Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 3077 comments are related to the topic:
This government is a disgrace
This government is a disgrace
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 3,077
|
By:
your alarmist behaviour and ridiculing and denigarting individuals presenting facts is worrying afl
but i have hope for you still  please submit your document web link of the 25 years study you mentioned and i will certainly read it .. cheers ----- the latest ipcc document mentions wildfires ... but says nothing that shows a direct consequence of co2 On Page 268 “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [that is, adjusted for exposure and wealth of the increasing populations] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” The IPCC claim only to have “low confidence” in their ability to project “changes in frequency and duration of megadroughts.” http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf ---- the IPCC do however mention in their latest report the dreadful 2009 fires in melbourne (on page 239) a Royal Commission was held into those devastating Melbourne 2009 fires http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/finaldocuments/summary/pf/vbrc_summary_pf.pdf Page 12 Nine of the 15 fires the Commission examined were started as a direct or indirect result of human activity, five were associated with the failure of electricity assets and the causes of four were thought to be suspicious as this adds 19 then there was obviously an overlap of causation in the commissions eyes, but this was the report |
|
By:
IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO OR HOW THE FIRE STARTED
IT'S ABOUT THE FREQUENCY AND THE INTENSITY OF THE FIRES WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE DON'T GET THEM AS FREQUENTLY AND AS INTENSE IN WINTER DO THE ARSONISTS GO ON HOLIDAYS IN WINTER? CLIMATE CHANGE HAS CHANGED THE CLIMATE WE ARE NOW GETTING SUPER INTENSE FIRES IN SPRING WE HAVE LONGER AND MORE FREQUENT DROUGHTS OUR COUNTRY IS DRIER FOR LONGER THAN IT EVER HAS BEEN CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSING THIS BELIEVE THE SCIENCE.... THEY ARE RIGHT AND YOU AND ABBOTT ARE WRONG |
|
By:
I know, AFL.
I feel your pain. I think you need a Bex and a good lie down  |
|
By:
we are doomed on trying to get sensible policy on the environment when the minister relies on Wikipedia ffs
madness taking away the MRRT - Labor and the Greens should vote to keep the tax but not the associated spending - School Kids Bonus should go, people need to feel some of the consequences of how they voted |
|
By:
Yes Phil, imagine if we didn't have those nasty ignition points of matches and cigarette lighters....
we could cure Lung Cancer as well. |
|
By:
IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO OR HOW THE FIRE STARTED
that's how this all started afl ... i share for your frustration adam bandt started it by saying the nsw bushfires were an example of climate change in action religious type followers of that mantra then supported this statement without taking into consideration that studies that were shown on the Govt's website indicated around only 6% of the 50,000 bushfires each year were started by natural causes yet no one would listen - beacuse the mantra was - THIS HAD TO BE CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOTHING else - ffs  then UN spokesperson Chrsitiana said the nsw bushfires were an example of climate change in action christiana then backflipped and backpeddled and said well the World Meteorological group HADN'T said our nsw bushfires were started by climate change you can't jump in like a vulture and blame the nsw fires on climate change and NOW backpeddle but when you look deeper and i suggest everyone does you find out this about the UN spokesperson who imo is nothing but a political opportunist and a propoganda machine for ONE THING only .. to get the co2 tax money from australia here is her full speech to poor hunt .. where she went from climate change causing our nsw bushfires all the way over to heatwaves are likely to be more prevalent with climate change - backflipper but it gets worse when you read on - instead of thanking hunt & abbott for keeping their committment to emmissions reductions the same a gillard - she then tries to become our treasurer by telling hunt that THE CO2 TAX is the only to achieve this because all other methods could be much more expensive for them and for the population - ie dont spend your sovereign dollars tackling the problem in your way give the UN your sovereign dollars there is no definitive evidence that a Co2 tax will saave the environment CAN YOU GUYS NOT SEE THAT THE TAX IS WHAT THEY ARE FIGHTING OVER - and THAT is the trick and that is the con fss ---- http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/australia/3253/clear-link-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-un/ In an interview with CNN's Christine Amanpour on Monday, the head of the UN's climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said there was a clear link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in New South Wales. She noted that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link between the NSW fires and climate change. “But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency,” Figueres said. The highly unusual intervention by a senior UN official in a domestic climate policy debate comes three weeks before the next major round of UN-sponsored talks in Warsaw. The negotiations are aiming to reach a global climate treaty by 2015 that would take effect by 2020. Figueres described the NSW fires as an “example of what we may be looking at unless we take actually vigorous action”. The UN negotiator said the new Abbott government had chosen a more difficult and expensive path to emissions reduction than the previous Gillard government – noting that the Coalition had not stepped away from Australia's commitment to reduce its emissions by 5 per cent by 2020. “The road that they are choosing to get to the same target that the previous government had could be much more expensive for them and for the population,” Figueres said. --- and the final observation of the "UN spokesperson on how australia should manage it finances" is ... The highly unusual intervention by a senior UN official in a domestic climate policy debate comes three weeks before the next major round of UN-sponsored talks in Warsaw. The negotiations are aiming to reach a global climate treaty by 2015 that would take effect by 2020. ---- political opportunist grade one  |
|
By:
very good Thebas ,the forum loonies don't get it , its all about the tax trick , I mean how f'in thick are they ffs
methinks AFL apart from talking to himself will be ever frustrated speaking out loud (CAPITALS) for at least 9 years - 3 terms all whilst watching competent government re establishing the country that got lost in the last 6 years |
|
By:
I'll see your political opportunist and raise you one.....
