The University of Queensland has surveyed Australian politicians (press release here, results here) on their attitude to climate change:

“Labor politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians – 85 per cent of Labor politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians,” Dr Fielding said.

Note this poll was conducted in October last year when Liberal Party policy was to adopt an emissions trading scheme and before the media beat up of anti-IPCC stories.

There is discussion of the survey on ABC’s Lateline, Larvatus Prodeo, Climate Shifts and Duckpond, but I’d like to highlight one interesting finding. From Table 15:

Questions Labor Liberal/ National Greens Non-aligned
3. On a scale from 0 – 10 where 0 is don’t believe at
all and 10 is completely convinced, how strongly do
you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases released into the
atmosphere will, unchecked, lead to global warming
and an increase in average temperatures?
8.60 4.99 9.56 6.55
5. On a scale from 0 – 10 where 0 is don’t believe at
all and 10 is completely convinced, how strongly do
you think your electorate believes the theory that
increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases released into the atmosphere will, unchecked,
lead to global warming and an increase in average
temperatures?
6.47 5.02 6.86 4.95

But Table 26 shows that when the general population was asked question 3, the mean score was 7.58. Now question asked about the politician’s own electorate rather than the general public, so this could account for some of the difference, but all parties rated their electorates as more skeptical than the general public actually is. It seems that the opinions of a noisy minority have been amplified by the media because of a love of conflict, the need to promote a false balance and partisan zealotry (the last one refers to you, Mr The Australian).

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    August 14, 2010

    I assume Dr Fielding is no relative of Sen. Fielding.

  2. #2 Jeremy C
    August 14, 2010

    Please, please all deltoids get into the audience of Monday’s Q&A, lie, cheat, bribe if you have to and ask Tony “climate-change-is-crap” Abbott questions about his belief set. Don’t be polite, do him over, shake him up and show the vested interests watching his performance that the electorate wont roll over on this issue. I’m here in London so am out of reach. Ask him whether his meeting Christopher Monckton was bad judgement or dog whistling.

    And if the liberals do get in then what we can hope for is that the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate and Senator Fielding goes back to being a private citizen along with his MBA (snigger).

    Not that I’m trying to tell anyone how to vote mind…….

  3. #3 frank
    August 14, 2010

    > all parties rated their electorates as more skeptical than the general public actually is.

    By now I’m not surprised. Why would politicians have any use for facts and figures? All they need to do is to look good, talk smooth, and keep claiming that everything’s fine and under their control.

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    August 14, 2010

    And if the liberals do get in then what we can hope for is that the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate

    Won’t make any difference to emission reduction whether they do or don’t hold the balance of power in the Senate with a Liberal House of Reps. The Libs won’t be legislating for any significant emission reductions anyway.

  5. #5 Will
    August 14, 2010

    Hrm, I’m not sure those figures are saying what you’re interpreting them to mean. I interpret them to be saying “3. How do you personally rate climate change?” and “6. If you were to implement legislation, how do you think the electorate would react?”.

    The difference is the step from “Yes, climate change is a problem” to “I’m willing to accept some pain now to fix this problem”, and I suspect the politicians are automatically factoring in some of that second question.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    August 14, 2010

    I’d really like to have seen the data in tables 25 and 26 broken down by voting patterns, and even more so by whom the respondents voted for in the last election, and for whom they intend to vote in the next election. I know there are some surveys of this, but the ones that I’ve seen, such as [this one at Larvatus Prodeo](http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/16/newspoll-and-climate-change-opinion-ii-partisan-affiliation-gender-and-age/), aren’t especially detailed.

    It would give quite an insight into the Australian public, and how scientific understanding relates to political/ethical propensities. Tie it in with a survey of educational background, and there’d be the potential for arguing for a profound cultural paradigm shift…

    Can anyone here direct me to such a survey, if there’s already one in the public domain?

  7. #7 Dave Andrews
    August 14, 2010

    Tim,

    Come on what on earth is the point in posting about a poll almost one year old when we have had the UEA debacle and the Copenhagen catastrophe since?

