Aussie Election Blamestorm Continues: “Voters feared climate policy more than climate change”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Australian Government ABC confirming my view that climate activism is a virtue signalling hobby for comfortable urban elitists.

Election 2019: What happened to the climate change vote we heard about?

By Matt Mcdonald

It was supposed to be the big issue of the 2019 Australian federal election: climate change. 

In the survey more than 60 per cent of Australians agreed with the sentiment that “Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant cost”. 

And while a self-selecting sample, those filling out the ABC’s Vote Compass survey consistently emphasised climate change as a crucial issue for them at the election.

Crucially, those identifying it as the most important issue had risen from 9 per cent in 2016 to 29 per cent in 2019.

Here the emphasis on quality of life over immediate economic and physical needs encourages a focus on issues like climate change. But this is a sensibility that speaks to those in higher socio-economic brackets, and principally with higher levels of education. 

It isn’t particularly applicable to regional Queensland, for example, especially when constituents in the latter view large scale mining operations as a crucial potential source of income and employment.

Voters feared climate policy more than climate change

In this election, Australians were suddenly faced with a prospective Labor Government ready with a suite of measures to tackle climate change. 

And they were presented with an account of these measures as a devastating economic blow to Australian prosperity and growth
However discredited much of this modelling ultimately was, and the broader fear campaign about everything from electricity prices to the end of petrol-based cars, it raised the spectre of immediate economic sacrifice for Australians.

Read more:

Of course there is a simpler question the ABC failed to ask; why were any government measures at all required to tackle climate change?

Last December the Australian Government CSIRO claimed wind power plus energy storage is cheaper than coal, even without government subsidies.

Yet during the election the Australian opposition manifesto included an intimidating raft of targets and mandates to force the adoption of these allegedly cost saving green energy options.

What’s up with that? Voters aren’t idiots. The green narrative simply doesn’t make sense.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 20, 2019 2:12 pm

What is it about publicly funded broadcasters being devout leftists, at least in the English speaking countries. ABC seems as bad as PBS , the BBC, and the CBC.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 20, 2019 3:35 pm

Yes, I wonder that too. CBC media people are not the sharpest tools in the shed but that doesn’t mean they all like the same flavour of Cool-aid. The CBC has a very strong anti-science bias, its commentators (even those on the rare science shows) are generally scientifically illiterate. They are the kind of people who go around saying “the science says…..”. I don’t imagine that many people who have the mental focus to finish first year calculus would enjoy the public broadcaster’s life of interviewing teenage pop stars or the author of yet another dreary novel on the human condition?

Reply to  BCBill
May 20, 2019 4:55 pm

I remember discovering the CBC as a teenager. It was actually interesting. Now it’s just a soul destroying litany of SJW propaganda. I miss Peter Gzowski, and Lister Sinclair, and classical music.

Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2019 5:57 pm

commieBob …
I hear you …
I was constantly tuned in to the CBC during the day, enjoying the classical music and thoughtful commentary. Then gradually it began to change into an unrecognizable amalgam of Leftist propaganda and SJWs “explaining” how bad my generation was for ruining the world.

Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2019 10:23 pm

Me too.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 20, 2019 3:39 pm

When your government pays you, more government is always preferable. That’s why government employees are socialists.

Roald J. Larsen
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 20, 2019 4:31 pm

Same in Norway, NRK (Norsk Rikskringkasting, mandatory licensed) is so left leaning as, if it was Titanic, it would have sank without the help of ice .. I find it unwatchable.

richard verney
Reply to  Roald J. Larsen
May 21, 2019 6:01 am

No surprise given that Norway is a very socialist country.

Luckily it has large oil reserves and a small population. But for that Norway would be a dystopian nightmare, despite its natural beauty..

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 20, 2019 7:20 pm

Not forgetting TVNZ! Every night we are bombarded with their lies, accompanied by smirking news-readers who don’t have a scientific brain among them! And then we have to put up with the lies from geriatric Attenborough. I’d love to see the chickens come home to roost one day, with these numbskulls having to pay for their nonsense!

