Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian is worried that the centre right Australian Coalition government, which won the recent national election by the narrowest of margins, has signalled a climbdown from previous climate committments by appointing a climate skeptic as environment resources minister.
Matthew Canavan says there is ‘uncertainty’ around impact of climate change
New resources minister describes Adani Carmichael coalmine as ‘incredibly exciting’ for Australia.
The new resources minister, Matthew Canavan, has warned there is still a level of uncertainty about the impact of carbon emissions on global warming and described the Adani Carmichael coalmine as an “incredibly exciting project” for Australia.
Canavan, who has previously called for funding for climate change sceptic scientists, is also responsible for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which will decide whether to recommend the Queensland government’s application for a federal loan for the Adani railway link.
He said while he had the final decision on projects recommended by the NAIF, the body had only come into being on 1 July and had yet to make any recommendations to him as minister.
Canavan is the biggest winner of the ministry reshuffle, elevated to cabinet and given the resources portfolio to add to his northern Australia outer ministry position. He said he accepted the warming impact of carbon dioxide, notwithstanding a level of uncertainty. He accused “certain interest groups” of exaggerating the effects of carbon emissions.
“There is a level of uncertainty about the impact of carbon emissions,” Canavan told Sky News. “Indeed, in the last IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report, the level of confidence reduced in the forcing effect of carbon emissions.
“There is a lot about the climate system we don’t understand, a lot of assumptions we have to make with projections of course. I just feel we should all be a little more humble about our climate and our system.
Climate enthusiast Malcolm Turnbull, who toppled skeptic Tony Abbott in a party room putsch late last year, called the recent election in an effort to consolidate his leadership.
Turnbull’s leadership consolidation plan failed. A voter backlash from disgruntled Conservatives, including substantial defections to the hardline skeptic and anti-immigration party One Nation, has brought the Turnbull government to the brink of collapse.
While I applaud the appointment of climate lukewarmer Matthew Canavan, I am concerned this appointment is just political window dressing. According to JoNova, a very quiet Aussie carbon tax may have just been implemented. Deposed Aussie climate skeptic Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who delivered an overwhelming victory to the Coalition government in the previous election, is still banished to the back bench.
As far as I know climate enthusiast Malcolm Turnbull still plans to waste at least a billion dollars on renewables, despite the stark recent reminder from South Australia that renewables are simply not up to the job.
My view is you will have to try harder than a friendly ministerial appointment, Mr Prime Minister, to win back the confidence of disaffected former supporters.
Update (EW) – resources minister, not environment minister (h/t Nick Stokes)
All is not lost. Malcolm Roberts is in with a chance as the second One Nation Senator in Queensland. He knows more about climate fraud than the whole Parliament put together. Little wonder that Greg Hunt did not want to continue as the minister- he would be scurrying for cover. Whoever is climate minister is going to have to contend with either or both of Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts. In any case, Malcolm will be able to get her up to speed.
Sadly, we have lost probably the only Australian MP who was qualified to assess any “scientific” claims in terms of their merits/ failings – Dr. Dennis Jensen. This is clear from the obvious threat he poses to the warmista, as for example here:
“I’m open to being convinced but the data and the evidence that I’ve seen [on climate change] thus far certainly I don’t find compelling,” he said.
He claimed that pointing to a scientific consensus on climate science “indicates your argument is weak”.
“When is the last time you heard the consensus of the world scientists is that the earth is roughly spherical?” he said.
“You get the appeal to consensus when the data and the evidence is weak and it’s an appeal to authority rather than examining the data and the evidence.”
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/your-argument-is-weak-climate-scientists-offer-briefing-to-sceptical-liberal-mps-dennis-jensen-and-chris-back-20150706-gi5zl8.html
Craig Kelly (Hughes) is no slouch on climate issues.Bob Katter has addressed our carbon tax rallies, so should be aware of climate fraud. He is aware of UN treachery, as are Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts.
@High Treason July 19, 2016 at 8:20 pm
Agree that there are many who can see the truth/fraud behind “the issues”. My point was that Jensen was the only qualified genuine scientist with the real life experience needed to quash the “settled science” using a genuine application of the valid scientific method. I was hoping he’d put the science back into the “settled” for the edification of the lay public.