  8. #8 David Horton
    August 14, 2010

    An open letter to Julia Gillard http://davidhortonsblog.com/2010/08/11/deliver-da-letter/ calls for a crash through approach to climate change action. Her current stance, the conference of 150 good citizens and true, is a certain recipe for doing nothing. If climate change threads on Deltoid and elsewhere are a good sample, and I’m sure they are, there would be a solid percentage of deniers in any such conference who would block any serious discussion with Gish gallops of denialism. And that is before the vested interest groups demand and get representation. And then, what can you, as an honest prime minister do? Why reflect the lack of consensus with lack of action of course.

  9. #9 Fran Barlow
    August 14, 2010

    The reality is that we need to do a lot more than reduce the rate at which we force atmospheric CO2 concentration up. We actually need to foreclose concentrations down to about 280ppmv (the point at which we began serious warming), and do it before the warming we already have and to which we are committed has catastrophic consequences.

    Slowing emissions growth is a necessary condition of foreclosing catastrophe, but it is not a sufficient one. If you are driving off a cliff into an abyss, the speed you are travelling when that happens doesn’t make a lot of difference.

    It seems unlikely that we will achieve anything like the reductions we need before we are committed to catastrophe because even at 2degC overall, we are getting 3.5degC at the poles, and therewith, the loss of the permafrost, the release of its CH4 payload, loss of the major ice masses etc …

    So I regard a serious and early look at both active and passive geoengineering measures as demanded. We need both programs that can capture and resequester CO2 and which at least temporarily balance the the Earth’s radiation budget (perhaps augmentation of high altitude jet fuel with small amounts of sulphur?).

  10. #10 Byron Smith
    August 14, 2010

    Why am I not particularly surprised that it is the Greens of all parties who are least out of touch?

  11. #11 Jeremy C
    August 14, 2010

    David Horton,

    I might be the only one who thinks the citizen’s assembly good be a tactically smart move.

    In the run up to the vote on the ETS the Australian government faced a storm of lobbying from vested interests such as rent seekers. More recently it got slapped around the face by the mining industry – also rent seekers. Now perhaps a lot of what happened in both cases was the government’s fault because it failed to explain the case of what it was doing to the wider community. However, I am going to cut the government some slack because in the the case of setting up the ETS it was a first term inexperienced government facing a bunch of very determined vested interests.

    The citizens assembly may be an attempt to recalibrate this struggle in the government’s favour by putting all the information into a space where it might be difficult for vested interests to get the upper hand. I also think it might be a good idea for Penny Wong to appoint a junior minster whose responsibility is the information flows and communication on climate policy.

  12. #12 Fran Barlow
    August 14, 2010

    JeremyC

    The Citizens’ Assembly is simply another excuse for inaction, which implies that there is no consensus, when there clearly is.

    On almost any other contentious issue (Afghanistan, MRRT, Drug policy) it would be a good idea. Not on this one.

  13. #13 David Horton
    August 14, 2010

    Jeremy, good point, except that within hours of the assembly announcement we had the Grocery Council demanding to be included, and if it ever comes to fruition, there would be similar demands from the coal miners (owners and unions), foresters, aluminium smelters, agribusiness, car makers, et al – how could they not be included, shareholders, good of country, yada yada? And they would all be in there determined that the vested interests would continue to prevent action. Then there would be the shock jocks and denialist bloggers and professional deniers all demanding to be heard in the interests of scientific accuracy. And of course the deniers that we know and love at Deltoid, or their philosophical kin, would be in their doing the bidding of their virtual or actual masters. It is not just a recipe for an excuse for inaction, it is a recipe for the certainty of delay.

  14. #14 adelady
    August 14, 2010

    I reckon the citizens’ assembly is just a holding action to allow some public discussion without raising the matter in Parliament for a while. The ‘while’ in question being the months until the new Senate is seated.

    Regardless of the election result, even if the Greens win every single seat, the Senate won’t change until July 2011.

  15. #15 Bernad J.
    August 14, 2010

    On “consensus”…

    What is “consensus”?

    For any mainstream economic issue, a newly-elected political party considers a 51% majority to be a consensus.