Reply to  Mike Lowe
May 20, 2019 11:53 pm

One of the many reasons (standard of presenters and reporters is another one) why we stopped watching the news last year and TV3’s Newshub is no better.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Mike Lowe
May 21, 2019 6:39 am

Mike , they just die off. Max Planck famously said science advances one funeral at a time. Lifetime lefties have their brains completely turned off.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 21, 2019 12:21 am

No, worse.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 21, 2019 5:53 am

Khrushchev warned the West but most ignored what he was saying.

Nikita Khrushchev :
“The [western] press is our chief idealogical weapon.”

“We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to socialism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until suddenly awaken to find they have communism.”

Gene Horner
May 20, 2019 2:19 pm

I have seen Brazil, Canada, the U.S., French voters, and now Australia, come to their senses! Hopefully this is just the beginning of the end of the great climate scam… errr… world redistribution of wealth plan! I would think anyone with an IQ over 50 would see this farce for what it is!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gene Horner
May 20, 2019 3:42 pm

At this time in 2016, the Big Green Schemers had a very different vision of what today in 2019 would be.

– Brexit was supposed to a faded memory; a fad wiped from public memory. Globalism was to be “In” again in 2019. The populist, nationalist ideas of putting one’s people first by politicians was to be long buried using the mass media control of the airwaves and internet to shame people into accepting globalism and open borders.

– Hillary was supposed to be in her 3rd year of fully incorporating and cementing the Paris Agreement obligations further into US policy. US would be making good on payments to the Climate Aid Fund. Having a Left-leaning Supreme Court rubber stamp whatever the Left proposed, both CPP and WOTUS anti-fossil fuel agenda would “executive branch written law” getting the Red states in line.

– Carbon taxes were to be proliferating everywhere to support more subsidies for Wind and Solar schemes. Green schemes that were to continue delivering on the promise of huge ROI payouts to Green Hedge Funds, green investment vehicles, and the Public Union Funds invested in those schemes.

– Western democracy governments around the world would be continuing to fall in line with Paris commitments, and of course everyone would still be ignoring China and India’s emissions in a state of see nothing, say nothing.

Oh how the last 3 years have altered their world. And it is crumbling right before their eyes.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2019 8:08 pm

Reality will always dance to its own music.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
May 21, 2019 6:33 am


Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 21, 2019 6:42 am

The usual strategy of the left is stage by stage unveiling of a master plan for the population to follow. What is needed is the full master plan on the front end for full disclosure even if it is shocking. Know thy master plan not just thy enemy.

Lee L
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 21, 2019 7:40 am

It has been fully unveiled and in full view. Go to the United Nations website. There you will find Agenda 21 as .pdf and 2030 Agenda as the current update.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 21, 2019 9:27 am

Don’t forget open borders to complete their victory over their deplorables.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 21, 2019 12:38 pm

You can lie to all people for some time. BUT, you can’t lie to all the people for ever.

Reply to  Gene Horner
May 20, 2019 5:47 pm

Lots of people believe in climate change action as long as other people do it.

This includes such “notables” as:
– Justin Trudeau
– David Suzuki
– Al Gore
– Leonardo DiCaprio
– UN officials
– Arnold Schwarzenegger
– etc

Oh I almost forgot, they want other people to pay for it too.

Katie, fire up the jet, I need a vacation. 🙁

Bryan A
May 20, 2019 2:28 pm

The Market driven society naturally looks for the lesser expensive commodity and prefers to but/ invest in it. If unsubsidized Wind+Battery is truly cheaper than Coal, then society would shift to the cheaper option. Problem is, unsubsidized Wind+Battery/Solar+Battery is far more expensive than Current Coal Technology. The only way to make Wind+Battery/Solar+Battery economically viable compared to coal is to artificially inflate the price of coal via Carbon Taxation.

