Great piece, Brian! It's good to see a bit of physics thrown into the discourse, albeit with some poetic licence.

An alternative hypothesis is that Joyce, Hockey and Abbott believe that the product of the uncertainties in position and momentum are much larger than h/2xpi- the very small number that underpins Heisenberg's theory. The Award-winning physicist Georg Gamow wrote a popular book called "Mr Tompkins in Wonderland", where the uncertainty was equal to 1, making everyday phenomena fuzzy. I suspect that J,H&A have read it, and found that combining it with Machiavelli's "The Prince" has made the perfect political textbook.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (not a LAW), is to be replaced by Abbott's Law: the product of all scientific measurement and scientific peer -reviewed publications = C (not the speed of light, but "Crap"). Having thus unhinged the populace from their moderately certain Heisenbergian reality, he promises to offer them a new reality -which is yet to be revealed.

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore".

I don't know how many times or how many commentators forecast the demise of The Nationals Political Party. For sure Bob Katter got out of the Party because he could see no difference between it and the Liberals. Julian McGauran certainly left and is now a Liberal Senator. Others, formerly Nationals left the party for the same reason.
Because I live in a very safe Nationals electorate I discuss that party with all and sundry and the vibes I now get are that we love Saint Barnaby.
He says it as he sees it, not as some green guided politically correct Canberra bred political wowser sees it.
Bravo Barnaby. Lets work to hold the balance of power at the next election. Lets close down the mean minded namby pamby city centric politicians who lust for power rather than real representation of their electorate.

Brian Matthews and certain journos mislead by implying that Barnaby Joyce acts as an Alice in Wonderland. As Barnaby rightly points out, the Government's economic credentials do not stand up to close scrutiny, when its achievements and policies are examined.
Although the PM rightly claims that productivity needs to be improved, the Government does not practise what the PM preaches. The following actions are anti-productivity:
. spending billions of dollars on non-productive assets, such as replacing adequate school classrooms and building Julia Gillard memorial school halls;
. spending/wasting billions of dollars on sub-standard home insulation;
. proposing the scientifically and economically unjustified CPRS which would raise costs substantially thus disadvantaging industries and lowering the standard of living. There is no irrefutable evidence of human-induced global warming;
. implementing recycled pro-union IR laws which drive up production costs;
. sinking $43 billion into a national broadband network which has not been justified by a cost/benefit analysis, and which likely would drive up costs ;
. foregoing $250million of TV broadcast licence revenue, purely for PR reasons

And of course they don't hand out millions to the National party faithful like the WA Nationals do with the deal that gave power to Barnett.
Joyce is the village idiot,Abbott is the court jester where that leaves the bloke defending him I,m not sure,pray tell what percentage of the vote do the Nats get as opposed to the Greens,hopefully in a few more years the Nats will go the way of the DoDo,and get their hand out of the taxpayers pockets

Phoenix 94 & Raycom I support.

Barnaby is a very lonely man , he is not slimy enough and too honest to dance the Bent Canberra dance , he is not capable of slipping the Mickey into the People of Australia ; he has a hard road to hoe but Honesty and Courage and Commitment to his Convictions will in the end Score him well .

People have incredibly short memories , remember John Howardwho had the unenviable challenge of leading our Country out of what we saw then as Bankruptcy ! How silly was that ! Viewed against the quagmire of Debt the Legacy of the Madness of the Rudd Govt no wonder Barnaby appears incoherent sometimes .
There is something about Gold , there is an old saying that goes , you can mistake many things for Gold but you cannot mistake Gold for anything else . Gold always is exciting it has feel it has Luster it is always heaver than expected you know what you have but Millions of Billions of Gazillions are helpless Gamblers Dreams , little wonder Barnaby sounds incoherant as he attempts to explain Dream Time Debt to mere mortals like us .

Joyce runs sovereign debt and private debt together,either deliberately or out of monumental ignorance.
(1)Australia's sovereign debt is very small by OECD standards.

(2)The huge debt referred to by the inimitable Senator is in fact private debt-which hopefully will be used productively- which grew enormously during the Howard government's term,that is hardly the present government's fault.