  16. #16 Chris O'Neill
    August 14, 2010

    Jeremy C:

    Now perhaps a lot of what happened in both cases was the government’s fault because it failed to explain the case of what it was doing to the wider community.

    The vast majority of people of average intelligence will never understand what an ETS is, short of the government spending billions on an education program that most people would ignore anyway. If getting an ETS into law requires that most people understand it then it hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance in Hell.

  17. #17 Fran Barlow
    August 14, 2010

    Adelady said:

    Regardless of the election result, even if the Greens win every single seat, the Senate won’t change until July 2011.

    Not so. The ACT and NT senators take their places immediately.

  18. #18 Fran Barlow
    August 14, 2010

    BernardJ said:

    For any mainstream economic issue, a newly-elected political party considers a 51% majority to be a consensus.

    Howard considered 49.9% 2PP a sufficient consensus for Telstra Privatisation and the G&ST, despite the fact that the Democrats held the BOP in the Senate (along with the ALP) running against both policies in 1998.

  19. #19 adelady
    August 14, 2010

    Fran – so if the Greens elect one in the ACT or NT *and* the other senator is ALP, then an ALP government would have a chance at getting stuff through?

    I fancy the ALP is not betting any shirts on that outcome.

  20. #20 Fran Barlow
    August 15, 2010

    I fancy the ALP is not betting any shirts on that outcome.

    They don’t have to, and I fancy they would be horrified if that happened. They liked it that The Greens could not deliver, because that gave them cover for filthying up the CPRS, which they wanted to do all along.

  21. #21 Fran Barlow
    August 15, 2010

    Also, given that The Greens wanted a more robust mining tax, can you imagine how embarrassing the surrender would have looked if The Greens had had the BOP?

    Maybe they’d never have proposed it.

  22. #22 Checkers
    August 15, 2010

    so if the Greens elect one in the ACT or NT

    Not the remotest possibility of a Greens senator being elected in the NT. It will elect one Labor and one Liberal (CLP), as it always does.

    Can’t speak for the ACT.

  23. #23 Mike
    August 15, 2010

    @1, you mean Senator Steve Fielding, arch climate-change denier and target of the legendary “dumber than an earthworm” comment from Richard Dawkins?

    No, I don’t think they’re related, or at least they’re unlikely to share similar genes to do with intellectual capacity anyway. ;)

  24. #24 Eli Rabett
    August 15, 2010

    Shall one call this the Murdoch deficit?

  25. #25 Craig Allen
    August 15, 2010

    Today I went to a climate change rally in Melbourne with a difference. There were about 1000 of us there. We were each given a bundle of about 3 to 400 pamphlets that called for politicians to get real about climate change and renewable energy and to make an immediate start by commiting to shut down Hazlewood – Victoria and Australia’s most pulluting coal fired power station. Each bundle came with a street map and directions to get to that spot by public transport. So we’ve letterboxed 300,000 homes in a single day one week out from an election!

    This is a brillianly effective way to use the energy of people rather than the traditional rally. The turn out was way down from the 50,000 that turned out for a climate change rally in Melbourne a couple of years back. But I don’t think the politicians care about those number anyway. A direct message to hundreds if thousand of doors though is enough to give them heart burn if they are in unsafe electorates.

    The organization was spot on. This was all done via invites through email lists of the various collaborating organizations and which had been gathered at previous rallies. And everyone knew beforehand what we were going to do, so we were all prepared for walking in the rain etc.

    Well done and a big thanks to the Environment Victoria crew for organizing it.

  26. #26 Fran Barlow
    August 15, 2010

    Checkers said:

    Not the remotest possibility of a Greens senator being elected in the NT. It will elect one Labor and one Liberal (CLP), as it always does.

    That’s as maybe. I was merely correcting Adelady’s claim about the timing of the seating of senators rather than offering a prognosis.

    Can’t speak for the ACT.

    Nor can I, though I do hear that there’s a rough chance of The Greens getting a spot there at the expense of Humphries the Liberal.

