Adding more products to over supplied market will not change the situation. Obesity is bigger problem today in third world countries.

            “are you now agreeing that warming can occur due to other forcing mechanisms?”
            Sure, solar activity can cause global warming/cooling.

            NOAA seem to report tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin are now more frequent.
            http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
            NOAA also claim that annually there are more tornadoes
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201113
            To me it looks like NOAA reports more storms per year. Am I reading this wrong?

            “Amuse me, tell me what you think they say in your own words”
            1) “4K-cooler climate experiment” seem to propose the cooling
            2) “intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work.” leading to cooling. Hey they talk about “intensification of the hydrological cycle”, not less storms.
            3) I’ve read couple articles how intensification of the hydrological cycle in the north might trigger an ice age. who knows…

            The fact is that earth is warming because human activity, and we need to prepare for it.

            “but neither you nor anyone else can produce any empirical evidence for AGW.”
            Oh look. I found it from NASA:
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
            and oh the warming doesn’t come from the sun:
            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/
            Well that wasn’t so hard.

          • magnolia

            “The fact is that earth is warming because human activity, and we need to prepare for it”

            Trouble is 1000 years ago, temperatures were considerably hotter, and humanity was having a good time. Erik the Red was sunbathing in Greenland amongst verdant crops.

            Trouble is also that other planets have had times recently when they warmed too. Guess that must mean the aliens in their millions have been burning fossil fuels in their alienomobiles.

            Here is a jolly quotation:

            “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” (Noel Brown ex UNEP director 1989).

            I could find scores more of similarly inane attempts at doom-laden prophecy by so-called experts. One is very much spoilt for choice. None of which happened. One might hope that people would learn from all these embarrassing quotations. Odd thing is they still keep coming!

          • Jon Sorensen

            “Trouble is 1000 years ago, temperatures were considerably hotter, and humanity was having a good time”
            Sure, if you don’t consider starvation, diseases and wars. Now let us already know how hotter temperature improved humanity 1000 years ago. I think you just made it up to fit your narrative.

            “Here is a jolly quotation:”
            It’s all fiction…
            http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/first-official-climate-change-refugees-evacuate-their-island-homes-for-good.html
            http://mic.com/articles/92751/an-entire-island-nation-is-preparing-to-evacuate-before-it-sinks-into-the-ocean
            http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation
            Oh wait. it’s not…

            You should really follow what is happening in the world… 😉

          • But we are following it Jon; the greatest financial fraud and the most extensive and expensive promotion of pseudoscience in world history needs our attention. Too-do-loo!

          • Anton

            It’s not obvious to me from the above exchange that Jon is a believer in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

            I am not, for the simple reason that it hasn’t got hotter for nearly two decades even as China and India industrialise and the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise. That is what the satellite record shows, and it is more reliable than terrestrial measurements because satellites can take a snapshot of the whole globe at once – far more reliable than a large number of pinpricks that favour land over sea and populated parts at that.

          • You’re right; it’s not clear what Jon believes in…my guess is that as with most, he doesn’t get the issues and will go with whatever’s culturally trendy. An interesting thing about the much awaited sat records is that the greatest concentrations of CO2 appear to be over tropical and subtropical forests; not the maligned anthropogenic emitters.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “the greatest financial fraud and the most extensive and expensive
            promotion of pseudoscience in world history needs our attention”
            I thought that was Abrahamic religions… 😉

          • magnolia

            I am replying from underwater, like the wise sages of MMGW said it would be, so have difficulty arguing your points. Meanwhile hordes of ravenous people fight over scraps of food, the oceans are poisoned, and the sky drops acid rain on wicked humanity.

            Oh wait, I’m not, it isn’t., they aren’t…and none of these cataclysms are here nor are probable.

            I happen to believe it is pretty evil to scare people with untruths and make them swallow guilt feelings that do not belong to them, accuse them of destroying the planet and humanity when they are not, and they should be free to enjoy peace and prosperity, and not be deluded and scammed.

            The earth is the Lord’s and all that therein is. The earth is good. The Lord is good; he loves people and has no time for those who hate humanity and want to blame others right left and centre for problems that aren’t happening.

            It all started off, more or less, with Maurice Strong listening to “the Ascended Masters of the Universe.” Now they do not love humanity.