As Howard wrote in his autobiography Lazarus Rising, “in the space of several weeks, commencing in October 2006, four separate events came together to push the climate change concerns of the Australian community to higher levels than ever before. In Victoria the bushfire season started early; the drought affecting large areas of eastern Australia lingered on … from outside Australia came the contributions of Al Gore … and Sir Nicholas Stern. “These four events coincided and dramatically increased the focus on global warming in Australia … I concluded that the government would need to shift its position on climate change.” This was apparently primarily a political consideration, since Howard says later in his book that he is “an agnostic rather than a sceptic on climate change, instinctively I doubt many of the more alarming predictions”. |
|
By:
note to AFL :
the science is clearly settled (without the use of GOVT. PAID scientists justifying a job) >> climate change has been here forever and a day , it will NEVER ever go away and most especially not with money shuffling |
|
By:
cheers secong ... it is like beating your head sometimes but they are good guys at heart imo and i enjoy the dialogue with them
|
|
By:
yes AFL how dare the army set off fires and 12yo boys set off fires out of season
 |
|
By:
I actually like womnle and AFL despite their short comings upstairs lol
|
|
By:
* womble lol
|
|
By:
al gore
|
|
By:
I know it must be difficult for you guys to read anything more convoluted than a form guide...
but you really should expand your knowledge and not rely on the word of those famous world renowned Climate Scientists like Tony Abbott, Greg Hunt Monckton, Pilmer and the Koch Bro's. |
|
By:
ffs AFL get with the program , Andrew Bolt
  |
|
By:
al gore ffs ...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=44943ea6-410e-4285-afaf-508f9b606867 A British High Court judge this week exposed nine inaccuracies in former U.S. vicepresident Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, labelling it "a political film" and calling many of its claims about climate change "alarmist" and "exaggerated." nah afl ... i will look to more diverse scientific studies than ... AL GORE ... thx |
|
By:
Please list the Climate Scientists that agree with you guys.
You know them....the people that actually spend their life studying the Climate. Go on list them......????????????? Because it can only be 3 % of the people who study in the field as the other 97% disagree with you and them. |
|
By:
Tony Abbott, Greg Hunt Monckton, Pilmer and the Koch Bro's.
Now there's a team to stake your life on that they have the wider community and not their own political motives at heart. |
|
By:
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain. |
|
By:
australia are committed to emissions reductions just like gillard afl
the sense of the whole thing at last is it NOT just committed to the "fake for the environment co2 tax" show me 97% scientific proof that a co2 will save the environment ? |
|
By:
World's 'top' climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
Actually, according to a peer-reviewed paper just published in Nature Climate Change, there has been no statistically-significant global warming for the past 20 years. World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years Leaked United Nations report reveals the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years Politicians have raised concerns about the final draft Fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change |
|
By:
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause
|
|
By:
Nearly all global indicators show “full speed ahead” for trends consistent with human-influenced climate change
ipcc-blog-series-imageThis post is part of a series on The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Even as a car slows down to go over a “speed bump,” there is no question the car is still advancing down the road. Similarly, the global average surface temperature trend of late is like a “speed bump” and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump. We keep getting questions about this air temperature trend that has more to do with where the excess heat is primarily going — the ocean — and the rate at which heat transfers to the deep ocean, as well as other factors that can temporarily offset the influence of heat-trapping gases. These include ocean cycles such as phases of the El Niño Southern Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean. Or tiny pollution particles as well as tiny particles emanating from volcanic eruptions that reflect sunlight. More importantly, society tends to focus quite heavily on the surface temperature since that is where most of us live our daily lives. We know that is just one of the many ways we measure climate change. A look at the big picture shows a world that continues to face disruption from human-induced climate change. Each indicator has a different period of length for rates of change that you can check out in these hyperlinks: ocean heat content, global sea level rise, global sea surface temperature, global surface temperature, Arctic minimum sea ice extent, and reference glaciers cumulative mass. Global Climate Change Indicators Table Created by Brenda Ekwurzel at Union of Concerned Scientists Globally, many indicators show a comprehensive view that the climate system is changing: the ocean and atmosphere are warming, sea level is rising, snow and ice is diminishing – at unprecedented rates. Data source: EPA Indicators graphs with period of record available as of September 24, 2013. Table created for this post. Look for the IPCC to place extreme events in context Scientists have long understood that weather events spawn within a background state of conditions that climate change influences, such as seasonal sea surface temperature, ice