Abbott boots UN climate change busy-body in the bum

Tony Abbott has come out fighting this week in Australia, especially over silly claims that bush-fires are caused by climate change.

Tony Abbott has accused the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, of “talking through her hat” for suggesting there was a link between global warming and bushfires.

The head of a United Nations committee on climate change told CNN this week global warming was “absolutely” linked to wildfires and heatwaves.  

“Yes there is, absolutely,” Figueres said when asked whether there is a link between climate change and wildfires. “The World Meteorological Organisation has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet. But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heatwaves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.”

But asked about the remarks on on radio 3AW on Wednesday, Abbott said: “The official in question is talking through her hat.

Abbott said Australia had suffered “terrible fires” throughout its history.

“Fire is part of the Australian experience … it has been since humans were on this continent,” he said.

“Climate change is real … but these fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they are just a function of life.”


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Day Day

    The largest & most devastating fires & droughts in post colonial Aussie occurred in the 1800’s. They are well documented in the newspapers of the time.

    • Dave

      Agree Day Day…. And its extremely well documented. Or, has this climate change been going on for millions of years and they conveniently forget that as well.

      I wonder if Ms Figueres has even been in the Aussie bush, let alone near an Aussie bush fire as it tears through the tinder dry aussie bush. Case in point for the UN to butt out of Aussies affairs, oh, and Climate change.

  • Dick Brown

    Bit rich describing an expert in their field as talking through their hat; especially from the gob of such a person as Abbott.

    • JC

      But he is right, she is wrong. There have been 11 such October fires since 1926 and the real reason why this fire and many other modern ones are dangerous is humans have allowed the fuel levels to quadruple from what they were historically.. score another own goal for the greenies who refuse to use the off season to burn out the accumulated fire loading.. something the Abos did regularly these last 40,000 years.


      • philbest

        There was a brilliant article in Quadrant Magazine in 2009 on all this; “The Lessons of Black Saturday” by Ray Evans. Very unfortunately behind a subscription wall, but I might be able to dig out some excerpts for the benefit of WhaleOil readers. It might also be possible to find somewhere online, Ray Evans’ submissions to the authorities over several years.

        Germaine Greer of all people hit the nail on the head years ago:

        Australian authorities arsonists: Germaine Greer

        • JC

          The concept isn’t difficult and even Tim Flannery wrote well on Abo fire management before he went nuts.

          I attended an informal debrief on the 1983 fires (Ash Wednesday) back in the day and worked in and around the Blue Mountains in the mid 90s. You get the same story every time, the greenies munt on about the wonderful Australian bush.. really just some ratty dull coloured scrub allowed to thicken up so as to burn more dangerously.. you can just about see steam rising from the heads of the local foresters when they talk about it.


          • philbest

            They won’t allow the planting of species other than Eucalyptus gums and “natives” that burn like dynamite, either.

            It would be basic common sense to plant some substantial forests of trees that are less combustible – some good substantial stands of other species that were planted before the Green Taleban got control, have actually allowed the firefighters to halt the spread of fires in some locations.

          • Mr_V4

            Nothing else would probably survive. Eucalyptus have millions of years of evolution on their side to survive the dry conditions and risk of fire. Indeed their adaptions promote the fire in such a way as to ensure their survival at the expense of virtually everything else. Quite incredible really, from the stringy bark that catches alight and travels in the wind, seeds in an insulated pod, volatile oils with an octane rating of 100.

            It is the humans that are being outcompeted here and it is not sensible to have single dwellings in amoungst the gum trees without significant fire-proof engineering,

      • Mr_V4

        During the Victorian bush fires a few years ago, there was a guy on the telly who was fined $50k by the council for illegally clearing trees around his property, When the fire came through his house was the only one on the ridge that survived. He was in tears on the telly saying it was the best $50k he ever spent, but unfortunately other families were no so lucky.

        Of course I bet his testimony was quickly forgotten by the Royal Commission …

    • Magoo

      You’d think she’d know what was in the latest IPCC climate change report being the Executive Secretary of the the UNFCCC:

      “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”.

      Source – Drought, page 10-50:

      She’s either ignorant or a bullshitting lying propagandist – my vote’s for the latter. Abbott is fully correct in both his stance on the fires/climate change and on saying she’s talking through her hat – I wouldn’t have been so polite.

      • Dick Brown

        She did qualify her statement by saying ‘yet’. Winston Churchill was considered a warmonger by warning against fascist and communist regimes; especially when Chamberlain waved his piece of paper declaring peace in our time.

        She is neither ignorant nor a liar; someone asked her a question and she responded with what she has in front of her while making an educational prediction for the future.

        • James Growley

          But, she had nothing in front of her to link the events so the prudent course of action would be to wait until there was primary evidence other than that of the Australian Army starting the fire……..

