Thursday, November 7, 2013

John Howard: Iraq Believer, Climate Change Sceptic

Funny, isn't it, how some people can be absolutely certain about the rectitude of their involvement in a course of action based on nothing but the proverbial tissue of lies, but be completely overcome by doubt in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence?

Take former PM John Howard, for example. He's been out of office now since 2007, swanning around the globe, doing gig after gig at the Australian taxpayers' expense.

He's had about 6 years now to think about the wisdom of his decision to involve Australia in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, surely one of the dodgiest (and most destructive) wars of all times; 6 years in which to read what's been written on the subject and maybe revise his views on it.

And yet, he is as certain today as he was over 10 years ago that his decision to join the Coalition of the Willies was the right one:

"It remains my conviction... that it was right [to invade Iraq] because it was in Australia's national interests, and the removal of Saddam's regime provided the Iraqi people with the opportunities for freedom not otherwise in prospect." (Speech to the Lowy Institute, April, 2013)

When it comes to climate change, however, and the firm conviction of thousands of climate scientists that we're burning the toast, the man's a complete sceptic:

"You can never be absolutely certain that all the science is in." (Global warming exaggerated, former PM John Howard says, The Australian, 6/11/13)

Funny man, John Howard.


Anonymous said...

Stick to your lathe, MERC. Howard is a dishonorable jumped-up clown but his opinion on AGW matters not a jot. AGW is a scam pushed by the crook Gore and promulgated by the pro-Wall Street press as a massive money-making racket. The 'scientific consensus' is almost exclusively dependent upon government funding and - you might note - most of the many dissenters are independent of such funding, or retired. They just do not receive any press coverage in the MSM.

MERC said...

No coverage in the MSM? You don't read the Murdoch press then?