  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    August 15, 2010

    There was a pretty cool 3-way Senate debate on Canberra local TV on Friday night between Lib/Lab/Green.
    It was conducted seated at a sidewalk cafe.
    They ran through the prominent issues and when they got to climate change, Gary Humphries (Lib) said: “Look, I’m no climate denier…..”.
    In some electorates, there is no way the local Lib candidate could get away with “Climate Change is crap”.

    The 2nd ACT Senate seat might come closer than ever before to going to a non-Lib candidate this time around, but Labor’s mismanagement of border security and the Greens’ enmity towards funding for independent schooling will probably save Humphries.

    The Greens still haven’t matured – they’re saying very little on the too-slow roll-out of wind power and lack of funding for research into tidal power generation; they are silent on jap companies *still* chipping our SE NSW forests; their opposition to ETS; whaling; don’t explain their anti-environmental attitude to illegal immigration, but instead they are branching out into trendy policy areas where they stand to lose more than they can gain, putting themselves at risk of a similar fate to the Democrats.

    On education, with 42% of children in the ACT attending independent schools (and 33% nationally), it’s difficult to see the sense in the Greens’ policy in this area. My local public high school has attracted 36 enrolments for Year 7 next year, while the local Catholic high school has attracted over 400, with yet another local Christian school even getting more Year 7s for next year than the public High School.
    What is the point of alienating people who are otherwise about 75% in favour of genuine Green policies?

  28. #28 Mike
    August 15, 2010

    Re 26 above, it’s kind of sad that some of the Lib’s (“Liberal” in Australia = conservative party for our non-antipodean friends reading this) attitudes towards climate change are simply based on “what they can get away with”.

    I mean, the science speaks for itself in droves. Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull conceded climate and the anthropogenic influence is just a scientific fact which has to be addressed. Though unfortunately for him, a pro-science attitude wasn’t right-wing enough to survive!

  29. #29 davidp
    August 15, 2010

    # 24, Craig Allen,
    I was very sad to find that according to Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA), Hazlewood is neither Australia’s most CO2 polluting power station (that’s Loy Yang A), nor the least CO2 efficient large power station (that’s Loy Yang B, if you exempt Morwell as not large and possibly doing other stuff with some of the energy)
    http://carma.org/plant/detail/17233

    I suspect that the WWF got it wrong by bundling Loy Yang A (4 generators) and Loy Yang B (2 generators) into one, which – their combined efficiency is just better than Hazlewood. Anyone who knows more about this inconsistency, please post.

    Of course calls to close Victoria’s newest brown coal power station (Loy Yang B) would be met with much stronger industry opposition and higher costs.

    My family were at the rally & leafletting (and got soaked by the rainstorms). I had to do stuff with my oldest daughter (no choice of date)- otherwise I would have been there too.

    My new cause: The world needs nuclear power to be made affordable and bulk installable to provide low CO2 energy. Feasible nuclear wil make it reasonably easy to stop installation of coal and oil fired stations globally. Nuclear not coal! Spend the $400 million on building a nuclear power plant in Victoria, not on subsidising the shutdown of Hazlewood.

  30. #30 feral sparrowhawk
    August 15, 2010

    @22 It is possible the Fieldings are related. Senator Fielding has 14 siblings and not all are as dumb as him. One was a brilliant PhD student in maths until he was hit by a car. He suffered severe brain damage, but is still a hell of a lot smarter than his more famous brother.

  31. #31 Chris O'Neill
    August 16, 2010

    Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull conceded climate and the anthropogenic influence is just a scientific fact which has to be addressed. Though unfortunately for him, a pro-science attitude wasn’t right-wing enough to survive!

    The Australian Liberal party more or less consists of two parties, the conservatives who are climate science denialists and the “liberals” who aren’t. Unfortunately for Malcolm Turnbull, there are one or two more conservatives than liberals.

    Interesting that most Liberal MPs are denialists and of course, probably all National party MPs are denialists.

  32. #32 adelady
    August 16, 2010

    “Interesting that most Liberal MPs are denialists and of course, probably all National party MPs are denialists.”

    I read a really good piece at the time of Malcolm Turnbull’s defeat. It seems that The Liberals who really matter, who aren’t in Parliament or in the public eye at all, are the senior party people who control pre-selections, esp for the Senate.