Sen. Joyce is described as an 'accountant',an economics major was required for accounting courses when I was at business school in the 70s.Perhaps accounting students don't study economics these days.

Perhaps Joyce's Chicken Little routine will influence enough dopey voters to make a difference.

SHAZBAZ001 ever thought of being a comedy writer Joyce is the village idiot,he looks like he knows less about the dismal science of economics.
than my dog
God help he gets anywhere near the Govt benches with real power

Well thank god I never put much store in the scribblings of Poe and Dickens. I never read economic's nor accounting but I can see Barnaby saying debt has to be repaid and Swan and Tanner ridiculing Barnaby for espousing such 'twaddle'.

I think it's more real to know debt has to be repaid than to think it doesn't ... unless of course you are intent on defaulting.

First off I'm not sure which was more entertaining the article or the jedimasters response.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Barney off his banana" is playing to his audience.

Where substance and competence to pontificate is a decided disadvantage.
What appeals in this demographic is is the "Have a go mentality when combined with the paranoia of being left behind in increasing irrelevance. Those halcyon days when the Agriculturalist (man on the land) was hailed as the backbone of the country and what suited them therefore was in the best interests of the rest of the country.

Sadly they don't seem to be able to come to GRIPs with the reality, that the balance has changed i.e. The majority who are more interested in their problems that that of the once 'holy' farmer.

Unable to cope with their no longer divine status they feel miffed denied their rightful(sic) voice. Consequently the more aggressively pro country and anti intellectual the candidate the better.
Look at their heroes
Joh - Great politician but a real country bumpkin when it came to running a state corruption,cronyism,kitchen cabinet ran amok.

Pauline- Simple message no substance or real ability.

Katter Jr- A chip off the old block, (family seat) no nonsense no sense.
I. Plimer- Flawed scientist trading as a 'have a go rebel'.

Monckton - a showperson, no substance, egotist.

Alan Jones - showperson Hubble is needed to see the limits of his ego and an electron microscope needed to see his... substance.

Now BOHB - hits all the vague conservative pent up resentments but sufficiently vague and 'good blokeish' to not be seen as an establishment (spit) type. Therefore, not pinned to hard facts or principals.

IMO he isn't as dumb as he appears to be where he is.

In short he is an opportunist, using the country vote to further his personal ambitions. If he gets real power, he will blame everyone else/system for non deliver on what ever vague policy he supports now. Shades of Rudd, Howard et al.
A true student of Machiavelli's cynical politics.

Some Barnaby detractors should be pitied for being afflicted with one or more of the following conditions: left leg shorter than the right; colour blind to all colours barring green, pink and red; short-sighted; single minded; and prone to flatulence.

Who is Barnaby anyway?
He gained instant celebrity status for being the Senator who delivered Howard an absolute majority in the upper house - nothing more.

All he's been able to demonstrate is the ability to spontaneously churn out cliches at short notice - some of which make sense - and attract media attention as some sort of crazy-but-loveable eccentric.

In one term he's been elevated to become the defacto leader of his Party and that says more about the Nats than it does about him.

I still can't get over his claims to believe in Climate Change while simultaneously sponsoring and escorting a denier around his electorate to address meetings. That's not eccentric, that's just dishonest.

wobbles, that's the issue which irritates many skeptics, the accusation of dishonesty from people who then prove in writing, they do not understand what's going on.

All of us who are skeptics do not deny the climate changes - though that's a fundamental plank of AGW believer propaganda and you appear to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker (well done!).

The "deny" part, if you wish to insult your fellow countrymen who you would like to change their minds, is based on skepticism of man's supposed contribution to climate change (beyond the normal everyday climate change that is already happenning and is NORMAL)and if so by how much (and does it matter in that case if it is bugger all?).

The constant cry that skeptics don't believe the climate changes is wrong and dishonest, it's like the claim that skeptics believe in mass pollution and actually prefer polluted countyside to lush green forrests.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We get it that the AGW believers are frustrated to now be on the back foot, but it does not help your cause to lie and fabricate what skeptics do and think, that really is dishonest.