            And your cause and effect are askew. Higher temperatures in historical periods are associated with times of prosperity, and lower ones-ice ages- with times of great hardship and austerity, and people struggling to survive. (Human work and human fallen nature and concomitant hardships and evils are a different and separate matter.) But then there is also that absurd hockey stick chart, which actually shows CO2 levels going up after temperature rises, rather long after at that, and certainly not before. Some people apparently do not know how to read a graph and chart which is cause and which is effect. A bit dire!

          • Jon Sorensen

            We you get refuted you seem try to turn it a joke. Denial is so comfortable.

            “Higher temperatures in historical periods are associated with times of
            prosperity, and lower ones-ice ages- with times of great hardship and
            austerity, and people struggling to survive.”
            Of course there is no evidence for this but your faith is strong.

          • JuanFisher

            “The fact is that earth is warming because human activity, and we need to prepare for it”

            I have seen no evidence for this. The earth has always warmed and cooled. Thats what it does. It will eventually be subsumed by the sun. For reasons I cannot understand you seem to want to spend huge sums of other peoples money to control the global mean surface temperature. Do you even have an ideal value for this mathematically ill defined parameter? If so how did you (or anyone) arrive at it? Indeed who has the competence to decide what the ideal should be? How do you know that it can be controlled? What are the economic costs of controlling it? Heating is a form of energy. Is energy even a function of temperature? ….

          • *The earth has always warmed and cooled. Thats what it does. It will eventually be subsumed by the sun.*

            Oh yeah?
            Just you wait and see,
            When our dear Sun goes White Dwarf,
            The cause will be…
            Your carbon-spewing S.U.V.!

          • JuanFisher

            “The cause will be…”

            The DOE has just discovered another cause:
            http://energy.gov/articles/turn-your-halloween-pumpkins-power

          • Yes, good one; saw this announcement of the looming threat yesterday. Who would have thunk.And the solution, of course: turn pumpkin waste into bio-fuel even if the energy and carbon expenditure from gathering and transporting the orange stuff, retooling old and building new plants and distributing the precious product is far greater than the net gain. But it’s the Right Thing to Do.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            So that was why they couldn’t find a pumpkin to take Cinderella to the ball!

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I have seen no evidence for this.”
            Actually we do have. At least 90% of warming is made my humans. See my links to NOAA above. Avi recommended it and it shows AWG.

            “The earth has always warmed and cooled. Thats what it does.”
            No. That’s what sun has done before. But now we know the sun’s output variations. The questions is where does the rest come from. Do you have any other suggestions?

            ” I cannot understand you seem to want to spend huge sums of other peoples money to control the global mean surface temperature”
            No I don’t. I don’t advocate solving that problem. Listen to Freakonomics podcast “Fixing the World, Bang-for-the-Buck Edition”. I agree with them. That episode will also answer some of your following questions.

          • JuanFisher

            ” At least 90% of warming is made my humans. ”

            There has been no significant temperature increase in 18 years
            despite the activity of humans. It would seem that average temperatures are remarkably stable despite the activities of humans. Empirically, humans have contributed very little to warming.

            I repeat my questions:

            1. What is the ideal temperature?
            2. How is this to be decided? Who gets to decide?
            3. Can we even control the average temperature of the planet? If so, at what cost?
            4. Is the average global surface mean temperature even well defined?
            5. Is energy a function of temperature?

            If the NOAA really claim that 90% of the minuscule temperature increase is due to humans I would seriously doubt their reasoning. When there are unknown factors contributing to temperature rise it is impossible to attribute percentages.
            That this area of climatology, like economics, is a dismal science can be inferred from the the total failure of any of the current models to predict the current pause, or even the past temperature record. To correct their failure, climatologists have frequently made
            non-linear transformations on the temperature data set to “correct” it. Unfortunately, this “tree ring circus” is mathematically proscribed
            since averages of ordinal variables are not preserved under such transformations. Under a nonlinear transformation the same temperature data set can be accord with both an increase or a decrease in temperature.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “There has been no significant temperature increase in 18 years despite the activity of humans.”
            Well there is despite your denial:
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
            and the warming doesn’t come from the sun:
            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120130b/

            “That this area of climatology, like economics, is a dismal science can be inferred from the the total failure of any of the current models to predict the current pause”
            Sorry to tell you but climatology and economics are not “a dismal science”, and there is no “pause”
            You don’t seem to accept the data when it does not support your narrative.

