The only thing we have to fear...

In Doug Cameron's speech on the future of the Australian Labor Party, he said:

In the next year or so, overcoming the politics of fear and disinformation on climate change and mining taxation will be fundamental to the short term political future of the Party.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, trying to promote her Carbon Dioxide tax accused Tony Abbot similarly:

"All of these figures have been made up by the leader of the opposition in pursuit of his fear campaign," Ms Gillard responded.

Excuse me?

Complaining about a new tax, which Ms Gillard said she wouldn't introduce, and which hasn't been properly costed (nor proven to have any real effect) is not a fear campaign.

Telling kids that the world will end. Now that's a fear campaign. And it's already contributing to mental illness in youth, with young kids feeling guilty for daring to sit with the lights on.

Last year a 17-year-old boy in Melbourne became the world's first person to be diagnosed with "climate change delusion".

Dr Robert Salo at the Royal Children's Hospital reported that his patient believed his water consumption would deplete water supplies, leading to the deaths of millions of people, and that he had internet research to prove this.

He had attempted to stop drinking and checked for leaking taps to prevent the catastrophe.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The boy had a major depressive disorder with delusions specifically relating to climate change.

There are many more people with delusions specifically relating to climate change. They just haven't been diagnosed yet.

Research too difficult for Crikey blogger

Climate non-expert Tim Flannery speculates on the possible effect of reducing emissions:

If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

Flannery later refines his speculation:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

And yet more Flannery speculation:

In his letter to The Australian, Professor Flannery wrote that if all major emitters adopted a similar level of effort to reach a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and continued to "decarbonise" after that date, the global temperature rise would be capped at 2C later this century and that temperatures would begin to drop by the end of the century.

It's obvious that Flannery's position on the benefits of emissions reductions is fluid, at best.

In the midst of this confusion Tony Abbott seizes on Flannery's 1,000 year prediction:

But yesterday, as the role of the carbon tax in Labor's massive loss in the NSW election dominated federal political exchanges, Mr Abbott quoted Professor Flannery as he ridiculed the tax as "the ultimate millenium bug".

"It will not make a difference for 1000 years," the Opposition Leader told parliament. "So this is a government which is proposing to put at risk our manufacturing industry, to penalise struggling families, to make a tough situation worse for millions of households right around Australia. And for what? To make not a scrap of difference to the environment any time in the next 1000 years."

PP boy Jeremy Sear ignores Flannery's contradictory statements, instead homing in on Abbott:

What Flannery actually said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years.

“Not going to drop” is clearly not the same as “make not a scrap of difference”. Nor is “several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years” the same as “not… any time in the next 1000 years”.

Had Jeremy researched this he'd know that Flannery did say that "global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years" yet contradicted himself by saying, in the words of The Australian, "that if all major emitters adopted a similar level of effort to reach a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and continued to 'decarbonise' after that date, the global temperature rise would be capped at 2C later this century and that temperatures would begin to drop by the end of the century."

If Jeremy truly seeks to debunk "intellectual dishonesty" he should be attacking Flannery for making contradictory pronouncements on the benefits of emissions reductions rather than concentrating solely on Abbott's attempt to score political points. After all, Flannery has been put forward as an authority, whereas Abbott is merely a politician.

Tony Abbott Seared

Research averse blogging barrister Jeremy Sear misquotes Tony Abbott:

New Zealanders are family, they’re not foreigners and that’s why this disaster has especially touched the hearts of every Australian. Whatever New Zealand asks, Australia will give. Whatever the Government does, the Coalition will back.

A full-on Sear rantrum follows:

Of course! THEY’RE NOT FOREIGNERS. Well, sure, technically they are, but, well, you know what he means.

You don’t know what he means because it’s an absurd thing to say?

He means that many of them are of Anglo-Saxon descent who speak English as a first language – just like the kind of Australians he thinks of when he’s trying to figure out who’s “foreign” or not.

Yes, apparently “that’s why” the Coalition is 100% on board this time, why no expense is to be spared. But remember the qualification. If they weren’t “family” – ie, ethnically similar to Tony Abbott – then things would, it seems, be quite different.

Tony’s unsympathetic attitude towards asylum seekers from non-English-speaking countries makes a lot more sense after that admission.

Here's the full, slightly different, Abbott quote:

Obviously I support the Prime Minister’s remarks. I welcome the measures to support New Zealand which she has announced to the House, including the donation of $5 million to the New Zealand earthquake appeal. As the Prime Minister has said, New Zealanders are family; they are not foreigners, and that is why this disaster has especially touched the hearts of every Australian. Almost all of us have family and friends across the Tasman, so our thoughts and prayers have become even more focused and intense over the past 24 hours as news of the scale of the disaster unfolds. It is especially poignant now that we know that an Australian is amongst the dead.