Thus, after all that, there is no contradiction with Senator Joyce accompanying anyone he likes who holds similar ideas, is there - it's still free country isn't it?

Do you get it, Senator Joyce believes the climate changes as do the "deniers!" who he sponsers (really, he sponsers "deniers!"?) so there is no conflict there, well not for those who actually realise the claim that skeptics (deniers! for you) don't believe the climate changes is dishonest and false.

Did you complain when Al Gore came out? No of course not, how silly, and he's a proven liar (British Court System).

Have a good weekend, go do some reading, try some sites which are not completely AGW propaganda.

Barnaby gives us country folk HOPE.
Currently we are governed by theoretical genius' who operate from ivory towers in Capiatal cities.
1. In 1981 the ALP Cain Government in Victoria banned fuel reuction burning. In 1998, 2003, 2005,05,07 and 09 bushfires of intensive heat incinerated around 3 million ha of Victoria and reduced water flow from those forests. The flora and fauna stood no chance of suvival.
2. An agreement between Cape York indigenous people and the Government was ignored when The Wilderness Society wanted to turn the Wild Rivers area into a Wilderness, depriving the Indigenous people of the right to determine traditional land use.
3. The ALP have decided that, against all scientific rational advice that CO2 is now a pollutant. They want to introduce a tax to remove it. You breath it out every breath you take.

I hope that before the next election rural folk awaken and at the election kick the major political parties right where it hurts most. In the ballot box.
Lets get rid of political correctness and make politicians respond to what we elected them for. One of (much maligned) Barnaby Joyce's utterances was that he was elected to represent his electorate and thats what he would do. He has done it in spades.

A pox on global warming alarmists. Barnaby Joyce.
Lets hear the truth for once. Barnaby Joyce.
Let the Government confuse itself with its high falluting gobbledy gook. Lets listen to Barnaby Joyce.

Barnaby is right about the debt.In our oligarcical sytem,there is very little difference between public and private debt.Kevin Rudd has totally over reacted in his spending spree.

It is the international banking system who are the real parasites.They create money from nothing and put countries into a debt spiral from which they cannot escape.

Barnaby is beginning to to speak home truths whom many feel affronted.

IN THE END IT WAS BARNABY'S CHOICE
So we have those outraged,
By truths so rare,
Debt is debt,
And we as it's slaves,
Do not dare,
To confront the truth,
That Barnaby espouses,

Do we dare,do we dare,
Comprehend this puny verse?
Nay,not so,
Just let the ether of delusion,
Divert our attention,
To the terse.

Stark ravenly perverse.

Odo,
What is it you are saying I'm confused are you saying you believe climate change is happening but not the Anthropomorphic part?
BTW there is a difference between a sceptic (Aussie spelling) and a denier.
A true sceptic continues to look not close up mental shop and develop a siege mentality, grasping at any theory so long as it is anti AGW.
And when asked why all the prestige institutions and the bulk of working scientists agree, with the thrust of AGW. The answer is either mass delusion or a sinister conspiracy.

Personally, I examine all, theories I come across asking does it better explain, all, the observable facts ?

So far Plimer and Monckton's theories leave great slabs of unexplained provable events/data, that AGW (spit I hate that term as it's misleading.) does.

But back to Barney, I'm a real sceptic, I clearly said that he's not dumb. I'm just not convinced he's anything more that a cynical opportunist like Tony, the mad monk. I don't believe there is any moral virgins in parliament, given our corrupt(able)ed Party system.
In short a pox on all their houses.

Well, well, well, I had no idea that old Barnaby, & Tony had them so worried.

There would not be so many, & they would not bother with such a vitriolic attack, if they were not worried.

Shades of Howard, really, after he had shoved them out into the wilderness.

What fun.

Examinator, you appear confused about Plimer and Monckton. They rightfully point out that climate change is a natural process, and hence do not need to push any climate change theory. They, like Barnaby and Tony incidentally, are climate change realists.

Odo,
Steady on! The thread is about Barnaby Joyce - not AGW.

My point is that he says one thing to the media while doing the opposite.

He claimed to be a believer in AGW on TV but was also physically escorting "an expert" around venues within his electorate to speak out against the concept of AGW. That's what I call sponsorship.