          • JuanFisher

            “Sorry to tell you but climatology and economics are not “a dismal science”, and there is no “pause”.

            You are quoting me inaccurately. I did not say that climatology is a dismal science. It may or may not be dismal but what I stated was that this particular area of climatology is a dismal science as evidenced by the fact that nearly 100% of its models have failed to predict the current temperature hiatus (pause). To the extent that economists have failed to acknowledge the catastropic economic damage wrought by costly climate mitigation schemes based upon speculative science they have further contributed to the reputation of Economics as the dismal science.

            You claim that there has been a “significant” temperature increase during the last 18 years. This is widely disputed.

            In particular, the NOAA is reputed to have fiddled with the temperature data to manufacture warming during the hiatus by adjusting pre-hiatus data downward. This is mathematically unacceptable. A transformation which does not preserve order must be non linear. Such transformations do not preserve the mean as illustrated in the following fable:
            pennance.us/a-fable-of-global-warming-from-pennances-x-file/

            More questions: Do you believe that their exists an ideal global mean surface temperature for the planet?

            How does temperature measurement distinguish between the energeticaly different states of ice at 0 degrees C and water at 0 degrees C? What does this say about warming which is measured in units of energy?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “nearly 100% of its models have failed to predict the current temperature hiatus (pause)”
            Because there is not pause.

            “To the extent that economists have failed to acknowledge the catastropic economic damage wrought by costly climate mitigation schemes”
            Nonsense. How much do you think mitigation taxes were and how much of it was spent on mitigation? You have no idea.

            “This is widely disputed.”
            By people who thinks data is “fiddled”

            “the NOAA is reputed to have fiddled with the temperature data to manufacture warming during the hiatus”
            So data does not support you so those are fiddled lol. Where do you get pause hypothesis if data does not support it. Note that NOAA is one of four independent data sets.

            “Do you believe that their exists an ideal global mean surface temperature for the planet?”
            I guess it depend on point of view. If you live in coastal area sea rise and more storms can’t be good. If you work for insurance companies it’s great.

          • JuanFisher

            “Because there is no pause”

            I do not know where you are getting your data from. It would be better to understand the mathematics than to parrot the opinions of certain politicized scientists.

            Even high level scientists of “warmist” persuasion disagree with you. See for example: The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures by Carl Mears. http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures Dr. Mears was a convening lead author for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Sythesis and Assessment product 1.1 (the first CCSP report to reach final form), and a contributing author to the IGPP 4th and 5th assessment reports. According to Myers: “There is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets”.

            I point out that you do not address any of the technical points I raise concerning the illegitimate adjustment of data sets and even the suitability of global mean surface temperature temperature as a proxy for energy.

            Over 50,000,000 people died in the 20th century because of the gratuitous recklessness of eco-extremists; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/green-hands-dipped-in-blood-the-ddt-genocide A similar number may well die if the developement of poor nations is curtailed by restrictions on their energy generation imposed on the basis of junk science.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I do not know where you are getting your data from”
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
            There is no pause

            “It would be better to understand the mathematics than to parrot the opinions of certain politicized scientists.”
            LOL. There is no data to support your view.

            “According to Myers..””
            Of course you can find one opinion to support your view, but even he agree that earth is warming. RIP your view.

            “I point out that you do not address any of the technical points I raise concerning the illegitimate adjustment of data sets”
            What are these “illegitimate adjustment”?

            “According to Kenney over 50,000,000 people”
            According to my friend John your friend Kenney has not idea what he is talking about. I’m sure you are happy to use DDT on your food and body.

            “A similar number may well die if the developement of poor nations is curtailed by restrictions on their energy generation imposed on the basis of junk science”
            LOL. This is so bad that is not even wrong….

          • JuanFisher

            What are these “illegitimate adjustment”?

            Non linear transformations applied to the data set.

            It is not surprising that GISS is the most quoted by warmists. GISS has a reputation for making non-linear transformations to the data. For example, the 1998 anomaly of 0.62 in January was lowered to 0.61 now. The increased global mean for 2014 obtained by GISS is based on the adjustment of the formula used to compute it, not by any change in the climate! It is not an empirical measurement. This is junk science. Please see http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/ for a discussion of the flawed methodology in these calculations.

            “I’m sure you are happy to use DDT on your food and body”.