          • Dick Brown

            Just as a jury has no evidence in a court case until a prima facie case exists; that still doesn’t give us the right to launch scathing attacks on the police while they are investigating.

            Is it prudent for a spokesperson to deny the existence of current scientific analysis?

            No, of course not, and why should she.

            I don’t know why the anti-science stance is so vehement in some quarters of this establishment; this type of selective prejudice against person(s)/organisations is detrimental to the human race as a whole.

            Imagine if we stopped the LHC being built because we scoffed at Higgs and his crazy, wacky, out of this world ideas.

            Because he said exactly the same thing. “We haven’t found the boson, yet.”

            No howls from the cheap seats when that happened; and it had less general agreement to its existence than global warming.

        • Muffin

          That’s a long bow

    • greg

      Dear Mr Brown (no not you Len) your first name describes you well…

      • Dick Brown



    • Andy

      What field is she an expert in?

    • rrroberto

      absolutely correct. She is an expert in her field, her field is Bullshit, and she was speaking absolute bullshit, so Abbot was quite wrong in his characterization of her.

    • cows4me

      You are wrong Dick, your expert is talking through their arse and their bank book.

  • disqus_5UJyGos8Zp

    Figueres an expert in her field? Her degree is in anthropology and her field of expertise could best be described as institutional politics.

  • Josh Metcalfe

    Even if the fires were caused by climate change, it’s incredibly poor taste to be talking down to Australia while they’re in the midst of fighting said fires and trying to save lives.

    • JC

      Quite simply, the Greens, the UN, the IPCC and various other fanatics (but I repeat myself) are going to “punish” Abbott and Australia for taking on the Green dragon of climate change. Abbott and co have put more than a trillion dollars at risk of wind farms, solar, activist and advocacy jobs, hundreds of scientific jobs and the entire climate guilt industry.

      These people will ruthlessly use any loss of life and property to try and get Australia back into the fold to keep the carnival going.


      • philbest

        Yeah, and it was the Greens activists, especially embedded in bureaucracies, jacking up the risk in the first place with looney neo-pagan policies on forest management.

  • Patrick

    Apparently Big Al Gore was interviewed on the ABC during the week – I missed it unfortunately…..but never let it be said that the commies miss an opportunity to link a natural event with climate change.
    Not sure how he explains the Army admitting their live firing started a number of bushfires, or the five juveniles arrested for starting a bunch of other fires.
    Still I guess he can somehow draw the link between climate change & juvenile delinquency.

  • Rimutaka

    The important part of Abbott’s statement that some on here need to take on board was this part “Climate change is real”

    And meanwhile from the same article and back in the realms of science and not right wing paranoia “The Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research found that the country has experienced more fire weather in the last 30 years in a study commissioned by the Climate Institute from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre in 2007. The trend was associated with climate change due to human activity.”

    Which opinion would a rational person believe Figueres, Abbotts or Australia’s National Science Agency and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?

    Right wingers, ignoring science since George W Bush.

    • Mr_V4

      “Climate change is real”.

      Yes he says that to the public, but its in the context of his earlier statement that it’s “complete crap” (Which it is). He’s a politician, so they’ll have a few tree planting schemes to keep ‘concearned people’ happy without destroying the economy with a useless tax that won’t affect the global temperature even by +/- 0.0001degC and removed the need of having various invented financial paper assets like carbon trading schemes that only serve the interests of investment banks who make a comission on every trade.

      You are the one ignoring the science, the global temperature has not significantly changed in the last 15yrs (despite ‘model’ predictions and lots more CO2 emissions by China. And there are other such real world measurements/variables that have failed to do what these so-called ‘models’ show.

      • Rimutaka

        So you acknowledge Abbott is either an idiot or a liar, which is it. I think when it comes to climate change Abbott is a misguided idiot.

        If you’re not ignoring science why do you ignore what the scientists said in my post. Let’s face it, deniers are the new luddites, eschewing science and quoting lunatics like Monkton or that creep journalist Rose.
        Me, I prefer to put my trust in scientist, not right wing nutjobs.

        • philbest

          Rubbish, it is the alarmists who are guilty of an edifice of lies through and through. The alarmist argument has always been the responsibility of a small cabal who write the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, which utterly misrepresents the input of the alleged “thousands of scientists”. And there are not “thousands of scientists” involved with the climate science chapters of the Report anyway.

          The real scientists are finally blowing the whistle; they have actually been sworn to secrecy all along, funny that, eh?

          • Rimutaka

            Cool conspiracy theory bro

          • philbest

            Rimutaka, I am glad to elaborate further. It is not just a cabal of “climate scientists” and UN aparatchiks who have the common denominator that they are socialists, who will commit any malfeasance in the furtherance of their ideology because they conceive it as a worthy cause. The same behaviour can be counted on from socialist scientists of any kind; socialist urban planners; socialist lawyers; socialist judges; socialist historians; socialist economists; socialist criminologists; socialist teachers; socialist journalists; socialist clergy; socialist statisticians; and socialist doctors. There will be more that I have missed.
            I think mathematics has remained free from socialist ideologically-based tampering so far.