That's also the dishonesty I was referring to or is it just harmless political opportunism?

Raycom
How on earth can you make such a statement in the light of so much detailed debate? First, if you wish to be informed on this topic, go to OLO's The 'global warming' scam: a crime against humanity, by Mr Monckton, dated 11 Jan, then read the 275 postings, then, if you still think that climate change is still a natural phenomenon, go to a website where this stuff is discussed seriously, ie RealClimate.org. Do you think that all these people are idiots, conmen, conspirators, layabouts, ne'r-do-wells, pinkos and lefties?

Rather than make such fatuous comments, what about you and your like minded compatriots writing at least one peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that climate change and all that is being discussed endlessly is just "natural". And please don't claim that Monckton has written a peer-reviewed article, unless you think that review by an hereditary peer counts.
Or maybe, you could borrow somebody's iphone and look at the Skeptical Science App that addresses most of the furphies that you guys repeat endlessly without the slightest heed of the mountains of evidence that exists.
"There is none so blind as those who will not see

Hang on there boys, I know this is slightly off topic, but this is interesting ..

jedim/examino etc - are you folks saying that there is no climate change that is NOT caused by man?

I think there is some serious confusion here - many people say they believe the climate changes on its own with no help or encouragement from man, but you seem to be denying any change occurs without man - is that correct?

So wobbles, when you heard Barnaby say he believed in climate change, you assume he means AGW.. is that correct?

I believe in climate change, all the evidence is there, the cliamte has always changed and never ever been static. But to say that suddenly mankind is somehow driving it faster or into some dangerous state, all on supposition .. no sorry.

Allt he scientists, well many of them just accept other scientists evidence - not all the scientists who "believe" have actually done the work on causes themselves have they? How many do you reckon actually do that, couple hundred worldwide? Certainly not thousands. How many actually worked on the final IPCC report, 60 odd wasn't it?

So if Barnaby Joyce says he believes in Climate Change, it is NOT dishonest to dismiss AGW, it is perfectly logical - that's the same logic most sceptics and many Australians follow.

The question most sceptics are uncomfortable with is the "caused by man bit - the climate change bit is fine - yes the climate changes, no problem there.

Jedimaster
You obviously get your information from dubious sources such as the IPCC, the arch asserter but nonprover of AGW. If you have irrefutable scientific evidence that global warming is driven by human-induced activities, then share it with us by tabling it.

Raycom
Read my posting- go to RealClimate.org. If you dare.

RPG- that is the classical straw man argument. Of course there is natural variability. But there has never been natural variability as large and fast as the last 150 years, correlated with CO2 and aerosols. Perhaps you could widen your reading and dare to spend an hour or two at RealClimate.org, too.

Just try, for once.

And while you're at it, reflect on theeffect of agricultural clearing in Australia- was that done by the IPCC or farmers?

jm regardless of your sneering and insults, I do believe the climate changes, but am skeptical of the causes attributed to man, viz, CO2 - now we may have some effects via land clearing sure - but that's just another dodge by you and your ilk from the argument at hand.

"The need to reduce CO2" is the mega argument, the rest is just frippery for when you get prodded for reasons.

No amount of BS and skating around throwing all manner of reasons will justify the central argument that CO2 has to be reduced or DOOM WILL BEFALL US ALL. That's the big one, the reason for the IPCC's existence, the reason for all the mountains of AGW funding, isn't it?

We could pollute less, sure no problem, compost green waste, we do - but that's not the BIG issue.

I've been to realclimate, and it is so biased it is unbelievable, I see the way sceptics are treated - no thanks, I don't need yet more insults - if you want to change people's viewpoint - try to insult them less, just for a start .. go on I dare you to be polite from now on to sceptics on OLO.

No wonder so few people understand Barnaby Joyce, they don't even understand the people they insult on a daily basis!

Like the man said,

What's that,... up in the sky is it...is it bird... is it a plane?.....No it's SUPER Conservative Paranoia!"