            One critic of the DDT ban ate a spoon of the stuf before every lecture. with no ill effect. Birth control pills are far more carcinogenic than DDT.

            I find your attitude (based on ignorance) to 50 million dead due to the elimination of DDT is callous. The WHO recommends the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

            “A similar number may well die if the developement of poor nations is curtailed by restrictions on their energy generation imposed on the basis of junk science” LOL. This is so bad that is not even wrong….

            There have already been food riots in a many countries because of the increase in food prices due to conversion of agricultural land for biofuel production. In Haiti, the poor can no longer afford even the “mud pies” which they have been reduced to eating. Hundreds of thousand, perhaps millions are dying because increased food prices.

            -and all you can do is laugh!

          • Jon Sorensen

            “GISS has a reputation for making non-linear transformations to the data.”
            Yeah. What does NASA know about math…

            “For example, the 1998 anomaly of 0.62 in January was lowered to 0.61 now.”
            Sounds like a hug correction there…

            “Your attitude to 50 million dead due to the elimination of DDT is callous.”
            Only because it did not happen.

            “There have already been food riots in a many countries because of the increase in food prices due to conversion of agricultural land for biofuel production”
            Yep. For increase food prices, not for food shortage. Capitalism is so bad and socialism would solve this overnight. We must tell farmers what to grow. They should not be able to decide themselves.

            And just check how much ingredients cost compared to total food price. LOL.

            One critic of the DDT ban ate a spoon of the stuff before every lecture. with no ill effect?
            Who was this guy? Do we know what happened to him? I bet this is an urban legend…

            “In Haiti, the poor can no longer afford even the “mud pies” which they have been reduced to eating.”
            Haiti problem is not because of farming issues. Remember all military coop, poor leadership, earthquake and cholera outbreak. Blaming farming issues is just dishonest. LOL.

            “Hundreds of thousand, perhaps millions are dying because increased food prices. -and all you can do is laugh!”
            I’m laughing at your arguments, not because of expensive food.

          • JuanFisher

            “Yeah. What does NASA know about math…”

            Today, many scientists seem to have difficulties with mathematical rigor. The actual situation in US and British universities is well described by Stewart S. Antman a leading expert in differential equations and mathematical continuum mechanics and the 1999 winner of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics’ Theodore von Karman Prize. According to Antman:

            “Our universities are turning out scientists whose knowledge goes scarcely further than the canned programs they learn to handle adeptly on their computers. In the United States, Great Britain, and elsewhere, engineers and physicists today (possibly with the exception of electrical engineers) scarcely have the mathematical knowledge presented to their forebears 50 years ago in books condescendingly directed to “physicists and engineers”. They typically lack a legitimate course in linear algebra (to say nothing of a course in real variables), which form the entrée to a host of useful advanced courses in differential equations and numerical analysis. Most departments of mathematics impose on their students minimal course requirements in the hard sciences, for which now popular courses in mathematical modelling make a grossly inadequate substitute. The only way to develop a cadre of experts capable of doing fundamental work in the mathematical sciences is to produce a reservoir of scientists broadly and deeply educated in both science and mathematics (who, we may hope, are not cultural illiterates)”. [Emphasis added]

          • JuanFisher

            “Sounds like a hug correction there…”

            Sounds like you don’t know enough math to do the analysis.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I know nothing, but I did major in math in the Uni long time ago…

          • JuanFisher

            “I know nothing”

            Then why are you so confident in your denial of the recent hiatus in temperature?

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I know nothing”
            It was a sarcastic joke. sorry.

            “Then why are you so confident in your denial of the recent hiatus in temperature?”
            Because there is no evidence for it. If there was you would show it.

          • JuanFisher

            “there is no evidence for it. If there was you would show it.”

            The few scientists who claim that there is no pause refuse to
            reveal how they arrived at this conclusion. That is not the scientific method.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426409/climate-science-climate-change-thomas-r-carl-climate-noaa-pause

          • Jon Sorensen

            “The few scientists who claim…. ”
            You mean the overwhelming majority?