extent, water vapor volume in the atmosphere, etc. The most extreme of these weather events can wreak havoc on communities that suffer exposure to such monstrous calamities. In a few days, look to the IPCC summary to shed light on the latest science. Since the IPCC issued a special report on extreme events in 2012, we know that the observed historic record can only get us so far in our understanding since by definition these events are very rare. However, over just the past few years, the science has advanced to the point where models can simulate conditions surrounding similar extreme events. Unlike Earth, these can be investigated in ways that can increase confidence in the statistical outcomes regarding similar types of extreme events. Using such evidence, scientists declared that flooding conditions in Thailand in 2011 were from rains in the normal range. Unfortunately, the exposed communities had other risks that conspired to make such an event a tragic disaster in Thailand. On the other hand, investigations into the severe Texas drought in 2011 and the historic storm surge from Hurricane Sandy that battered the U.S. East Coast around Halloween 2012 indicate that the severity of these events have links with a changing climate. Community planners are doing what they can to incorporate climate change projections of the future to better prepare for even more extreme events going forward. Especially given the limited budgets of local communities, this focus by regional planners is a heroic public service. In many ways I think of these planners as the real “first responders” of the extreme events of the future. Posted in: Global Warming Tags: Extreme Events, Global Surface Temperature, IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
|
By:
IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrong
By RON ARNOLD | SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 AT 8:22 AM Topics: Climate Change Environmental Protection Agency United Nations Energy and Environment Photo - The 31-page "Summary for Policymakers" of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong - global surface temperatures haven't risen significantly in the last 15 years - but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans' fault. My copy of the leaked final draft of the world’s most influential global warming report, despite authors of the highest reputation, reads like something from a mental hospital with no doctors or nurses. The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault. Then European Union Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the London Telegraph that EU policy on global warming is right even if the science is wrong. That’s nuts, but that’s Big Green: Facts don’t matter. I asked climate realist Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and former Senate Environment and Public Works professional staff member, whether the leaked IPCC report was indeed full of inconsistencies. “It is, but you have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 have been devastating to its political narrative on global warming,” Morano said. He reeled off examples as if spooling out crime scene tape: “Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records. Global temperatures have failed to rise for 15-plus years. Global cooling has occurred since 2002. Polar bear numbers are increasing. Wildfire numbers are well below average. Sea level rise is failing to accelerate. Tornadoes are at record lows. Hurricanes are at record low activity.” Case closed. I complained that none of that was in the IPCC report. Morano indicated that the facts were well known even if obscured by jargon. As a result, “former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day,” Morano said. It’s true. Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this week published her analysis of the leaked IPCC draft report – and it sparked an international Twitter war. "In view of the recent pause [in warming] and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings,” Curry said, it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. “This is incomprehensible to me,” she said. “The science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux.” All this business about “confidence” sounds like a sophomoric game because it is. It’s the IPCC’s consensus-seeking process at work. Consensus is a group decision-making process that seeks the consent of all participants, and it is not part of the scientific method. It gained popularity in the women’s liberation and anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s. The only advantage of consensus-seeking for the IPCC is the political clout of being able to say, “The scientific consensus is…”, thereby totally undercutting the views of non-IPCC scientists. Its disadvantage to science is that nobody knows by an up-and-down vote who disagrees with major pieces of the science and why, instead devising a scale of “confidence” for each set of results: “weakly confident,” “moderately confident,” and “extremely confident” – like marking your kids’ heights on the kitchen wall with “short,” “taller” and “way tall.” Curry recommended that the consensus-seeking IPCC process be abandoned for a more traditional review, saying, "I think that arguments for and against would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.” One of the report’s authors, professor Myles Allen, director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, said, “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works.” He recommended this IPCC report be the last. With all the economic pain, social divisiveness and resource misdirection the IPCC has caused, the 195 governments that funded it should get their money back. |
|
By:
If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause
|
|
By:
Does the global warming 'pause' mean what you think it means?