Reply to  Bryan A
May 20, 2019 3:33 pm

Not viable? Off with its head!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bryan A
May 20, 2019 3:58 pm

There is no amount of money that can make Wind+Battery/Solar+Battery make a nations grid reliable without fossil fuel or nuclear backup. They could tax coal use out of existence, or outright ban it, and All that would do is produce regular black-outs until other fossil fuels like natural gas could be brought on line as a wind/solar backup substitute.

That’s because there is no amount of money that can deliver the needed battery capacity and scale for a full-grid multi-day backup for reliability.

The reason is simple microeconomics of battery production and the finite limits of raw material supply to make them. As the quantity demanded increased, the battery unit price would grow exponentially as the supply tightened. There is of course a manufacturing scaling of efficiency at higher volumes, but when fundamental levels of basic resource availability to make more batteries is approached (lithium, cobalt primarily), the price for those materials would necessarily explode and pass that ever higher price increase on to the finished product.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2019 7:43 pm

I’m sure they’ll figure out the Zero Point Battery right after they perfect Cold Fusion

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bryan A
May 20, 2019 8:24 pm

Those do exist in cartoon world…
which is also the fantasy world of Climate Change, the Green New Deal, China will play by the rules, the Iranians really love the Israel and the US, and the Obama’s really do love the USA.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2019 8:29 pm

What “renewable” wind and solar really need are Shipstones, Robert Heinlein’s 1982 fictional energy storage device from “Friday”. Most of the greens act as if this fictional device will exist right soon now.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2019 9:16 pm

Shipstones, meet the Shipstones, they’re the modern Green age family
Ener.-gized by solar using sun and wind and batteries.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 21, 2019 7:50 pm

heh – I remember Stargate came up with an alien manufactured ZPM – “Zero Point Module” – which was a way to power a massive FTL Interstellar ship without having to figure out any way to actually produce or store energy. How did it work? Well it was Aliens! Doing Alien Things! Lucky we found a few ZPM’s laying around!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 21, 2019 2:34 am

I had an azzhat here in Australia tell me the other day that the (failed) $50mil Musk batteries in South Australia were the saviour of the rest of Australia providing us power when the power stations failed ! Imagine that … those 16 second batteries can run the whole east coast. Sadly, that is the level of understanding of the renewablista !

Reply to  Bryan A
May 20, 2019 7:02 pm

Left-leaning governments have created lots of ways to tilt markets in favour of renewables and against fossil fuel-based energy – e.g. subsidised finance corporations, the hidden subsidy of schemes that mandate the purchase of ‘clean energy certificates’ by retailers in lieu of ‘dirty energy’, indirectly paid for by domestic and small business consumers, etc. etc. The mandatory purchase of 30% of Australian electrical energy has resulted in coal power stations becoming uneconomic by losing 30% of their market, having to ramp up and down to balance randomly varying renewables supply, and in some cases have their source of coal arbitrarily increased in price. I could go on, but you get the idea.

May 20, 2019 2:36 pm

ok, first it’s an ABC survey…

….second, repeat first

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Latitude
May 20, 2019 8:42 pm

This is the problem. The ABC are so far detached from the average Australia that they believe their own self propaganda. They believe people trust and need the ABC and that it is only crackpot extremists that don’t watch it constantly. Hence when they put out a voting survey on their webpages they fail to understand the difference between ‘The Australian Public’ and ‘Australians who follow the ABC’.

So when they find an answer they like, they run with it, safe in the knowledge it is both the answer they want to hear, and comes from a reliable source.

Then they get it wrong and don’t know why.

Honestly they are becoming a danger to themselves.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
May 21, 2019 1:18 am

This comment should be a two-page spread in the Australian – nailed it.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
May 21, 2019 3:06 am

standing outside the ultimo office and asking passersby …isnt exactly going to get an intelligent or informed opnion

paul courtney
Reply to  Latitude
May 21, 2019 8:30 am

Latitude: Indeed. That such surveys find the “right” answer is as surprising as M. Mann finding hockey sticks in random tree samples. Only question is, did ABC get the result by tossing “non-conforming” samples?