            Even your article links to page that states:
            “The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to a little over 1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to July 2015.”
            Ok, then…

          • JuanFisher

            Good. Then you know enough to understand that the source you cited for the non existence of a hiatus arrived at this incorrect result by the mathematically inadmissible application of non linear adjustments to an ordinal variable:

            See pennance.us/on-the-non-existence-of-global-warming/
            and
            pennance.us/on-the-ordinality-of-temperature-and-the-non-existence-of-global-warming/

            for an explanation. You might enjoy this video:

            https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/amazing-video-ted-cruz-demolishes-sierra-club-president-on-climate-change

          • Jon Sorensen

            You and Cruz have not provided any data to support your position. Funny isn’t it?

            Cruz believes his God will rapture him and his family any day now so no need to look after the planet. He seems to get upset when he tries to push for a gotcha line of questioning and Sierra Club reprentative didn’t want to fall in his rabbit hole. Science is not decided in congressional hearings and Cruz is not a friend of rational discussion.

          • JuanFisher

            50 million dead due to the elimination of DDT
            ” it did not happen.”

            The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that “in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.” WHO issued a statement in 1969: “DDT has been the main agent in eradicating malaria … and [has] saved at least 2 billion people in the world without causing the loss of a single life by poisoning from DDT alone.”

            Question: If not 50 million, how many people do you think were were killed by banning DDT?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Did humans start using different pesticide or completely stop using pesticides?

          • JuanFisher

            “Did humans start using different pesticide or completely stop using pesticides?”

            Your emphatically stated that it did not happen that 50 million

            did not die from the ban on DDT. How could you make such a statement when you do not even know the answer to your own question.

          • Jon Sorensen

            When you make claims without evidence, I dismiss those without evidence.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You forgot to answer:
            Who was this DDT guy? Do we know what happened to him? I bet this is an urban legend…

          • JuanFisher

            “Yep. For increase food prices, not for food shortage. ”

            See http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/05/book-details-how-biofuel-policies-affect-food-prices

            “Capitalism is so bad and socialism would solve this overnight.”

            As in the “Great Leap Forward” – 50 million plus dead.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Europe if full of day farm subsidy and farmers get paid *not* to grow something. Because of subsidies farmers now live in cities and don’t grow stuff and keep farms on-hold. In Australia biofuel from sugarcane pays quite well as it is in government’s interest so farmers are moving to it. So what!

            Just respond to my: And just check how much ingredients cost compared to total food price. You’ll refute yourself there.

            As in the “Great Leap Forward” – 50 million plus dead.
            So why do you advocate it?

          • Just in case you missed Jon’s revolutionary hypothesis, Miss Magnolia, having failed to “flatten” or “disappear” the beneficial historical warming periods with fraudulent hockey stick graphs and dubious NOAA ocean temp “adjustments”, the alarmists are now saying that the univetsally recognized improved conditions were actually…get a hold of this: bad for us.! Works with Jon’s other hypothesis, that there is no world hunger because Europe overproduces food and the real problem for the poor is…obesity.

            No point carrying on with this endless wackamole game; we’ll just piss off HG with off-topic mudwrestling.

          • magnolia

            I didn’t think it was off topic. I hope HG doesn’t think so. If the topic was Tony Abbott’s speech, with particular reference to refugees it comes in the largest paragraph where he lists his best achievements in which he feels those who invited him to give the speech have seen aspects parallel to Mrs Thatcher’s approach.

            The manipulated media appeal (via incomplete or twisted information) to undereducated emotiveness has also been seen in both areas.

          • I see. There is no world hunger issue…because Europe over-produces and obesity is a bigger problem. Maybe we should put the world on a diet….

            Or, everything; more/fewer storms, cooling/warming/ice ages…irrelevant citations by Jon and witches’ spells…all that and anything out there supports AGW! The models ate improving.

            And Hansen’s outdated study…assuming it was correct at the time… says that if the oceans continue to warm at the 2005-2010 rates, by the year 2100 it will have warmed by…OH NO!!!!!…. just over a tenth of a degree … and…gulp!… ONE FULL FECKING DEGREE BY THE MID- 27TH CENTURY!!!!!!!! (well below warming due to our being in the Holocene). Quick, bring in carbon taxes, fund wind mills and take us to Pol Pot’s Year Zero..just in case.

            No, it wasn’t so hard.

          • Jon Sorensen

            So please explain more food in oversupplied earth would change anything?

            “everything; more/fewer storms, cooling/warming/ice age..”
            So I used your NOAA website graphs to show you that there are more storms and now you got upset.

            “anything out there supports AGW”
            So I used your NOAA website graphs and data to show you that AGW is real now you got upset.