    And these guys never, ever talk to a real live elector out in the burbs or the sticks. Of course they do talk to their mates in industry.

  33. #33 Craig Allen
    August 16, 2010

    @davidp

    I’ve emailed EnvironmentVictoria asking for for clarification of the relative inefficiencyon Hazelwood and Loy Yang A. But let’s face it we need to shut them all down. If the current Russian-Pakistan situation plus last year’s Australian fires become the new norm we may see it being considered sooner than later.

    I flip flop on the pros and cons of nuclear. The reality is that there is no way politically that it will ever happen in Victoria or any other arable area with high population.

    I reckon the best bet would be putting a complex of nuclear power stations at Roxby Downs. It’s in the middle of the desert where there are a handful of people, most of whom work at the mine anyway. The Uranium can come straight out of the ground go through the station and the waste could be vitrified and go straight back down the mine. The required water could be produced by a massive desalinisation plant on the Great Australian Bight side of the Eyre Peninsular where the brine can disposed of in an area with high currents. High voltage direct current lines would bring the power back east and south and would also link in geothermal and solar power stations along the way.

    But for now I’m not convinced that it will not be soon become cheaper to go for massive solar installations in the semiarid regions.

    If things go really pear shaped and the nuclear option is feasible, perhaps we will be forced to start sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. A Roxyby Downs would perhaps be the best place for a nuclear powered atmospheric CO2 extraction facility (if we could work out how to dispose of the CO2 – perhaps if a way is ever discovered whereby it can be converted to graphite).

  34. #34 davidp
    August 16, 2010

    Craig, good idea emailing Environment Victoria.
    The inefficient one is Loy Yang B. Loy Yang A is just big (and so produced more CO2)
    BUT CARMA gives Hazelwood as 11,500Mt vs 14,400Mt for Loy Yang A whereas Environment Victoria gives Hazelwood as 16,000Mt CO2 – the difference between 11,500 and 16,000 is certainly enough to swing the issue.

    If we can’t cope with nuclear, I despair of us handling Global warming. The U.K. and France have nuclear plants in highly populated areas. Which matters more – global warming or the risks of nuclear in my back yard ?

  35. #35 adelady
    August 16, 2010

    Nuclear?

    2 problems. First and worst is leadtime. Does anybody know how a nuclear power plant could be designed and built in less than 10 years? In those 10 years we could instal megawatts of geothermal and solar (and wind) in Australia. And who believes that it’s only the design and build time needed? Getting community / political approval for siting could easily take that long itself. (I refer you to the super speedy and extra efficient process of reorganising the management of the Murray Darling basin if you’d like to calculate an estimate.)

    Second. Technology. I’d like to see those 10 years applied to creating or selecting better design and methods. If we’re to go down the nuclear route in Australia, we’re going to need to find a cooling method that doesn’t deplete further our already diminishing water resources.

  36. #36 adelady
    August 16, 2010

    Nuclear?

    2 problems. First and worst is leadtime. Does anybody know how a nuclear power plant could be designed and built in less than 10 years? In those 10 years we could instal megawatts of geothermal and solar (and wind) in Australia. And who believes that it’s only the design and build time needed? Getting community / political approval for siting could easily take that long itself. (I refer you to the super speedy and extra efficient process of reorganising the management of the Murray Darling basin if you’d like to calculate an estimate.)

    Second. Technology. I’d like to see those 10 years applied to creating or selecting better design and methods. If we’re to go down the nuclear route in Australia, we’re going to need to find a cooling method that doesn’t deplete further our already diminishing water resources.

  37. #37 Fran Barlow
    August 16, 2010

    Adelady asked:

    First and worst is leadtime. Does anybody know how a nuclear power plant could be designed and built in less than 10 years?

    Those in China are being turned out in well under five years. That said, the same applies to most renewables at iundustrial scale. To date, despite massive subsidies there is not a single solar plant at nuclear scale (1GW+) in the world. Not one. Some places can do geothermal but that is not going to go close to what is needed. Neither is wind. If we can’t build nuclear fast enough, we are in a lot of trouble because the alternatives have never been built, cost a lot more per unit of capacity and cost a lot more to connect to grids.