I agree heartily re Malcolm Roberts. He wrote the One Nation policy on affordable energy:
1. One Nation will oppose all taxes levied on Carbon Dioxide, be it a flat Carbon Tax or a floating Emissions Trading Scheme and for the removal of all associated legislations.
2. Cancel all agreements obliging Australia to pay for foreign Climate Action and payment to the United Nations and foreign institutions.Restore farming, fishing and manufacturing industries to again become competitive and thrive. Cut green tape.
3. Environmental impacts to be assessed on the use of empirical scientific evidence, not activists or non-government organisations pushing ideology and political agendas.
4. Abolish the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and support practical cost-effective research into energy efficiency, reliability and dependability.
5. Remove all subsidies and financial advantages offered to the renewable energy industry and make them compete on an even playing field with other energy sources.
6. Support reliable, low-cost power generation. This has previously been Australia’s strongest competitive advantage.
7. Hold a Royal Commission (or similar) into the corruption of climate science and identify whether any individual or organisation has misled government to effect climate and energy policy.
8. Establish an independent Australian science body replacing the UN IPCC to report on climate science. It will be the beyond politicisation and be the basis of Australian policy on insurance and response to weather events.
9. Review the Bureau of Meteorology to ensure independence and accountability for weather and climate records including public justification of persistent upward adjustments to historical climate records.
10. Review the CSIRO to ensure independence and accountability and determine whether funding has influenced the direction and results of CSIRO’s positions on the climate claims. Funding rom the U.N. in particular will be probed for an agenda not consistent for what is best for Australians.
11. Ensure that all climate, energy and environmental policy decisions, requiring a scientific component, are based on the scientific method and empirical evidence. All decisions will be based on an economic, social and environmental assessment with environmental issues not automatically put ahead of humanity or economic realities.
12. Remove from the education system the teaching of a biased and one-sided view of climate science. Teaching of climate science will begin in secondary school and will be based on the scientific method of scepticism until proven.
13. Support renewable energy that does not impact on the environment and encourage research in the ability to store energy at affordable cost to households and businesses.
14. The wind industry must compensate all residents who have been proven to suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome and any residents where the presence of wind turbines have negatively effected the price of their home.
http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/affordable-energy
I don’t agree re Greg Hunt, though. I think he has done a valiant job in impossible circumstances, creating a viable “low-carbon” policy that didn’t unduly damage the national economy.
Take courage from the British Brexit vote, good luck from the uk Onenation
“Battered Aussie Conservatives”
Does that mean someone will be frying them soon?
Tickets will go like hot cakes!
Charge enough, and you could become a ‘Commonwealth’ again!
Auto – conjuring the vision . . .
Congratulations to Matt Canavan! He is one to watch in the future- he has a lot of potential and loads of common sense. Thoroughly down to earth. He’s based here in Rockhampton in Central Queensland and I was pleased to be able to hand out how-to-vote material for him (and Michelle Landry, the member for the electorate of Capricornia, who clinched the coalition majority by holding her seat in two elections running, in what has previously been a strong ALP seat). Matt is a strong advocate for northern development, new dams, and Adani in particular, and his position in Cabinet will be very disappointing to green groups. Watch this space.
Ken S
There will be a purging recession soon and sanity will return to decision making.
The Prime Minister is green left. He is trying to take the Liberal Party to the left. That is the cause of the problems. He has deliberately snobbed the conservative base. He changed the name of the party from Liberal to the Turnbull Team in campaign ads. He cannot get enough of the basest climate change claims. He is on record as saying he stopped listening to sceptics over a decade ago.
However, the UK abolishment of DECC and Trump’s stated dismantling of Climate Change agreements, if elected, is leaving him to look like a shag on a rock.
He took a near record win and all but turned it into a loss as the conservative base deserted the party by 1.7million. He lost donations by a factor of 10 to the party over other matters. His only saving grace was that his opponent was weaker than him.
He worked frantically to re-establish renewable energy and their grants. Yet this week, South Australia ran out of wind power and wants to disrupt the power grid of the whole eastern side of Australia to keep their biggest manufacturing companies. Only someone with an impenetrable ego would not get the message of windpower failure.