          • rrroberto

            you missed socialist mayors, paragons of virtue and unable to tell lies .By the way the urinary plan has climate change built into it. It set out a raft of policies and gave the reason for them in one or two lines.. that the science is settled. This is fair dinkum, a lot of the policies of this plan emanate from the man made climate change global warming Diktat

        • Mr_V4

          Unfortunately for you all the deniers have to do is ‘wait’, and this is the main reason why many scientists don’t speak up louder.
          The fullness of time is showing:
          a) claims by warmests to be at best overblown
          b) that earths climate is not fundamentally driven by CO2, but rather by the hydrological cycle and ultimately the sun. Both things not currently well understood, let alone modelled.

          When someone like Richard Lindzen says that his students would not be able to get jobs unless they ‘believe’ in the global warming dogma. What does that tell you?
          It’s the politicisation of science, which has not been seen to this extent since eugenics, and where did that particular scientific consensus get the world?

          The alarmists are flailing about with more and more absurd claims and prophecies of doom for which there is no scientifc backing for in a desperate attempt to get attention. Well it isn’t working, show us the data ! That’s right it doesnt exist, – the latest claims being the heat is hidden in the deep oceans!
          Show me the data!

          • Rimutaka

            NYT April 2012 ” “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.”

            Lindzen has acknowledged his 2009 paper was wrong “Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” Oh dear. Lindzen contribution is important but lets not get carried away with it’s value huh.

            Whats all this “show me the data”, nonsense, are you a respected climate scientist?” Me, I’ll listen to what the experts think are most likely, not some cherry picked internet source.

          • Mr_V4

            Oh you fool, nobody is disputing if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, only the influence that it has. And it isn’t much compared to water, which is both more potent and makes up a larger % of the atmosphere (and the oceans for that matter).

            Lindzen has written far more than one paper, and when errors are identified they are corrected, this is how peer review works.

            I’m refering to the claims that heat is hidden in the deep oceans and this explains the current lack of warming. Problem is show me the data!

            Got any other strawmen?

          • Magoo

            What exactly have the IPCC predicted that has come true, I can’t think of one thing myself.

          • Edwin Wigmore

            Which of the “experts” you refer to predicted the static/actually dropping temperatures over the last 17 years?

            There are now no school children alive who have lived in a warming world.

          • Lopsy

            Strawman argument, straight from the warmist playbook. Nobody denies global warming (or cooling) or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s the extent and effect of the human component that has been completely and deliberately overblown. Not a single warmist climate model has been able to replicate reality since this scare began, in fact they diverge wildly. Do some homework boy scout.

        • Magoo

          Found that tropospheric hot spot yet Rimutaka? With no tropospheric hotspot what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour? Without positive feedback from water vapour how can it warm more than 1.2C maximum per doubling of total atmospheric CO2? If it can’t warm more than a maximum of 1.2C how is AGW a problem? Here’s the scientific data on what was predicted as evidence of positive feedback from water vapour vs. what was actually observed from empirical evidence from both 2 satellites and over 30,000,000 weather balloons:

          Until you can find a tropospheric hotspot you have absolutely no evidence to back up your beliefs, and it is you who is the luddite as the scientific data talks louder than failed computer models. That’s what the scientists say so instead of sweeping it under the carpet like a typical alarmist why don’t you explain how AGW is possible – by all means quote the scientists (they haven’t explained it either).

        • Lopsy

          You are an idiot. The only nutjobs in evidence here are the rentseeking, mendacious frauds pushing bullshit science to further a political agenda. Open your mind and have the courage to read what the other side are saying.

    • Andy

      climate change is real.

      Possibly the most vacuous statement ever made.

      • FredFrog

        But true. Climate change is real. The climate of this planet has been changing since the year dot. A fact that greentards don’t seem to be able to grasp. In their arrogance they think it’s been absolutely stable until we started burning ancient animals and trees to power progress.

        • Rimutaka

          Name one ‘greentard’ who thinks that, links please otherwise it’s your own opinion and of no value.

        • Andy

          My point exactly. I have heard people state that the climate was stable until we started burning fossil fuels. Somehow, before that, there were no changes in the climate.
          I think some people actually believe that. It is the secular version of Adam and Eve.

          • FredFrog

            Yup. Gotta wonder how T-Rex managed to build their gas-guzzling 4X4s which changed the climate and brought about the extinction of the terrible lizards. They only had small forepaws.