May 20, 2019 2:49 pm

Doh! the climate doesn’t just change itself.
It doesn’t just stop changing by itself

It’s governments that change the climate. Always has been , always will be

Javert Chip
Reply to  EternalOptimist
May 20, 2019 8:19 pm

So we had zero climate change before there was government?

Charitably, you forgot /sarc; otherwise, you’re nuts.

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 21, 2019 1:03 am

With a line like “It’s governments that change the climate.” I’m pretty sure the /sarc was inferred, though personally I would have changed the word ‘that’ to ‘whut’.


May 20, 2019 2:49 pm

The most surprising thing of all is that the ALP got any votes at all. Who in their right mind would sacrifice an entire country to “tackle climate change”.
How does one propose to “tackle” a figment of their imagination? What would you do with it once you had “tackled” it? The Australian electorate fortunately had a big enough component aware of this bloody nonsense.

Reply to  Karabar
May 20, 2019 3:27 pm

“What would you do with it once you had “tackled” it?”

Same thing a dog would do if it actually caught a car.

Reply to  Karabar
May 20, 2019 3:40 pm

These days the typical Labor voter is insulated from the effects of economic policy….. either because they are relatively wealthy and reside in the inner city, or because they are on the government teat

Reply to  Karabar
May 20, 2019 6:19 pm

That is actually the issue for Labor they are appealing to an affluent and traditional voter who can afford to be an eco warrior and have lost there blue collar worker and union supporter base. Joel Fitzgibbon who is likely to contend the leadership is one of those voices from the right that wants the party to move back towards their traditional voter and that includes supporting the coal industry.

There is basically a 12% vote on offer for Climate Policy which already has strong representation by the greens. What labor has proved is the cost of trying to get that vote will cost you more of your blue collar worker base.

My personal guess is young Jim Chalmers will run and be given the leadership because he is from Queensland, young, leans to the right and quite popular.

Jim Duncan
Reply to  Karabar
May 21, 2019 1:54 pm

“Who in their right mind would sacrifice an entire country to “tackle climate change”. The Democratic Party in the USA.

Reply to  Jim Duncan
May 21, 2019 1:55 pm

Do you really think the Democrats are “in their right mind”?

May 20, 2019 2:49 pm

They rejected the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. They develop means and methods to mitigate the risks engendered by climate change. They voted for political climate change. Deplorable.

Roger Surf
May 20, 2019 2:49 pm


The writer of your link, (which I have typed again above), is apparently a professor of Political Science is loose with his statistics and sources – to say the least.

If he was an economist or even an earth scientist even I might take some notice.

How would he like to explain these following links?



May 20, 2019 2:50 pm

The AGW narrative is mature enough that people see it for what it really is ….. a scam. As more time passed the level of fear mongering went into the absurd and the people notice it. Telling us that less than a degree change in climate is catastrophic when they live in a climate that regularly swings over 70 degrees through the year isn’t lost on them. It’s hard to keep a lie alive when there’s so many facts disproving it and the consequences of believing it have a greater negative impact.

Joe B
May 20, 2019 2:56 pm

“The … narrative simply doesn’t make sense”.

No, it doesn’t, and sites such as this continue to be a source of education for a globally growing, skeptical audience.

You folks ARE the news now.

Dan Sudlik
May 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Most voters hopefully aren’t idiots. Hope that includes U.S. voters. I’ve had enough of AOC and her socialist comrades. If ice ages can start and end without our help, this climate is just fine thank you very much.

Patrick MJD
May 20, 2019 3:07 pm

The crucial thing here is the LNP have an outright majority. The only impediment is the Green have a seat in the Senate. So, we could still have 3 years of do nothing Govn’t. The only issue I see is that Shouty won’t be in the top job for long IMO. The internal party bickering will rear it’s ugly head and the Australian political pantomime will continue.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 20, 2019 6:32 pm

Not easy to remove a liberal PM now they changed all the rules same as Labor and nobody will trust opinion polls for a long time now. You also have no Tony Abbott being a white ant from within and a betting man would take money that Morrison makes it to the next Poll.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  LdB
May 20, 2019 9:14 pm

I didn’t know the rules had changed. I tend to turn off when politics is on every FTA TV station. But I did turn over to ABC that night at about 9pm and really had to rub my eyes. I really didn’t believe what I was seeing, in Australia, probably the second most climate change brainwashed population on Earth.