“However, the UK abolishment of DECC and Trump’s stated dismantling of Climate Change agreements, if elected, is leaving him to look like a shag on a rock.”
Complete with painful knees !! :-))
Preserve your knees, let your partner go jockey.
Well, what would it take for a Abbott > Turnbull transplant.
What would it take to cause a liberal revolt against Turnbull?
A loud sneeze, most probably.
Australian politicians tend to be very blunt with each other over their failures.
Well indeed,he put up $1million of his own money towards the campaign.Extraordinary! Team Turnball. There may be some concerns about Trump,but many here in Oz are hoping he gets up.
I think this struggle will be long and hard. It looks like the Australians did not have a clear choice between the parties, with the misleadingly (for an American) named Liberal Party turning green in a party coup. We in the US at least have a clear choice.
Yes you have Tom 🙂 To the abyss (Trump) or just to the edge os a black hole (Clinton) 😀
The problem in that in the US there’s not also a clear choice because is a question of choose between “Righty Right” or even “Extreme Right” (considering trump speeches about walls) and just “Right” or “Moderate Right”. There’s no such thing called “Left” in the US.
Cheers
I rather think the impression you have of Trump is from leftist media. He is not that conservative on economics or social policy (especially compared to his primary opponents), but rather a populist. Hillary Clinton is pandering to the open borders advocates, who are bipartisan. She is also pandering to the greens, who are also decidedly also leftist in economics. The only possible redeeming quality in the woman is that she is also so much up for auction that she cannot fulfill all her promises.
The left is guilty of 150 million 20th century peace-time political murders for which it has neither apologized nor even acknowledged.
In the face of this, we in the U.S. had Bernie Sanders, admirer of these totalitarian mass murderers, running for president and not getting called out for his grotesque affections. Meanwhile, progressivist louts run riot in our streets, claiming the moral high-ground all the while in violent service to tyranny.
And you say we have no left in the U.S. You’re living on another planet. The only difference between the U.S. and Europe, is that the left has not attained police power in the U.S., and has not gotten its chance here to murder everyone it dislikes.
There’s no such thing called “Left” in the US.
Huh, you must live in a different version of the US.
The Federal government is just filthy with leftists. Bureaucrats live all around me (to my dismay).
To claim there is no American left and it doesn’t dominate the government, indicates bilateral confusion. Perhaps you come from one of those countries that drive on the wrong side of the road.
The core of the Republican party (leadership) is establishment RINOs (mostly White RINOs) the Democratic party leadership is pro-elitist leftist.
“Right” oriented elements really only exist at a grassroots level. There are some “right” oriented elements in the Democratic party. But they evidently can’t read, because if they read their party’s platform they would know they are in the wrong party.
With one or two exceptions any right or conservative leadership on capital hill has gone native.
Pat Frank July 19, 2016 at 4:17 pm “The only difference between the U.S. and Europe, is that the left [ … ] has not gotten its chance here to murder everyone it dislikes.”
Judging by reports, the Clintons are pretty good at it.
Judging by reports, the Clintons are pretty good at it.
Well… that isn’t correct. The Clinton’s aren’t good at it – but they have had much more practice than they should have been allowed to have.
Bernie is not “Left”?
Clipe, in US standards, probably Bernie Sanders is the most similar to “Left” you can get. However, in most european countries, for instance, he would be considered very middle-of-the-road.
Pat Frank, do not think that way. If you are referring to Stalin, he was just another dictator. If you consider a pure leftist point of view (and it’s no surely mine), he would just not fit. And how about “right wing” dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar… among others, were not responsible for killing anyone? Pay attention that Hitler’s Socialist party had nothing to do with leftist ideas or whatsoever (misleading name).
By this time, you see that this “left or right” issue is a complex discussion that leads to nowhere. So why mixing climate with it? Climate alarmism is exaggerated period. Stick with good science to support this and do not try to put all so called leftists as climate alarmists because they aren’t. I have mates that work on climate, have leftist ideas and, as I, they are very informed skeptics about this 90’s climate alarmism. Some of them are pioneers in climate studies and even in weather numerical prediction models (unfortunately one of the most known ones passed away last year). This site earned my respect a long time ago by sharing science, not politics.