            Sorry if you don’t like the facts.

  • alternative_perspective

    It is slowly becoming evident to me that emotive responses are enemies of actual long term solutions.

    Modern secular society however struggles to act otherwise because it lacks a coherent ethical and moral system apart from pragmatism, which is basically the Germanic medium term response to the crisis.

    Consequently people’s emotional responses drive behaviour rather than their rationalities. this process tends to crystallise around a basic ethic of reciprocity.

    Now this may and often is an acceptable, if not moral, immediate response but rarely does it solve the problem longer term but rather exacerbates it.

    What I believe Tony abbot describes is how long term solutions that actually save lives and preserve the integrity of society need to be founded is something else. A ‘something else’ that people unaccustomed to making hard decisions and raised on a ethical diet of empathy and ‘how does it make you feel’ are not only uncomfortable with but often set against.

    Thus it proves that ‘feelings’ and pragmatism are inadequate means of discerning a moral direction and yet these feelings demonstrate humanity’s apprehension of an objective moral realm that those free of warped ideological programming unhesitatingly respond to.

    Feelings make us alert to the problem but do not provide the means of solving it. They are proof of an objective moral order but are inadequate at describing it. What is needed, is revelation.

  • preacher

    Tony Abbot gives some good examples, especially from the history & motivation of Margaret Thatcher.
    I’m afraid that the current crop of milk & water politicians of all parties could not hold a candle to her. They talk of her & try to emulate her, but they simply lack the guts & drive to be her inheritors.

    The talk is always about being leaders IN Europe, but the mirage of the E.U dream has blatantly failed, with Merkel & co feverishly bailing out a sinking ship. We need a leader who will be bold enough to take us out of the E.U catastrophe while there is still the time & opportunity to do so.
    While we are participating in this farce, we have no borders to control. The people of the member states are chained to the oars below decks while the people on the bridge quietly panic & try to reassure us that all is well.
    The mess of pottage was offered & grasped by the greedy, the pottage is gone the empty bowl & the mess remain.

  • gunnerbear

    “It expresses itself in laws protecting workers……” Fought for organised labour putting pressure on HMGs of all colours. I wonder if the author remembers what Mrs T. called the TUs….. ….”the enemy within…” seems to ring a bell.

  • Stuart

    As an evangelical Anglican living in Australia, can I just say that the vast majority of people in this country, off all faiths, political beliefs and backgrounds are ashamed of these comments and embarrassed that Mr Abbott has made them. Please don’t judge us by the remarks of a man so extreme that his right wing political party has had no choice but to overthrow him while he was Prime Minister.

    PS how did this become a forum on climate change? Or do the anti lobby think their opinion is so important that we will read their smug comments everywhere and applaud them for changing the subject. Hey, it’s a classic strategy, tell lies at every opportunity loudly, even when people want to think about something else, and you may win over some of your opponents. It even worked for Tony Abbott for a while. Maybe they should come and live here where rainfall is diminishing and temperatures rising!

    • How can a couple of paragraphs be so utterly and completely wrong in every single aspect? Amazing; well done Stuart for having managed the impossible. Can you post a link that gets anywhere near confirming your ridiculous first sentence? Thanks in advance.

      • Stuart

        Hi Span Owls, I will admit to a bit of hyperbole, although I am an amateur compared to what you managed in a couple of sentences. Completely and utterly wrong in every single aspect, that’s an impressive piece of trash talk.
        I’m basing this on the reaction of the news media here across the whole spectrum of views. The Age & Sydney Morning Herald are our two most respected papers and both have published articles where they condemn Mr Abbott and make the point that there has been wide-spread condemnation. Even the right wing Murdoch press, who were very involved in the campaign to get him elected, and posted huge inflammatory headlines in his favour, have ditched him. One article said that in the interest of fairness they tried to find some support for these views on social media, but were unable to find anything.
        I like to expose myself to a wide range of views, which is why I sometimes read this blog, and of course at times it makes a lot of sense. Hopefully you extend the same courtesy to us who are a bit more lefty!

        • No worries Stuart, happy to wind down the hyperbole a bit.

          Yes, I too get a wide range of views: I feel I need to to get the real facts about whatever the BBC are on about 🙂 …in fact I used to comment regularly at The Guardian and even occasionally at the New Statesman!