"Ladies and Gentlemen the topic has left the building"

rpg
Consistent with many who deny AGW, you claim that cries for you to show evidence for your position are called sneers, while your comments like "dodge", "your ilk",frippery","mountains of funding" are considered appropriate language.

The problem, as I see it is that there are a lot of people who just don't understand the scientific process.I would include Joyce,Abbot and Hockey in that group. The most common difference is that people who don't understand the process tend to generalise from single events, or give too much weighting to "outlier" events. This leads to the belief in miracles, magic and other unseen forces that only communicate with the pious.

If you want to read a book that describes this line of (non)reasoning, try Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness".

And btw, land clearing not only reduces the take-up of CO2, but changes the albedo and evaporation dynamics, thereby reducing rainfall.

Or are you going to say that this year's rainfall in Australia's interior refutes all of this.

It's the climate, not the weather, that we're talking about.

Or have you got a better methodology for dealing with these issues?

jeez JM you didn't ask me for evidence but seem to know what I'm thinking, "you claim that cries for you to show evidence for your position are called sneers"

You are like so many Warmies, and seem to be able to see the future and what people are thinking, then get all upset when it turns out you're wrong.

As to recommending books to read, why not try "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay, because this describes your warmist thought processes, or lack of them perfectly.

So easy to counter silly arguments isn't it?

"Or are you going to say that this year's rainfall in Australia's interior refutes all of this." What utter rubbish you blither on with.

Clearly you're here for an argument .. please start without me.

Please don't tell me what I'm thinking, you sound like a pompous ass when you do that, seriously.

The warmies don't understand Barnaby Joyce, since you make it clear you don't understand scepticism of the warmist belief and it befuddles you.

I can see you're irritated, so will leave you to oscillate, or is that vacillate?

rpg,
Thursday December 3rd - Lateline (edited to stay within word count)-

TONY JONES: Is it your conviction as well that global warming is not the result of human activity?

BARNABY JOYCE: No, I think there is a portion of human activity that does affect global temperatures, Tony. I don't know whether it to the same extent that others believe it and I certainly don't agree with the capacity of human activity as they set out to change it.....

TONY JONES: But I ask you about global warming. You believe in the theory, as some of the scientists that you've been shepherding around the bush call it, of global warming yourself, do you? You believe that man-made global warming is true?



BARNABY JOYCE: I believe that there is a portion of human activity that causes global warming. But Tony, the facts are 97 per cent of carbon emissions come from natural sources as you well know and 3 per cent come from human activity. We are talking about a 5 per cent reduction of that 3 per cent - a nation that only produces 1.5 per cent. So it's 5 per cent of 1.5 per cent of 3 per cent and, Tony, really, the numbers are getting so small, mate.



TONY JONES: You - we've been through this before. But in recent weeks - the reason I'm asking you about your beliefs on this is, in recent weeks you've been shepherding around the bush the prominent sceptical scientist Bob Carter to meetings, to town-hall meetings. He tells the audience, after you invite him to, he tells the audience there's been no global warming in their lifetime. None, zip, zero, none. Is he right or are you right?

To me it sounds like he's trying to have a bob each way or just won't admit the truth about what he really believes.

The lib/nat experiment in Qld has been a joke from the beginning, not even chipping the Bligh government despite clear signs of white ant, rot and subsidence.

I propose therefore the formation of a new party, derived from grass (and) roots (and bourbon and) branch, hence:

The Libationals!

Here's cheers!

Suggestions for the inaugural meeting should be proposed and considered by all, membership of other parties is in no way prohibitive.

Rusty

Jedimaster
Nice try, but the RealClimate.org. website does not provide irrefutable scientific evidence that proves AGW. Its contributors include many who provided input to the IPCC reports. The IPCC has been assessing available scientific information since 1988, but has failed to prove that AGW is happening. As sceptics have known all along, and as confirmed by recent scandals such as Climategate and Glaciergate, IPCC reports are tainted by exaggeration, falsification and alarmism. Even Phil Jones of Climategate fame, now admits that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years, and concedes that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Raycom
Please! Just hit a few more keys before retailing the Jones furphy. This took me all of 30 seconds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm):

Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Don't you understand that certainty decreases with reduction in sample size? With a "sample" down of 2 years, you could show either dramatic cooling or warming, depending on which two years were chosen- but the statistical significance would be close to zero.