Spartacus, its not that all leftists are also into CAGW, it is that a very large number of people back CAGW because they are leftists–e.g. Christina Figueres and Maurice Strong. Traditional Marxists were not greens.
After hearing English politicians speak during the Brexit and aftermath, David, Theresa, Boris, etc. no matter you political persuasion places our Canadian and US (to be) leaders in the amateur pile. Trudeau sounds like the guy you use to party with once he sobered up, Hillary like a swarm of bees, and Trump like the manager of your office who cannot decide which staplers to buy (that week).
Spartacus July 19, 2016 at 6:39 pm
Clipe, in US standards, probably Bernie Sanders is the most similar to “Left” you can get. However, in most european countries, for instance, he would be considered very middle-of-the-road.
To people driving in the left ditch Bernie is middle of the road.
This is a sad commentary on Europeans, in as much as their version of a middle-of-the-road position is in the left ditch some distance from the actual pavement.
It should be pointed out that the middle-of-the-road by definition is not located in the left ditch.
To me, leftist means one that favors (big central) Government controlled society, and I have no idea why anyone would think Mr. Hitler didn’t run one . .
“There’s no such thing called “Left” in the US.”
Surely you jest…..
Accusations that the Clinton campaign isn’t serious about climate change are absurd.
By Carol Browner June 29, 2016
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/democratic-party-platform-debate-hillary-clinton-213998
Carol Browner is famous for having her computer files wiped when she left the EPA, in spite of a court order forbidding it. Sounds familiar territory.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/998899/EPA-held-in-contempt-over-documents.html?pg=all
Secretary-General Assembles High-level Panel on Post-2015 Development Agenda
“United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today announced the members of a High-level Panel to advise on the global development agenda beyond 2015, the target date for the Millennium Development Goals. The Secretary-General has appointed three co-Chairs: President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia; President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia; and Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom.
The Panel is part of the Secretary-General’s post-2015 initiative mandated by the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Summit. Member States have called for open, inclusive consultations involving civil society, the private sector, academia and research institutions from all regions, in addition to the United Nations system, to advance the development agenda beyond 2015.
The Panel’s work will be closely coordinated with that of the intergovernmental working group tasked to design Sustainable Development Goals, as agreed at the Rio+20 Conference. The reports of both groups will be submitted to Member States for their further deliberations.”
Also on the panel is John Podesta
Podesta is Founder of the Center for American Progress, part funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros. http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/04/188661/center-american-progress—not-progressive-education.
Soros was on the UN High Level Panel on Climate Finance, set up to garner $100 billion a year from the West by 2020.
Podesta previously served as Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Team and as White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. He served in the President’s Cabinet and as a principal on the National Security Council. Center for American Progress is the parent to Joe Romm’s “Climate Progress” and to the activist body, “Campus Progress”.
He is also co-chair with William Ruckelshaus (first EPA Administrator) of the “Leadership Council” of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which seeks US ratification of the UN Law of the Sea, (LOST). Former EPA Head, Carol Browner, original architect of the EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding, is on the Board at CAP.
Find more here: United Socialist Nations – http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/un-progress-governance-via-climate-change
“SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL AT THE EPA – CAROL BROWNER Carol Browner was appointed director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration in December 2008, the post now occupied by John Holdren.
Prior to joining the Obama administration, she was a member of the Socialist International “Commission for a Sustainable World Society” and was still listed as such as of January 5, 2009. Her name was removed some time between 1/5/09 and 1/10/09, when she assumed her new post in the administration. She was a speaker at the 2008 XXIII Congress of the Socialist International, Athens – Acting Now on Climate Change: “How do we strengthen the multilateral architecture for a sustainable future?”
SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL AND THE US DEMOCRATS In a video address to the Party of European Socialists, (PES) on Dec 8th 2009, as Copenhagen was about to get under way, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, had this to say, to his “Dear Colleagues”: He called for a strong center left and noted the regular contact between democrats and PES over the previous three and a half years, at congress, senate and party level.