The coalition stands shoulder to shoulder with the government on this one. Whatever New Zealand asks Australia will give. Whatever the government does the coalition will back.

The crucial highlighted words above, omitted from Sear's quote, clearly show that Abbott was echoing the Prime Minister's characterisation of Australia's special relationship with New Zealand:

I describe New Zealanders as family to Australians. Today our family are suffering a very devastating blow, with an earthquake of a magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale hitting Christchurch and its surrounding districts.

~

Prime Minister Key said to me that when he is in the position to make a further assessment he will let me know, but if we have a capability that our family in New Zealand needs then we will certainly get it across to them.

And Gillard again the following day:

New Zealanders are like family to us. They are like family in good times and bad. This is a very, very bad time. We will be with them during this very bad time, and whatever assistance they need that we can provide we will certainly make available.

In view of the fact that New Zealand was for a time, during the colonial period, part of New South Wales it is not unreasonable to regard Kiwis as family. You know, as sort of trans-Tasman Tasmanians.

Anyway, unaware that Gillard too regards New Zealanders as family, and therefore not as foreigners, Sear's commenters jump on the anti-Abbott rant-wagon.

His post drawing over 70 comments at his personal blog Sear uses the Abbott misquote in the latest Pure Poison poocast (pick it up at 7:50), the PPboyz strongly suggesting that Abbott's compassion is evidence of racism – he would not be nearly so concerned with the plight of disaster-struck, non-white foreigners. There is no mention of Gillard's racism, however.

By the way, Sear didn't monkey around with the Abbott quote, he made the mistake of relying on the ABC – Mark Colvin, PM – to quote accurately. He should, however, research his posts properly in the future; you know, to limit embarrassment to just the stupid stuff he writes.

Update Correcting the PPboyz would be a full-time job for anyone so inclined. Also in the latest podcast, Dave and Jeremy have a very iffy go at Caroline Overington (pick it up at 11:00).

Here's the full story. The Australian's Matthew Franklin objected to a comment at Poll Bludger presented as a "satirical article" – Jeremy Sear's description – with this further description from Crikey editor Sophie Black:

The comment, # 502 of more than 1400 at the time (there are now 2285 comments on that post), was an attempt at satire aimed at —  we think — Tony Abbott, the notion of mateship, Pastor Danny Naliah, the coalition’s line on the flood levy and The Australian and/or Franklin. It was presented in the style of a breaking news article from The Australian about the New Zealand earthquakes, below the byline of Matthew Franklin.

The comment was removed, Overington summing up in the print edition of the Australian:










Overington's language is perhaps a bit loose but she is correct, even Sear describing the comment as an "article". Yet in the same podcast where Sear describes the comment as an "article" he raves on and on about how Overington and the Australian can't distinguish between articles and comments.

Also, Dave gives the wrong headline for Overington's article and Jeremy misuses "smarmy".

Sorry folks, I had to stop listening with over 20 minutes remaining in the podcast: wading through shit can't be healthy.

Update II Jeremy issues one of his almost corrections, noting that Gillard also regards New Zealanders as family, but failing to note that he misquoted Abbott and adding this absurd qualification:

She didn’t make the link between their alleged “family” status and support quite as explicitly as Abbott...

Abbott, in his brief remarks, twice refers to New Zealanders as family, this in direct response to Gillard's New Zealanders are family cue.

In fact, Gillard refers to New Zealanders as "family" six times over two days of parliamentary debate, concluding her remarks:

We will continue to respond to the needs of New Zealand. I know that the thoughts of all Australians are with New Zealanders as we have watched the devastation on our TV screens. New Zealanders are like family to us. They are like family in good times and bad. This is a very, very bad time. We will be with them during this very bad time, and whatever assistance they need that we can provide we will certainly make available.

And a week prior to the Christchurch earthquake on a visit to New Zealand Gillard says:

Australia has many alliances and friends around the world ... but New Zealand alone is family.

In choosing to ignore that Abbott merely restated Gillard's sentiments Sear is displaying exactly the "intellectual dishonesty, the flimsy arguments and the distorted data" he claims to seek to expose and debunk. In doing so he yet again makes fools of himself and his Crikey employers.

Update III Jeremy's almost correction (above) is at his personal blog. The Pure Poison podcast misquoting Abbott with both Dave and Jeremy making a really deal out of it – with strong suggestions of racism – remains uncorrected, however. Jeremy doesn't like to admit when he's wrong.