May 20, 2019 3:09 pm

How long before we hear about Russian collusion Down Under?
Had a good time today at this website:
Check it out.
Realize that the UK had 10,000 wind turbines.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  joel
May 20, 2019 4:13 pm

Already, Russia, China or malware has been blamed. I’m serial!

Reply to  joel
May 21, 2019 2:10 am

Sadly, I spend some time every day on this site, must get a life sometime. I see that today (Tue 21/5) the UK is once again importing ~2GW (max capacity) via the France interconnector with a slight negative (i.e. export) on the other interconnectors.

It will be interesting to see how the UK copes when the energy problems in Germany, Belgium etc come to a head in a cold winter. Will the EU still be happy to export to the UK when a long term low pressure is centred on the British Isles and the continent needs all the power being generated.

Joel Snider
May 20, 2019 3:23 pm

“Voters feared climate policy more than climate change”

Now THAT’S a valid friggin’ talking point.

Tim Whittle
May 20, 2019 3:26 pm

I did the vote compass, being an Aussie and all…

I indicated that Climate Change was the most important policy area. I am in the 29%. I was given no option to say that the reason it was important was that it needed to be crushed. I wasn’t given the chance to say it’s a scam that’s wrecking our Economy.

I WAS in a hurry.

Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2019 3:26 pm

The real problem for the Climate Change Alarmist movement is the “green” veneer has been stripped from the surface of the policy prescriptions (the watermelon) to shows its true “red” color. And it contains a whole lot more than “action” on Climate Change. It is chock full of socialism by openly incorporating Progressive’s “Social Justice” goals. And there’s no putting that cat back in the bag to hide it. It is there for everyone to see.

First-ever Gender Action Plan to support gender-responsive climate action adopted
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017
“Member States at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP23), convening from 6 – 17 November 2017 in Bonn, Germany, have today adopted a new roadmap to incorporate gender equality and women’s empowerment in climate change discourse and actions.”

And then there’s the GND and its various quite openly Social Justice themes that have zero to do with addressing “climate change”. The entire thing is further a joke by claiming we are already in the midst of a “climate crisis.” One has to be a complete and utter moron to actually think we are in a “climate crisis” today. Which is why urbanites are buying into this crap far more than rural folks who can see beyond the city streets lights and the city skyline to see the natural world around them everyday. No crisis anywhere one actually looks. So the people who live outside the limited views from inside cities can see through these outright lies.

And no one wants to see their electric bills double or triple so that the Socialists can force-feed them then with “gender-action-plans” and other Progressive nonsense.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 21, 2019 1:38 am

And no one wants to see their electric bills double or triple so that the Socialists can force-feed them then with “gender-action-plans” and other Progressive nonsense.

I’m sure I’m not alone wondering what’s even the point of any of the lefty gender obsessions? It’s like a pizza that no one ordered, which has a used-diaper crust and 4 day old road-kill toppings.

No one wants this, no one even ordered it! We aren’t going to eat it. But they won’t just get lost with this stuff. How stupid do the greens and Labor think we are? Apparently it’s really quite stupid.


May 20, 2019 3:27 pm

“Voters feared climate policy more than climate change”

With very good reason.
The world getting a little bit warmer is a wonderful thing.
Taking trillions out of the pockets of everyday people in order to line the pockets of politicians and their friends is a very bad thing.

M Courtney
May 20, 2019 3:46 pm

Of course the cost of the action is weighed against the cost of inaction.

Consider China’s human rights record. I really want regime change there.
But I’m not advocating a war to achieve regime change because such a war would not be of net benefit. Quite the reverse.

Everyone uses this arithmetic. Climate change is no different.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  M Courtney
May 20, 2019 5:14 pm

Everyone who buys a car, everyone who buys or rents a house, everyone who goes for a job somewhere; considers the “for” and “against” for their decision.

