Tony Abbott should heed John Howard's warning about "political deafness" and stop making the same mistakes as Kevin Rudd.

It could get awkward between Tony Abbott and Barack Obama when the conversation steers towards climate change action.

That the two dills, Abbott and Harper have come out and proven their complete lack of understanding of the most effective way to combat this scourge which is seriously threatening to change, or even destroy, life on Earth as we know it, should not be seen as presenting any kind of solution to the problem.

Paying big polluters to "not" polute as Abbott is waffling on about is nothing more than handing them subsidies to continue polluting unrestrained.

Any person who has ever observed the performance of corporations which have been offered such incentives will know that a way will be found very quickly indeed to work through a loophole which will allow them to pocket the payments from the government and still pollute as they wish.

What Abbott and presumably Harper as well, seem to be wanting is to do nothing during their very short political futures ignoring the way history will deal with them for their lack of effective action in combating global warming. But that will not be as harsh as the way their own children and their children will deal with them for their inaction as the effects of their inaction start to be felt.

This Earth does not need ignorance like this.

There should be a price on carbon to encourage alternative energy sources to coal.
Abbott is with a like soul in Canada. They are both out of touch with what our world needs.
Abbott says he's friends with Murdoch, Bolt, Jones, Rinehart, Pell......
His ministers like Pyne, Morrison, Andrews, Bishop .....Their policies are unfair and totally based on ideology

Nhob,

You are an outrageous liar. "You did not provide any other pre election Gillard lies."

Stop talking absolute crap.

Here are some outright lies by Juliar.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt-does-your-leader-lie/story-e6frfhqf-1226271224387

Jayb,

" Your past posts on other any Subject relating to Muslims & Islam you have always defended their atrocious behaviour. Now if you ask me for a link I'll scream."

In that case, you leave me with no other recourse but to ask for a link.

Of course, you won't provide a link - because there is no link that contains words from Poirot "defending atrocious behaviour" from any race or religion.

Mendacious.

If you intend to slur a fellow poster, be sure to provide evidence in future.

....

Loudmouth,

"Again I apologise, but I did think the two topics were in some way related. My mistake perhaps ? "

Which might be an acceptable excuse - except, you were rather forthright in your post to Paul, saying:

""And by the way, 'back to topic' doesn't necessarily mean 'back to part of the topic', and then some semantic sliding away from even that."

You can't have it both ways, if you choose to berate others for posting on topics slightly related to the main, then why do you persist in doing so yourself?

I don't give a particular toss if topics veer away from the original post - that's how conversation tends to go. (I'll add, that if posters don't wish to take up a related topic amidst a convo, that's also no reason to berate them.)

As you know, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your stance with your regular call BTT.

So, Poirot, what's the main thrust of this topic ? Doesn't it have something to do with attacks on women, with the shameful abuse of parliamentary privilege by Palmer in attacking Credlin, and the lack of any comment on the subject from anybody on what used to be called the left ? Or from anybody concerned with women's issues ? And by extension, the mistreatment of women generally ?

Yes, somehow, the discussion has degenerated into something about Abbott and his budget and so on. But there's a difference between 'getting lightly of-topic', and 'veering well away from it', don't you think ?

Imagine of it were Julia Gillard being attacked in this vile way - what would you suggest then, to slide well away from the topic ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

First two lines of opening post:

"If a high-powered woman is ­described as the “top dog’’ and her deeply personal struggle to fall pregnant dragged into the public domain to score cheap parliamentary points, is it sexism?..."

You say:

"Yes, somehow, the discussion has degenerated into something about Abbott and his budget and so on. But there's a difference between 'getting lightly of-topic', and 'veering well away from it', don't you think ?"

You seem to think this is "lightly" off topic:

"concerning the imminent hanging of a Christian woman in Sudan, as soon as her baby is weaned, i.e. when she turns two years old. The woman had to give birth while shackled, and will remain in Omdurman prison for ..... oh, just a bit under two years now."

Notwithstanding you ticked off Paul this way:

"And by the way, 'back to topic' doesn't necessarily mean 'back to part of the topic', and then some semantic sliding away from even that."

Gillard "did" have to put up with similar kinds of things - and more.

You posted: "From memory, Mal Brough did not know about that stupid menu, which wasn't even circulated. Perhaps Poirot can correct me or - look ! a Liberal politician doing something !"

So it's just a 'stupid menu" when it concerns a Labor woman, but you yell from the rooftops about Credlin - and then impugn lefties because they don't want to join in with your off topic convo regarding the dreadful treatment of a Sudanese woman.

Why aren't you bleating your faux outrage about the fact that the menu existed and made its way to facebook. What about the jibes about Gillard being "barren" etc, etc?

Why are you attacking "lefties" for a stupid ignorant comment made by Palmer who used to be a member of the Liberal Party?

This has become so far off topic that I apologise for commenting but, Whoa 579 hold on... you say "That the two dills, Abbott and Harper have come out and proven their complete lack of understanding of the most effective way to combat this scourge which is seriously threatening to change, or even destroy, life on Earth as we know it, should not be seen as presenting any kind of solution to the problem."

Are you saying taxing the air will change the climate in the future? Hardy-har-har, you have to be joking.

Chill out dude, the sky is not falling. You are letting yourself get sucked into the lies of the climate zealots (assuming you are not one). Just take a step back and analyse the facts. Even the IPCC admits there hasn't been any global warming for the past 15 years. There is no such thing as carbon pollution. You have nothing to fear.

Abbott and Harper are to be congratulated for not blindly following the climate hysteria.