    • rrroberto

      Climate change is real. So it is, it changes all the time. Days-Nights/Seasons, and then over the longer term cycles , since forever, Think Ice ages, think how the Aborigines walked to Australia, think of the Romans growing wine in Yorkshire, and think of Vikings Angles Gaels Britons and Picts all fighting for the right to live in Scotland, why the hell would anyone fight to live there..answer it was a nice place weatherwise before global cooling set in.
      He is just stating the obvious. As to the science you quote.. there may be more records kept over the last 30 years, fires may have been more prevalent due to the human activity described elsewhere ie allowing fuel to build up in the forests,more people around including more nutty arsonists, and the old military boo boo,, So that is a trend associated with human activity .. how did they make it a trend associated with climate change. I hope you don’t seriously think that was science which you quoted

      • Rimutaka

        Sigh, I was quoting Abbott, and in the context of his statement it’s a long bow to draw to say he was just making some generic but obvious claim about climate always changing, but if that’s what floats your boat, good for you, you keep believing that. I’ll believe it was his acknowledgment that man made climate change is real, because that fits with the context of the rest of the article.

        I didn’t “quote” science, I quoted scientists, I seriously hope you understand the difference.

        • Hazards001

          You’re an arrogant obnoxious little fucktard with your head firmly stuck in your arse you chicken little wannabe.

          He didn’t say man made…he said climate change is real. Which it is.

          • Rimutaka

            Very adult with the insults, did it advance the debate or just fulfill your egotistical need to be heard.

            Because some of you clowns are a little slow I posted the answer to your question up above, find a 8 yo to explain it to you.

        • Andy

          I think Lindzen said something along the lines that statements like these are trivially true but essentially meaningless.
          Humans have been changing the climate since we starting chopping trees and cultivating crops, thousands of years ago.

          The question, of course, is whether this is a problem. This is where these meaningless statements get turned into bumper stickers that get regurgitated by the worlds media

          Climate change is real!
          Therefore, we are all doomed,


    • Hazards001

      I’ve never once denied the climate is changing. I believe I first cottoned on to this irrefutable fact when I was around the age of ten and reading about ice ages and dinosaurs and then taking note of my surroundings.

      Left winger suckers. Buying into Corporate Green con artists since Christ was a carpenter.

    • Edwin Wigmore


      he said climate change was real, he didn’t say human induced climate change was real.

      There is a HUGE difference.

    • Floyd

      Of cause climate change is real. It has been happening for the past 10 million years and will continue for the next 10 million years.

  • Rimutaka

    For all the deniers dancing on the head of a pin over Abbotts ‘climate change is real’ quote.

    This is what Abbott said rior to the 2013 election on ABC “Just to make it clear… I think that climate change is real, humanity makes a contribution. It’s important to take strong and effective action against it”

    Clear now? have we got it yet? Can’t spin it any other way?, no more nitpicking…Abbott thinks climate change is real and man is contributing to it. Thank you very much.

    • rrroberto

      But, after all, he is a politician, and is it not a basic tenet that they all lie?
      Or is he paying a bit of Lip service as an election strategy, while his words since the election indicate that he clearly believes the strategies such as the carbon taxes are just horseshite? Have your scientists worked out how much the non man made emissions have contributed to climate change.Have they proposed a tax to plug the volcanoes to save the world? Have you followed the money in sussing out just which scientists are saying what with respect to all this. The scientist quoted in the article was, somebody said, an anthropologist. The scientist advising John Key , is a medical person. Great climatologists they are not, neither are they historians. But they are certainly trough feeders and have a vested interest in peddling the line which feeds them so well

    • Edwin Wigmore

      Contributing, but not causing. We are a very minor contributor to this event.

      Anyone who studies the science will know this. For example, we produce about 3% of the total CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. If we are the major cause of climate change, how exactly does our 3% have such a massive effect over the 97% that comes from the natural environment?

    • Lopsy

      He is a politician, they practice spin and he was trying to win an election. As to what he said, it’s mostly factual but the last part is stupid and wrong. Like most pollies the world over he is waiting for someone to blink, to break the spell. Someone will when the lie just becomes too untenable, like soaring power prices in the UK or ruinous EPA regulations in the US. Like I said before, go and dig a bit deeper, what you find will shock you.

  • cows4me

    Many years ago ( about 30 ) I worked for a construction company in Aussie building railroads. During that time I befriend an aboriginal co-worker that was basically straight out of the bush. Short story, we ended up very good mates and he has come to stay over here several times. The story goes that fire has always being part of the natural process in aus, my mate said that their own tribe would start a fire if lightning had not done the job. They would start fire because the bush would become dangerous if litter was left to build up. The main point is that modern society believes they can control nature and build in the bush without repercussions he told me (30+ years ago ) that the white people think technology and arrogance will win the day. My money is with my friend.

  • Red

    & here was me thinking it was the Army and 11 year olds with matches