Bush Ally Humiliated

Great news, Bush’s closest ally, Australian John Howard “suffered a humiliating defeat” today. Kevin Rudd, a moderate left candidate will be the new prime minister and he has promised to overturn the Bush like policies of his predecessor, particularly in regard to Global Warming and Iraq. Rudd campaigned on promises that “his first acts as prime minister will include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto climate agreement and to negotiate the withdrawal of Australian combat troops from Iraq,” both seen as repudiations of George Bush’s embarrassing leadership. Australia's signing of the Kyoto pact will leave the US as the only industrialized country not to do so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21945113/​

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/world/asia/25australia.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin

 

Oh that Kyoto treaty the Bush administration so arrogantly refuses to sign -- the same treaty the Clinton-Gore administration didn't even submit to the Senate.

Do you realize that even advocates of Kyoto admit that if all nations signed the agreement and obeyed it, it would affect global temperatures by less than a tenth of a degree.

I have seen no evidence that suggests man can alter the earth's climate.

 

With Australia, it would make 138 countries ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Obviously, someone must think reducing greenhouse gas emissions will do some good. Here's the stated objective, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

Or, we can bury our head in the sand. The American Petroleum Institute would love that. For that matter big oil is the guiding force in US foreign and domestic policy, why should failure to sign the pact be a surprise?

 

Howard had been in power for quite a long time and at times as fairly popular with Aussies despite his cozy relationship with Bush. While the Aussies might withdraw from Iraq and even ratify Kyoto, it will make little difference ultimately. US-Aussie relations are healthy for the most part and will continue to be.

 

There is just something with the global warmings alarmists that makes them disregard simple reason. Climatologists want to stir up hysteria because it keeps the money pouring into their profession. When the hysteria goes away, so do their funds. It is in their financial interest (the most powerful of all) to keep pushing these doom and gloom scenarios.

So the fact that "some people" who have economic reasons to push this treaty think it might do some good isn't really a powerful argument for it.

The second thing is its objective of "stabilizing greenhouse gases" doesn't really have an effect on temperature changes. This has been thoroughly exhausted in the old Global Warming thread. For your convenience, I have copied something palerider wrote a while back:

We know from over a half a million years worth of ice cores, and about 600 million years worth of sedimentary data that rising CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are a result of increased temperatures, not a cause. The computer models suggest that a small change in atmospheric CO2 can cause a change in global temperature, but there is no actual data to support that. If you are interested in seeing the record so far on the accuracy of computer modeling here is a comprehensive study.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Computer modeling is notoriously inaccurate. When they can't make a model that accurately reflects what the temperature was and is, and how it was and is affected by various forcings, how do you put any trust at all in what these models are predicting for the future?

The reason that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind a rise in temperature is that warm water can not hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the mean temperature rises, the oceans rise and in turn, release held CO2, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Hahaha, the three entities most hated by liberals: Wal Mart, drug companies, and oil companies. Every ill in the world starts with one of these three.

 

I am friendly with quite a few Aussies. While global warming and Iraq were issues, so were more domestic ones. The two former supporters who since changed thier loyalty from Howard said it was basically time for a change in general.
In reality the presence of Aussie troops in Iraq is rather inconsequential and if they were to leave tomorrow is wouldnt make a difference except it would be one less member of the coalition of the willing.

 

From what I've heard, apart from Iraq, Howard did an absoloutley fantastic job in Australia, decreasing unemployment and increasing the economy, productivity etc. Generally having a great few terms.

However, people need a change every now and again. No matter how well someone is doing in a democracy, people vote in the next party within a few terms as a general rule.

Thank god that times coming round in Britain, although I'm sceptical about what change it will really bring.

 

"Coalition of the willing"? Yes I know that is the Bush administration's name for this rag tag bunch.

Countries with over 10,000 soldiers in Iraq as of Oct 2007
US

Over 1000
UK
Georgia
Australia(soon to be gone)
South Korea

Over 100
Poland
Romania
El Salvador
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria

Under 100
Mongolia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Albania
Macedonia
Bosnia Herzegovina
Estonia

That's quite a motley crew. Outside of the US and UK, who exactly is there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

 

You forgot McDonalds.

 

9Sublime you have pretty much summed up what I heard. He was good, but simply a time for change and he is considered far from Humiliated.

Popeye,
I am aware of the numbers and my jab at the coalition of the willing was meant as a joke. That being said, I am unaware of the current role the Aussie SAS is playing there, but during the invasion and in the at least a year afterwards, the SAS did an excellent and professional job in support of the efforts going on.

 

The new aussie presidents approval ratings went up when he admitted he went into a stripclub but was 'too drunk to remember it' and when he was caught on camera picking earwax and eating it.

And still the general public know very little about him.

 

In the acceptance speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, Bush criticized John Kerry for calling Bush's "coalition of the willing" a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

"About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq," the president said. "I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski (Poland), and Prime Minister Berlusconi (Italy) and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair."

With this weekend's Labor party election win in Australia, every one of those world leaders, save Bush, himself has now left office. Bush's rotten party is out of power though. Bush's war--bad for business.