He recalled his visit with Bill Clinton to the Global Progressive Forum in Brussels earlier in 2009 and US and EU progressives sharing a long-term global vision and seeking a global new deal. He spoke of the need for a Low Carbon economy, large investment in “green” technology, social justice and “differentiated responsibilities “for developing and developed nations. As mentioned earlier, the PES member parties are themselves members of the Socialist International.”
You can always find the damnedest opinions on the Internet.
Spartacus, Nazism (Hitler) and Fascism (Mussolini) came directly out of the European Socialist tradition. So did Stalin.
Your attempt to dodge this truth is a standard ploy of the left. Let’s also not forget Mao, Pol Pot, and Ho Chih Minh, mass murders all; Mao being in a class by himself.
See The Black Book of Communism for a bit of education — written by the way, by repentant leftists.
Salazar and Franco were pikers compared to that line-up.
Just a bit of backstory. Tony Abbott won by a landslide due to the totally atrocious government we had in previously for a couple of tumultuous terms of ‘government’. While I think Tony is a great guy, he did suffer a bit from speech delivery and said things without thinking about costs or how people would receive it. All the while, his powerbase was being eroded by Malcom Turbull who was Minister for Communications at the time. As a result the national, taxpayer funded, broadcaster, the ABC was permanently frothing at the mouth to remove Abbott. Turnbull was installed due to being relatively well-spoken. I believe he thought he could make the centre-right Libs into a somewhere-on-the-Left party. Conservatives are a little hard to budge, and so we have a very weak government that is lukewarm on policy. For example a single electorate has a difference of 8 votes, and others are quite similar.
There is very much a real sense of struggle in Australian media in terms of where the country is going. Certainly the louder voices are trying to pull us down the Muslim apologist/ CAGW route but hopefully the silent majority resists. While this struggle is going on however, jobs are disappearing and no one has a clear political vision that can be actually implemented.
Just FYI – pages such as these have been very reassuring of late in that I’m not the only one who is ‘crazy’.
Exhibit A: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june-in-modern-times-scientists-say/7643240
Climate change bingo.
As an Aussie, I am finding it hard to put weights on the various factors that led to a big decline in the Liberal vote. To be sure, global warming was part of the drop, but people with a special interest in climate change could be reading too much into it.
My main suggestion would be for sceptics to be careful that they write and speak accurately and that they continue to press the matter, especially the terrible performance of Sth Aust, with its costly component of renewables. (Beware of spruiking the high cost of occasional spikes and concentrate on average conditions).
Geoff
I’m struggling to understand Australia. I know they love their beer, as do we Canadians. But they export an incredible amount of iron ore and coal yet claim to be global warming believers, if resisting the payment plan. What is going on in your great country. Are you all delusional warmists as long as the commodity revenue still comes in (like we are in Canada)? Or do you really plan on shutting down your mines and going all in on green?
I think the people who would like to keep their jobs also want to keep the mines open. There is a great deal of green anger directed at any mining in Australia. If the greens had their way there would be no mines. I guess this is the difference between greens and the rest – the environment comes first and to hell with the fallout.
Politics trumps logic every time.
While there is a demand, someone will meet it. (ie, Australia not exporting makes no difference to carbon emissions, other thatn raisngn them in transportaon costs, and poorer manufacturing processes)
Australia would be far better to just make a lot of agreeable noise, perhaps even institute a token gesture carbon tax to SETFU, and go about its business. (Carbon taxes make a bit of sense in meeting the intended result, be it scientifically justified or not. In contrast, international carbon trading schemes are nothing but a concocted, unmanageable, money generating vehicle for international financial companies).
Better yet, Australia should be a major high quality steel and aluminium (aluminum) manufacturer for the world. Subsidize the shite out of energy supplies to the smelters. Provide tax breaks. It is completely illogical to send ore and coal offshore to manufacture under tax umbrellas and poor environmental controls and poor labour rights, only to receive back a low quality product which has done far more environmental harm in its manufacture than it would have if made in Australia. And will continue to cause environmental harm as it does not last and will need to be replaced.