    Getting community / political approval for siting could easily take that long itself.

    That’s a different question. Yet if people want a solution that can make a difference, we need to persuade them that the time for messing about is past. Thankfully, people oputside Australia are not so narrowminded. I sometimes think it would be fun to build one in West Timor or PNG and pipe the power here.

    I’d like to see those 10 years applied to creating or selecting better design and methods. If we’re to go down the nuclear route in Australia, we’re going to need to find a cooling method that doesn’t deplete further our already diminishing water resources.

    Achieved a long time ago. We would build them at the coast and use seawater. We could also run the MSR (molten salt reactor). There are non water-based designs, but this is not a problem in Australia sine the major demand centres are near the coast.

  38. #38 Wow
    August 16, 2010

    “Second. Technology. I’d like to see those 10 years applied to creating or selecting better design and methods.”

    Another tech problem is that the pro-nukes say that the new designs are great and safe and cheap and effective and …

    Yet they’re also untried and nobody wants to spend their own money on it.

    Yes, a pebble-bed reactor won’t do a chernobyl, but it has other failure modes. After all, the chernobyl accident was with a design that had forseen the technical problems and failures but didn’t design for cheapskates putting untrained operators in charge.

  39. #39 Jimmy Nightingale
    August 16, 2010

    Interesting article in the SMH this morning:

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/climate/abbott-still-doubts-planet-is-getting-hotter-20100816-126zw.html

    “TONY ABBOTT has restated his sceptical views on climate change, and suggested the world may be getting cooler, as the Australian Academy of Science released a new report warning of the future impact of global warming.

    The Opposition Leader said he accepted ”that climate change is real”, but he did not back away from his view, based in part on the work of the Australian climate sceptic Ian Plimer, that the world is getting colder.”

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    August 16, 2010

    Also Tony Abbott:

    we have a credible response that will achieve a 5 per cent reduction by 2020

    What a shameless liar.

  41. #41 davidp
    August 16, 2010

    My goal is a low CO2 power source that despots and kleptocrats will install instead of coal power. It’s a global problem, and the developing world’s potential power demand completely eclipses Australia’s.

    “leadtime. Does anybody know how a nuclear power plant could be designed and built in less than 10 years”
    That is one of the problems I believe we must solve. Standardised designs that work and are safe, not bespoke designs that require every pipe to have massive safety calculations rechecked by a regulator for each plant. It needs investment in a) design, b) pump priming projects, c) on-going projects, and it needs scale.

    “community / political approval for siting could easily take that long [10 years] itself.” This is also part of the problem to solve. If the community refuses it, the are coming close to ensuring ongoing electricity generation CO2 emissions. If rich countries won’t use nuclear, it won’t become affordable for poor countries.

    “Technology. I’d like to see those 10 years applied to creating or selecting better design and methods”
    I sort of agree, but we won’t see much happen unless we commit to start building nuclear plants. Pick a good design, refine it and build it. There are lots of fantastic (in several meanings of the word) designs out there. It needs investment and implementation to go from there to having good feasible plants. Large scale take up results in considerable refinements in any field. You also have to be willing to risk building something that is sub-optimal, so you can learn from it. The “market” isn’t willing to take this risk. The same things are true of gigawatt scale solar. There is also the problem of the perpetual “we should use the next few years improving designs” that means you never arrive.

    Geothermal: Currently only applicable to selected locations. Inevitable long lead times as the specific site is studied.
    Wind: Applicable to selected locations, needs specific site studies
    Solar: Still dreaming about storage. Winter mornings, when you need power and don’t have any are a nasty prospect. Hydro power and storage of power via hydro are helpful but again only applicable to selected locations with long lead times.

    “Clean Coal” (is a joke, mentioned for completeness) needs to be scaled millionfold from the largest existing capture plant, will never be as cheap as just emitting the CO2, so despots and kleptocrats won’t use it, or they’ll let others pay for the plant, and then won’t maintain and operate it.

