You’d expect me to be happy that Gary Gray has been made the minister responsible for climate change, but what was the PM thinking?
I’m happy because Gary Gray is a fully-fledged climate skeptic, and there should be more of us in positions of influence.
According to Business Spectator, in 1999 he said “the evidence linking human activity to climate change was ‘‘pop science’”. Now he is quoted as saying on Lateline that “he now believes that human activity is leading to global warming”.
Pity the interviewer wasn’t across her brief. This doesn’t make him a non-skeptic. If someone tells you that human activity isn’t contributing to global warming they are a nutter, not a skeptic.
All the skeptics that you should pay attention to agree that increased CO2 emissions warm the world. The question is to what degree, and what the benefits, as well as the costs, are.
The question he should have been asked is whether he thinks that temperature will rise by 4 to 6 degrees in the next century, as Christine Milne does.
The Lateline answer was a non-answer and proves that he is a politician and knows how to dodge a bullet, not that he is a supporter of the previous minister’s position.
It won’t take the Greens long to ping him on this, which will lead to further questions about the PM’s judgement.
Gillard has staked so much of her career on the carbon tax, to the degree that she has sacrificed any claim that she ever had to being honest.
So why appoint a minister to handle this area who is intellectually opposed to the scientific view underlying that position, and in so doing, undermine the perception that she is committed to that position, unless she intends to undermine that position in an attempt to crawl back into favour somewhere?
In effect, Gray’s appointment doubles up on her dishonesty. Not a smart position when she is entering an election campaign with the majority of Australians closing their ears to her on the basis that they don’t believe a word she says.
Yes he did say that back in 1999; but, Gary Gray has long since refuted his climate sceptic stance, and is on the public record saying, he now believes in climate science and human caused climate change. [A light on the road to Damascus moment, while working in the oil industry. And hardly unusual for those willing to actually look at all the available evidence]
I’m rather surprised at you Graham!
It seems out of character for you to peddle misinformation?
And I thought that Journalists were obliged to validate their information? [Check with Fran Kelly and her morning breakfast show, if only to validate what Gary Gray dd say, or his current opinion on climate change!]
Alan B. Goulding
Comment by Alan B. Goulding — March 26, 2013 @ 9:47 am
He’s on the record being skeptical about climate change much more recently than 1999. It’s not me who’s bought the spin Alan. And I don’t know what he said to Fran this morning, I didn’t hear him, but I did hear him on Lateline last night, and as described above, he avoided the issue.
The only reason Woodside might have corporately bought the anthropogenic global warming hysteria is because they sell gas, not oil, which emits less CO2 and is therefore regarded as being less “polluting”. So, it’s a marketing advantage for them if people buy the hysteria.
Comment by Graham — March 26, 2013 @ 8:10 pm
And of course I wrote this post before Fran Kelly interviewed Gary Gray. However I have now listened to it online, and the formulation he used on Fran’s program was the same as he used on Lateline. What he said was “I accept the contribution that humans have made to our changing climate.” That is a non-answer. It says nothing about what he thinks that contribution might be.
The other thing I noticed was that he was trying to fit Martin Ferguson up for the MRRT negotiations, even though we know that it was Swan and Gillard who designed it.
He’s clever, and he’s disingenuous. And I think you ought to stop making idle and inaccurate accusations about my level of integrity.
Comment by Graham — March 26, 2013 @ 8:22 pm
Yes, Graham, I share your scepticism and agree with far, far too much of the thread starter.
Both political formations are terrified of alienating influential backers.
For Labor it is real politik, it is to do with easing enviro fears as to their WA and Qld blue collar base before the conservatives outflank them on jobs and I wonder also if, apart from sending a a pro-development canon ball across the bows of environmentalism, it is to do with Timor Gap oil.
Comment by paul walter — March 27, 2013 @ 7:59 am
Ouch! Wasn’t challenging your integrity mate, just your accuracy.
As for human contributions toward climate change, given human caused climate change is validated? Who could say how much is the product of natural variation and how much is down to human activity; burning fossil fuels, clear felling rain forests, etc?
A very clever disingenuous politician Graham. Who would have thought?
In any event, his days as a minister are surely both very limited and numbered!
Incidentally, and entirely off topic, I’ve decided to boycott both ANZ and IBM, and advise all your readers and all they can influence, to do the same!
Cheers, Alan B. Goulding.
Comment by Alan B. Goulding — March 27, 2013 @ 8:28 am
Who cares whether Gary Gray is a skeptic, non-scaptic, nutter or an opportunist. The fact is all Labor MPs will be out of office soon …. come September. Can’t wait. Gillard killed labor!! Abbott is looking sooooo good. Thanks Julia.
Comment by Jolly — March 28, 2013 @ 12:08 am
Jolly,Don’t put too much faith in Abbott.He’s making no noises about reigning in our out of control banking industry.We need a Glass Steagall Act to separate their derivative activities from your assets.
Don’t think that a Cyprus like collapse can’t happen here.
Comment by Ross — April 1, 2013 @ 12:28 pm