Why would Aussies be much different than Canadians? I’m in Western Canada and grew up in a town surrounded by oil, gas and coal. Two coal power plants and lots of fracking until last year. We see it as just another industry, producing a product with strong demand. In Quebec, Ontario and B.C. they don’t have oil, gas or coal, so they pat themselves on the back that they are Green while driving around in their SUVs. The urban dwellers have no idea where their food comes from or how their energy needs are managed for them.
“appointing a climate skeptic as environment minister.”
Canavan isn’t the environment minister. He is the minister for Resources. Josh Frydenberg is the Environment minister.
..Dang, I hate agree with you !! ” The Turnbull Government will no longer have a sole Environment Minister, with Josh Frydenberg taking on the expanded Environment and Energy portfolio.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-18/malcolm-turnbull-unveils-new-look-ministry/7638492
from the article: “Canavan, who has previously called for funding for climate change sceptic scientists”
Now there’s a good idea! I like this guy!
Heh do you folks remember Lord Monckton telling us that Tony Abbot and The Canadian Prime Minister should watch their backs as the Greenies were determined to get rid of them. AND THEY DID!
Are you referring to Stephen Harper? He got rid of himself. It’s like he just got sick and tired of being PM. I thought he was just going through the motions for the last couple of years.
Absolutely correct! The election was his to lose and he pulled it off! Amazing what can be failed with a complete lack of effort or communication, not to mention any charm. Trudeau is the future of Western democracy. Government of the vacuous, by the vacuous, for the vacuous!
WHAT?????
Good thing for my keyboard that I didn’t have a mouth full of coffee.
It was indeed a near death experience for the Turnbull government. But I think you will find that the sceptics came through at better than unscathed. They should hold much, I repeat much, greater influence in the new government.
And I can’t believe Malcolm Turnbull is the fool some paint him. I have not given up hope of seeing good government at last, better than any since the 1960s.
There is a measure for my optimism coming soon. If the Turnbull government nominates Kevin Rudd for the UN, then I am wrong.
You cannot make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. Turnbull is what he is; he’s as silly as a sackful of monkeys. He won’t last as cognitive dissonance is depleting his mental faculties.
There is a middle ground but it involves a big stretch for many governments hooked on special interest interpretation of renewable energy. They just can’t grasp that lowest bidder for utility scale solar among financially qualified bidders can accomplish low grid prices without much impact on grid infrastructure. Instead it is special interest roulette and demonstration projects to nowhere. Of course it also requires real time knowledge of how fast solar costs are declining among the best of breed. That too is asking a lot from short attention span leaders among the push pull political signals. As Einstein once said, he was not that much smarter than others but he stayed with problems longer than others.
There is nothing major wrong with unmandated unsubsidized renewable energy.
While renewable energy isn’t desirable if it can compete on cost it will save fossil fuel for later.
Mandated and subsidized renewable energy should be prohibited by law.
“The new resources minister, Matthew Canavan, has warned there is still a level of uncertainty about the impact of carbon emissions on global warming ”
also a lot of uncertainty on the impact of fossil fuel emissions on the carbon budget.
so much so that it is not possible to detect fossil fuel emissions with statistical certainty
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
Chaamjamal,
The problem with that paper is that the author combines all individual error estimates of the different carbon cycles, but that is not necessary at all, as the overall error of all carbon cycles together and its standard deviation is known within reasonable limits: it is the combination of the error estimate of human emissions (fossil fuel use and cement manufacturing) and of the accurate measurements in the atmosphere. That error is in the order of +/- 0.6 GtC around a trend of +4.5 GtC/year caused by +9 GtC/year human emissions.
Quite clear that the increase is far beyond the error estimates…
After I was forced to give up HGV driving I religiously watched BBC Open University programmes on BBC2 after midnight, in particular Earth Science presented from the Climategate fame University of East Anglia up until Tony Blair cut the funding in 2006.
https://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/co2-drives-climate-change-pinocchio/
“…has brought the Turnbull government to the brink of collapse.”
A typical journalistic exaggeration. The won a majority.
Centre right? You’re having a laugh. Under MT they’re almost a leftist party.