Posted on 18 October 2013 by dana1981 In their study of media coverage of the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, Media Matters for America found that nearly half of print media stories discussed that the warming of global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years. While this factoid is true, the question is, what does it mean? Many popular climate myths share the trait of vagueness. For example, consider the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past. Well of course it has, but what does that tell us? It's akin to telling a fire investigator that fires have always happened naturally in the past. That would doubtless earn you a puzzled look from the investigator. Is the implication that because they have occurred naturally in the past, humans can't cause fires or climate change? The same problem applies to the 'pause' (or 'hiatus' or better yet, 'speed bump') assertion. It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but what does that mean? One key piece of information that's usually omitted when discussing this subject is that the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. Energy accumulation in within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971–2010. From the 2013 IPCC report. Energy accumulation within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971 to 2010. From Chapter 3 of the 2013 IPCC report. The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That's the only part of the climate for which the warming has 'paused'. As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second. Another important piece of oft-omitted information: while the warming of surface temperatures was relatively slow from 1998 to 2012, it was relatively fast from 1990 through 2006. Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected. So what's changed over the past 10 to 15 years? The IPCC attributes the recent slowing of surface temperatures to a combination of external and internal climate factors. For example, solar activity has been relatively low and volcanic activity has been relatively high, causing less solar energy to reach the Earth's surface. At the same time, we're in the midst of cool ocean cycle phases, for example with a preponderance of La Niña events since 1999. A number of recent studies have suggested that most of the recent slowing of surface warming is due to these ocean cycles. What does that mean for the future? It means more global warming. A number of papers from climate 'skeptics' have sought to fit the surface temperature measurements with various cycles. Some have tried to attribute these changes to astronomical cycles, others to ocean cycles, others to 'stadium waves'. Ultimately these papers are just trying to explain the short-term wiggles in the data. For example, as Marcia Wyatt, lead author of the recent Wyatt & Curry 'stadium waves' paper explained, "While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability." In other words, the surface temperature speed bump is mainly due to the short-term influences of natural climate variability on top of the long-term human-caused warming trend. As Mark Boslough noted, it all boils down to physics and conservation of energy. We continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning more and more fossil fuels. The extra energy trapped in the Earth's climate system by that increased greenhouse effect can't just disappear, it has to go somewhere. Right now it just so happens that more is going into the oceans, whereas in the 1990s more was going into the atmosphere. Some have asked if the 'pause' is real or a result of cherry picking. The answer is that there is a 'pause' if the data are cherry picked. First we have to cherry pick the 2 percent of global warming represented by surface temperatures and ignore the other 98 percent. Then we have to cherry pick a sufficiently short time frame to find a flat trend. Escalator Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12. Despite this double cherry picking, ignoring 98 percent of global warming, and despite the sun and volcanoes and ocean cycles all acting in the cooling direction over the past decade, the best climate contrarians can do is find a flat 10-year surface temperature trend. Can you guess what's going to happen the next time the oceans shift to a warm cycle? That's the thing about cycles – they're cyclical. Regarding the 'pause', Inigo Montoya would likely tell climate contrarians, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Click here to read the rest This post has been incorporated into the rebuttal to the myth IPCC admits global warming has paused. |
|
By:
The speed bump or PAUSE only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate.
So there is the explanation of the pause....supplied by Climate Change Scientists Not the Murdoch Media. |
|
By:
gotta love the oceans lol
the world has been warmer pre industrial - try middle ages its ever changing ie: will never NOT change EVER - cool and warm cool and way cool and warm and on and on and on get it? |
|
By:
Many popular climate myths share the trait of vagueness. For example, consider the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past.
Well of course it has, but what does that tell us? It's akin to telling a fire investigator that fires have always happened naturally in the past. That would doubtless earn you a puzzled look from the investigator. Is the implication that because they have occurred naturally in the past, humans can't cause fires or climate change? Comprehendo?????? |
|
By:
Keep your denial myths coming SC
There isn't one that can't be rebutted by the Science. |
|
By:
OR LOGIC 101....
|
|
By:
the point being the co2 makes a just fly sh1t of difference , the planet has and will be hotter and cooler on its own , trillions of tax dollars past and future wont change it, its just a made up industry of people justifying their existance over a difference of 0.2 of 1 degree Celsius , less using Fahrenheit , this 0.2 will happen up or down - its only about the money trick and the lefties don't get it , how thick can one be
anyways 3 terms of this govt will see a lot more capitals from you AFL  i'll be here all of the way cheers and once again good punting once again its been a pleasure |
|
By:
Yes you've given me a good laugh this morning SC...