    Sorry for the off threadness Tim. Perhaps we need another nuclear thread.

    On topic, I wouldn’t have thought 6.47 vs 6.86 between Labour and Green’s perception of the electorate was statistically significant on a 1-10 subjective rating, especially with a) so few Greens b) them all senators from states that elected a Greens senator vs Labour being 2/3rds House of Representatives.
    I wonder what a 5 from a Liberal means – is it “I refuse to admit what I think and will pretend to be undecided”?

  42. #42 David Horton
    August 17, 2010

    Jimmy – yes, quite shameless. Curious though, isn’t it, that Prof Plimer has gone very quiet lately? It couldn’t be that he suddenly realised he was talking a complete load of bollocks, could it?

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    August 17, 2010

    > Curious though, isn’t it, that Prof Plimer has gone very quiet lately? It couldn’t be that he suddenly realised he was talking a complete load of bollocks, could it?

    Maybe he and Tim Curtin are off being quiet somewhere together for that very same reason?

    Well, one can dream… ;-)

  44. #44 Ian Gould
    August 22, 2010

    The Climate Sceptics Party got a total of 18,832 votes out of 10.26 million votes counted so far for the Australian Senate election. (The final total vote count is expected to be approximately 14 million).

    By way of comparison, the Australian Greens got 1,264,135 votes and the Australian Sex Party got 193,802.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    August 22, 2010

    It seems that the Australina Climate Sceptics* have moved bunked up with David Stockwell’s “Niche Modelling” at landshape.org.

    I wonder if the merger is a reflection of harder times for politically-motivated AGW denialists…? Perhaps cohenite could offer an explanation.

    (* I think that it’s past time that the ACS stopped doubting the existence of climate…)

  46. #46 cheesewaffle
    September 4, 2010

    The Greens are anti-nuclear who have PEW backing (US based) along with Commonwealth influences which has a board Trust of Oil&Gas advocates such as the Rockerfellers.

    Dont take my word for it. Do the research yourself.

    Meanwhile China grows with “modern” Nuclear power station numbers.

    How can the Greens be advocates of clean coal when so much environmental damage is done digging something up 40 times less efficient than wood.

    The Greens anticipated 15% of the vote yet managed only one seat as voters protested against both the major parties.

    Australians need to visit Europe to look at their older Nuclear plants to see that a mix with other technologies will help this country protect itself from economic recessions driven by “oil price shocks” as that happened in the past and will happen in the future.

    Shifting away from fossil fuels will help insulate Australia from global economic influences and the rise in price of a finite resource.

    So its not just that AGW may or may not be causing an exponential influence on current baseline climate change temperature rise.
    Its economic insulation and allowing Australia to accrue wealth to install double glazed windows etc in building more energy efficient homes for the future.

  47. #47 jakerman
    September 4, 2010

    cheesewaffle you seem deeply confused

    >*The Greens are anti-nuclear who have PEW backing (US based) along with Commonwealth influences which has a board Trust of Oil&Gas advocates such as the Rockerfellers.*

    Are you talking about about the Australian Greens, the Political party? They [do not have](http://greens.org.au/system/files/AG%20Constitution%20as%20amended%20Nov%202009.pdf) a board Trust.

    >*How can the Greens be advocates of clean coal when so much environmental damage is done digging something up 40 times less efficient than wood.*

    Once [again](http://greensmps.org.au/blog/clean-coal-picking-losers) you seem [confused](http://nonewcoal.greens.org.au/home-news/coal/techniques/clean-coal-con)?

    >*The Greens anticipated 15% of the vote yet managed only one seat as voters protested against both the major parties.*

    The Greens got 12% likely giving them more senate seats than expected. The lower house seat numbers are a function of the voting system. Proportional representation would have given them 12% or 17 house of reps house.

    If you think nuclear power is a good direction, then you undermine that view by coming here making such confused claims.

  48. #48 jakerman
    September 7, 2010

    Interpendents [put Labor](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/07/3005028.htm) into power and nominate their support for Renewable Energy and Action on Climate Change as Key outcomes and differentiation in their decision.

Current ye@r *