Don't you understand that science can't "prove" anything?- you can prove theorems in mathematics, but in science you can only make statistical correlations that imply causality as sample sizes increase. Climatology isn't like dropping cannon balls off the Tower of Pisa- we can't re-run "experiment Earth" dozens of times- the best we can do is look at the one timeline that we have from different points of view.

As to "gate-ing" every nuance in the scientific discourse- it's wearing a bit thin. It would be very easy to construct a "Monckton-gate" or "Joyce-gate" out of their errors and inconsistencies- but scientists don't do it that way- they 'fess-up to their errors, take their lumps and get on with trying to correlate agreed data with Occam's-razored theories.

...and they usually check the primary sources before they make statements.

What's your methodology?

examinator "What is it you are saying I'm confused (obvious opening here, but I'll resist) are you saying you believe climate change is happening but not the Anthropomorphic part?"

That's exactly what I'm saying, when the skepticism (US spelling) relates to CO2, which is the cause of all the concern, taxes, the IPCC, all the funding for "science related to AGW", Senator Wong and PM Rudds sneering at the public who disagree - there may be many reasons for man's contribution to warming of the earth (which would continue even if we did not exist, do you agree?)

My beef is with the lunatics and idiots who continue to berate us with bullsyte about reducing CO2 emissions or the world will end, extreme, well yes - read Andy Glikson's article today, more hysterical rubbish and like his paper, most eco CO2 warmies are just as shrill and doom forecasting.

Mind you this sort of article that Andy produces does so much good for the skeptics (US Spelling) cause by just being so overblown about CO2, people just turn off as it's obvious he's hysterical and thus no longer relevant.

"BTW there is a difference between a sceptic (Aussie spelling) and a denier." Yes, I'm sure people who agree with you are good skeptics (US Spelling) and people who disagree are DENIERS! whoop whoop whoop, alarm alarm alarm, dive dive dive .. I ridicule you and those who try to add further insult to the "DENIER!" insult, as you deserve it.

So learn some people skills and put aside the need to insult people who disagree, you'll probably get further in life - lose the anger too, you are starting to get really shrill, see above.

I'm amazed that some people can be so thin-skinned about being called a "denier" when all manner of insults are hurled against those with the alternate view.

From what I can see the non-AGW cheerleaders are broken up into -

1. Those that don't believe the climate is changing at all
2. Those who believe it's actually getting colder
3. Those who believe it's changing for no apparent reason but definetely exclude man-made factors.
4. Those who believe it's changing due to sunspots or other external sources
5. Those who accept it's partly due to man-made factors but it's unstoppable so why bother even trying

Within those groups are -
1. Those who think it's misguided and/or corrupt scientists trying to get grants
2. Those who think it's a scam based on making money from trading carbon credits
3. Those who think it's part of a devious communist plot for world domination

I think skeptic/sceptic is too loose a term for any of these groups. I think a skeptic/sceptic is much like an agnostic while a denier is more like a full-blown atheist.

In most cases, the cap certainly fits. Why not wear it with pride and not care what anybody else thinks?

Agreed rache - so to even things up and show how thick skinned AGW believers are, why not call yourselves Warmophiles, like paedophiles, but instead of bothering children you bother temperature data or such .. what do you think? Warmophillics? (like necrophilics,but not?)

So apart from AGW believers, and warmies - what are these names you are being called? Anything like being likened to a holocaust denier ..hmmm?

The fact you think it's OK to insult people you disagree with, says it all and you have no moral high ground left if you resort to name calling immediately, then shrug it off as umimportant.

next ..

Barnaby isn't and was never the village idiot. He is far too smart and conniving for that. He was, and apparently continues to play the part of court jester. He has always talked to us like a cartoonist, distorting reality to an almost comic degree to make his point. We all knew what he said was absurd on the surface, but the absurdity just served to focus on the to resonant string he was plucking in his support base. Its absurdity made sure it was reported by the media. Its purpose was to ensure they remembered him when they voted at the next election.

