Greg Hunt – not very good at his job

For anybody not paying attention to our bumbling new Government, here’s a little gem for you that I think demonstrates a couple of key things…

1. Greg Hunt is ignorant…….. ( I was going to list a few things here but after I started I realised I would be here all day)

2. Some people are very quick and clever when it comes to taking the piss out of our politicians.

Prior to the election I highlighted how half of the coalition members are climate change deniers and how a potential cabinet would look in terms of its members and their position on the science underpinning climate change.

Since the election we have found that the coalition government is filled with worse than the run of the mill deniers and is headed by possibly the most backward, conceted, sneaky, discriminatory, elitist and dishonest leader we have ever seen. He and his band of merry men (I include the only female member of his cabinet, Julie Bishop) are good friends of mining magnates, serial polluters and the whackiest of the whacky rightwingers among the IPA,  Australia’s version of the Heartland Institute.

Abbott and Hunt’s climate policy, the useless Direct Action policy, will actually result in 16% higher emissions while handing money to their mates. I have outlined what direct action is here.

So, it is no surprise then that Greg Hunt, in defending his leader’s appalling slight to the head of the UN’s climate negotiations, Christiana Figueres, stated in a radio interview that there is no link between climate change and New South Wales bushfires, and cited Wikipedia as evidence. Yep….Wikipedia. That cover’s Greg Hunt’s ignorance, so what about point 2 above?

Well, within a very short space of time, some smart cookie made the following entry into Wikipedia under “Greg Hunt”..

removed version

Bwuuahhahahaha. Moving quickly, presumably somebody from the LNP contacted Wikipedia and this happened….

wikivandal

Vandalism. Ironic I think given the Coalition’s climate policy.

 

7 Comments

Filed under Climate Change, idiot politicians

7 responses to “Greg Hunt – not very good at his job

  1. Matt

    I liked this Wikipedia edit:
    “He is notorious for using Wikipedia to conduct research on environmental issues on Wikipedia despite having access to a vast bureaucracy staffed by some of the finest and most dedicated minds in the nation, like some total turd. Critics concede that his 1990 Honours thesis on the necessity of a carbon tax was probably more academically rigorous than the manner in which he comports himself as one of the most powerful people in the country, but others defend their characterisation of the Environment Minister as an utter weiner.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Hunt&oldid=578476729

  2. Stuart Mathieson

    I wouldn’t write Wikipedia off so summarily. It’s a good starting point for lay people (like myself) and usually outlines the profiles of competing points of view. The personalities involved are named and independent investigations of them frequently reveal controversies and disputes. The references listed are good starting points too.
    Remember; it’s not the scientific community that needs convincing its the lay voting public.

    • Hi Stuart

      You make a great point and I agree with you 100%. The issue in this case is that Greg Hunt by virtue of his position presumably can access scientifically accurate information from reliable sources. As a layperson, I wouldn’t expect him to go and read a scientific paper and understand what it is saying. I do however, expect that he would have enough brains to surround himself with scientifically literate advisors. Unfortunately I suspect that Greg is caught between a rock and a hard place. He claims to accept expert scientific findings on the science underpinning climate change, but either cannot or will not accept the expert advice on the best way of dealing with the problem. If he cannot because of party ideologies, then he is just another spineless politician. If he will not, I find it difficult to understand the juxtaposition he is promoting. It’s very strange.

      I just found it extremely funny that Wikipedia was demonstrated by some clever cookie to be unreliable when Hunt was citing it as reliable and it was done in the best way to extract every ounce of potential irony.

      • john byatt

        he only read the first paragraph

        “In truth there has been a significant change in Australia’s bushfire season. Examples from past records are clear evidence that much has changed and this is as a result of human activity.[1][2]
        In 2007, a CSIRO study concluded that there is evidence for anthropogenic climate change being a driver of a worsening of fire weather conditions including increases in very high and extreme fire danger rating days and earlier onset of the fire season. [3]

    • Stuart, I like reading Wikipedia but I think that there is a difference between someone with a background in science reading through Wikipedia (and its references) and someone without a science background doing the same, eg the stereotypical, lay, voting public. The sad reality is that we construct our own knowledge based on our previous understandings and, unfortunately, this means that it’s possible for two people to arrive at a different conclusion/understanding from reading Wikipedia (assuming that they can understand what they read (as per uknowispeaksense’s comment). For a goodly number of lay people this means that their prior science knowledge has to be de-constructed, to varying extents, before being re-constructed – some individuals can do this for themselves but the majority can’t without some guidance/instruction. The underlying problem with science is that it is counter-intuitive and not down to common sense.
      Getting back to Greg Hunt, I would suggest that if he goes to his doctor and receives a prognosis of a medical condition, it is highly unlikely Greg will then use Wikipedia or some on-line medical website to perform a self-diagnosis that is at odds with the diagnosis of his GP/specialist. Which begs the question: Why didn’t Gregory Andrew Hunt consult with the relevant government scientists or the CSIRO or the BOM … rather than read Wikipedia? (vide uknowispeakssense’s comment) He has a law background, he should understand the concept of “taking instructions”. Then again, maybe that’s the problem. Gregory’s used to presenting an argument in court or to another solicitor in which he only uses the information/facts that suit his client’s case while ignoring or deprecating those facts that do not serve his client’s interests (vide John’s comment).

  3. This piece by Graham Readfearn on the Guardian’s ‘PlanetOz’ blog is excellent:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/planet-oz/2013/oct/23/climate-change-tony-abbott-australia-bushfire-science

    As is the piece on Graham’s own blog about Tim Minchin’ speech at UWA:
    http://www.readfearn.com/2013/10/tim-minchin-on-climate-change-denial-and-tony-abbott/

    However, if you will forgive me for being so parochial, what scares me the most is the way in which Abbott’s existence appears to have emboldened climate change deniers in the Conservative Party in the UK:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/24/tory-anti-green-environment-corporate

    How is that these people can say so many things that are so easily falsifiable (even just by using Google or Wikipedia) and have them endlessly repeated in the media? Here in the UK, energy prices have doubled in 8 years and only 10% of that increase can be attributed to Green Taxes.

  4. Bernard J.

    Martin:

    However, if you will forgive me for being so parochial, what scares me the most is the way in which Abbott’s existence appears to have emboldened climate change deniers in the Conservative Party in the UK

    This is an example of the fall-out I expected a year and even two before the September federal election. I said it back then and I still believe that it’s highly likely – once the fall-out of his actions filters around the world and down through time Tony Abbott will be judged by history as being one of the worst facilitators of death and misery in human existence, ever. And quite frankly the Australian public, media and industry interests who voted him in are culpable because the truth hasn’t exactly been hiding under a bushel: they simply chose to ignore it because it didn’t suit their self-indulgent First World aspirations to accumulate even more wealth by climbing even higher onto the backs of an already-groaning Third World and biosphere.

    I highly recommend that link in your post to Tim Minchin’s speech, and especially to the part where he observes how lucky the audience is. I wonder how many of them truly understood his point…?