Have a good one also. |
|
By:
But leading bushfire experts said it was ridiculous to link the current crisis to climate change when the most recent major report from the UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world's weather had warmed by just 0.89C since the start of the 20th century.
"If there is any global warming, the global warming is so slow and so small the bushfire event is totally overrun by the fuel state," retired Monash University researcher David Packham said. Research by Phil Cheney, a former head of CSIRO Bushfire Research, has found "the effect of (increasing temperatures forecast by the IPCC) on bushfire behaviour, by itself, will be trivial''. "Fire intensity is far more significantly affected by fuel quantity, fuel dryness and wind strength than it is by temperature,'' he said. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bush-fuel-is-to-blame-for-nsw-blazes-not-united-nations-climate-change-theory-experts-say/story-fni0cx12-1226744870197 ------ ... christiana figueres & adam bandt should offer an immediate apology to australians, to tony abbott, and to anyone affected by the tragedy of the nsw bushfires alarmism and exaggeration and political opportunity have no place in correct discussions regarding the climate and co2 and cannot in anyway be linked to individual actual events |
|
By:
Who said upon hearing about the sinking of the Costa Concordia boat disaster that over 30 people perished in....
"Well that's one boat they did stop" Our now Prime Minister Tony Abbott that's who. This was broadcast around the world as an example of the typical disgusting comments coming from the mouth of a politician that knows no bounds when scoring a political point no matter who it hurts. And we rewarded him with the highest job in the land. Go figure. |
|
By:
It wasn't UPON HEARING about the ship it was as follows , nothing like distorting the picture AFL
Speaking on Triple M Adelaide's morning show yesterday morning Mr Abbott was asked: "This is just a bit from left field, the captain from the Costa Concordia wants to know if you need any help with your boat policy?" reported the Herald Sun. (amongst full on laughing from the morning crew so you can sense the mood if you listen to the clip) "Well that was one boat that did get stopped, wasn't it," responded Mr Abbott (and all laughed) - all said in jest , are leaders not allowed to make a joke? |
|
By:
The Age
Federal Politics Political News Political Opinion Breaking Politics Video The Pulse Interactives The Sugar Hit Cartoons Election 2013 You are here: Home Federal Politics Political News Article Search age: Search in: National Times Abbott's soiree has the right stuff Date October 26, 2013 112 reading now Peter Munro Pin It submit to reddit Email article Reprints & permissions Ads by Google World War 2 Photos google.com/culturalinstitute Explore Photos of Historical Events With the Google Cultural Institute. Piers Akerman, top, and Andrew Bolt, were among the guests. Piers Akerman, top, and Andrew Bolt, were among the guests. When entertaining at home Tony Abbott prefers like-minded company, if the guest list to his Saturday soiree is any guide. The Prime Minister's first gathering of the Australian media is an invitation-only affair of conservative columnists and broadcasters. Many are disagreeable, but, happily, rarely so with the nation's 28th leader. Invited to dinner and drinks at Kirribilli House is a rollcall of Mr Abbott's strongest supporters: among them Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones, Janet Albrechtsen, Miranda Devine and Chris Kenny. Daily Telegraph editor Paul Whittaker, whose paper backed Mr Abbott to the hilt, will be in attendance. News Corp editor Col Allan is believed to have flown back from New York in time for the intimate gathering of friends. The Australian editor Chris Mitchell was invited, but told Fairfax Media he was unable to attend. Former prime minister Julia Gillard was mocked for her ''mummy bloggers''. Here then, perhaps, was a conspiracy of conservative columnists. That most of Mr Abbott's guests come from News Corp would surely please Rupert Murdoch, who is back in Australia. Fairfax Media columnists Paul Sheehan and Gerard Henderson were also invited to the knees-up, which was orchestrated by Mr Abbott's chief of staff Peta Credlin. Guests were asked to keep details of the evening strictly confidential. ''We do not release details of the Prime Minister's private functions,'' a spokeswoman said. She declined to respond when asked whether the taxpayer would foot the bill for the dinner and drinks. who is paying for these ****s to go  disgrace...hope Tones has stocked on KY for tonight  |
|
By:
so tonight is the night Tony is told the price for them backing him - wonder what it will be???
|
|
By:
Wouldn't you just love to blow that little gathering up.
I doubt if a more rancid collection of sub-human scum has ever been gathered together in one place at the same time. |