It all worked very well when he was a lone wolf. But he ain't a lone wolf now, he is shadow finance minister. Voters do not appreciate the court jester making absurd suggestions about their tax dollars. And in particular an accountant deliberately making basic accounting mistakes on how to calculate Australia's debt isn't funny. In fact it is down right frightening.

Barnaby either has to adjust and ditch the persona got him to where is now how, or he has to get off the front bench. While he is on the front bench the entire country is listening to what he says, not just his supporter base. His "in jokes" might appeal to the support base, but to the rest of us who don't recognise them for what they are they look more like ramblings from the village idiot. And this idiot is angling to control what happens with our tax dollars.

BARNABY'S CHOICE

Upon the debt and slavery,
Incurred by our Government,
We thought it was alright,
Since the world,
Had a similar plight.

But more devious intent,
Twas hidden by the media,
We dare not malign,
Of corporate collusion,
By malicious design,

Was it not prostitution
That made it all so sublime?
The rhyme would be fine
Had greed prospered.

Then,stark reality strikes a blow,
Our minds think,
This can't be so!
A life's fortune lost
In a super annual toss.

But now we all,
Are on the cusp
Of a new seduction,
No production,no fun,no puns?
Just derivative ponzy scams
Of Carbon trading,the cost.

And self falgellating guilt,
Born out of fear,
And the yearn to please,
Of the world's Green police,
Dressed up as corporate dills,
Who fail to see our needs.

Now war is the horizon's solution,
To replace visions of man's pollution.

Power and pounds remain primary pairs,
And we cowered by the Hollywood cast,
Are nurtured by the fear,
Of being close to last.
by Arjay.
Well,it could actually be good if I had the time.

Amicus,

I was doing the name calling? I only mentioned the word "denier". You added the "holocaust" bit and then attached the terms paedophilia and necrophilia for those you may not agree with.

Would "disagree-er" sit more comfortably perhaps?

If the official world view is that AGW exists (as has been agreed by all the world governments) it becomes the status quo - thus everybody who opposes it is in denial of it as fact. A bit like the hole in the ozone layer - same science, similar remedy but nowhere near the same amount of hostile argument.

If the official situation reverses then so does everybody's relative viewpoint.
The problem is that there are so many contrary opinions. It's either AGW or "anything-but".

At least I'm prepared to admit that I don't know what the truth is and there's not much I can do about it anyway.

Whatever happens, it will be entirely our own fault either way so you could call be a denier as well - if it helps.

Back on topic, there is a reason only 5% of Australians vote for the Barnaby Joyce's and Boswells of the National party, the other 95% simply would not trust them as far as we could kick them.In the book "The Longest decade", the break down of the economic status of electorates are the rich self interested Liberal party seats mainly in and around beach suburbs like Sydney's North shore where we find the deadwood Hockey's, Bishop's and Abbott's etc. Then there is the all the middle class seats of the Labor party and what is left over is the poorest of the poor the National party seats, the most neglected seats in Australia, what are nicknamed the (PWT's) the (poor white trash seats) by the AEC the Australian electoral commission! All that a National party voter is, is someone that can be taken for granted and continuously vote against their own best interests?
As for Hockey, prior to the last election he was interviewed on Sky News about work choices, when repeatedly pressed for honest answers, he began to sweat so badly the interview had to be stopped, from that day on the lies were exposed and the gig was up for the Howard govt and he was then known as "sweat hog Joe" or "sloppy Joe", he was caught out lying, the man is simply not to be trusted, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt like anything else the coalition of the lying spews out! The Liberal and National coalition is more of a religious cult than a political party these days anyway, just ask the Mad monk of Abbottsolute denial or David Clark?

Everyone had a good bash at Barnaby Joyce, well now he has done
something the government has not done.
He has, I stumbled across today, a web site and on there are all the
documents from the treasury that shows why he is right about the debt.

it is at

http://barnabyisright.com/resources-articles/column-tanner-lies-about-budget-gfc/#comment-119

So for once you can actually sit down and check the figures.

We could have used all that money as we go into oil energy depletion.
Now all the government has is debt, the dills !