Julia Gillard’s recent comments have caused some controversy, with her swing at Tony Abbott. “Heaven knows that’s bad enough, but the truth is he is acting more like the love child of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.” It has been labelled unprime ministerial and below the belt, but this is not what has grabbed my attention from that speech. It is her condesending attitude and ignorance on the global warming matter that really riles me.
“We know climate change is real, we know we must cut carbon pollution…We know the cheapest, most efficient way to do that is to make big polluters pay…We don’t have time for the politicians and shock jocks who deny the scientific conclusions of NASA and the CSIRO…We don’t have time for made-up figures and shameless fear-mongering.”
She is so stubborn on this issue, so adamant she is that “climate change” is real. Yet if asked for the evidence, she won’t be able to answer. It is a question a journalist must put to her, for it will demonstrate her lack of knowledge of the issue and narrow range of advice she recieves. Yet again, she continues to pedal the lie of “carbon pollution” (although I guess she couldn’t justify taxing it without that tag). She then, once again ignores the fact that if big pollutors pay, that cost will be passed on to the rest of us, and you cannot compensate everyone completely and you certainly cannot compensate those who lose their jobs.
The most disgraceful part of this speech I feel is her indifference to alternate viewpoints. We see another of the left’s overused techniques of casting off skeptics as influenced by ‘shock jocks’. If our prime minister is under the impression that the figures used by skeptics are made up, then it is clear she is not seeing or ignorant of the other side of the debate. As for the fear-mongering line, it is ironic that skeptics are represented as fear mongers instead of Tim Flannery, Al Gore and James Hansen who preach doom on a daily basis.
If is spin of the most reprehensible kind, and a blatant ignorance of the simple fact that no evidence supports the need for this carbon tax.