Economics, distance traveled, reliability, cost of purchase against cost of repair, all factor into the decision.

Very few people believe taxing the population to build windmills instead of hardening the infrastructure against worsening weather (assuming that even happens), is money well spent. The whole idea is ridiculous, and anybody who looks into the matter (except Griff) can see the logical failings.

Steve O
May 20, 2019 3:46 pm

It’s easy to give the socially correct answer on climate change when the impacts are far away and plans for action are theoretical propositions. When people are face to face with the reality of a massive financial waste that will affect them personally, perhaps they feel it’s time to get real.

May 20, 2019 3:48 pm

Spiked has an interesting commentary on the election results:

“Labor’s policies, designed to restore Australia’s virtue, are peppered through a policy document that runs to 309 pages.”

Yikes, 309 pages of social-justice policy? Of course severely-normal voters would have none of that kind of nonsense.

Reply to  PaulH
May 20, 2019 6:41 pm

That is a really funny read

Reply to  PaulH
May 21, 2019 11:51 am

good link

Flight Level
May 20, 2019 3:49 pm

The real problem is that climate is in the hands of individuals who never faced first-hand the unpredictable majesty of weather and came down alive and in shape to tell about it.

For them cumulonimbus is just another cloud name. Try it by yourself, get them on that topic…

And we expect those folks to govern us ?

May 20, 2019 3:52 pm

Re. the Australian Federal election, as usual money was a major factor, Palmer tipped some 60 million into it by running a candidate in every seat, thus preferences went to the Lib – Nat. parties . He will get a lot back via the taxpayers , per the number who vote for his party.

On the other side we had lots of money from the Union movement and its offshoot Get Up. Plus the Unions are some 50 % of the Australian Labour Party.

The result was a very tight election, with Labour with all of the CC baggage, still got about 48 % of the vote.

So a lot of people still bought the Labours total package, which included CC. So unless its sorted, in some three years time we will still face this same problem. A lot will depend on Trump and perhaps the UK and EU. Will the latter come to their senses ?


Reply to  Michael
May 20, 2019 5:52 pm

Gotta love watching the unions support a party that wants to make many of their members’ jobs impossibly expensive, while importing millions of foreigners to take the jobs that are left.

Reply to  Michael
May 20, 2019 6:49 pm

Labor primary vote was 33% they got the rest by preference drip. They were up against a very weak and most thought fatal fractured party which is likely not going to be the case at the next election. They can’t win government with those numbers and they will as a party have to lean more right back to their worker base. I am guessing Jim Chalmers or Joel Fitzgibbon will end up leader as the right and unions will try to take baseball bats to the left in the party. I suspect “there is no future in coal” Plibersek got told she had zero chance of being elected leader and why she dropped out.

Reply to  Michael
May 21, 2019 3:23 am

The EU has no “senses” to come to. In the EU the answer to everything is – more EU. The treaties are set in stone, there is no going back. The central influence is ratcheted in one direction only by every tentacle from the European Court of Justice to the Committee of the Regions. Never heard of it? The most iniquitous of all EU bodies which takes the £billions we “donate” and spends it on EU projects to bribe the electorate with the compulsion of putting up a blue plaque telling everyone it was financed by the EU. Have a “free” solar farm funded by the EU.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Michael
May 21, 2019 12:47 pm

I’m disappointed Australia didn’t get a government that would go hell for leather with the climate cult – because there’s nothing that would put off the voters in every other country like seeing the mess it would have done in Australia.

We’re now in a game of electoral pass the parcel – where we will keep having these “nearly got the green cult elected” elections until one country is bat shit crazy enough to vote them in and then “BANG”!

Indeed – given the conspiracy theorists will be already claiming Russian involvement – I suppose the proper analogy is “electoral Russian Roulette”.

Tom in Florida
May 20, 2019 3:52 pm

I continue to be amused by the excellent predictive powers of political polls.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 20, 2019 5:16 pm

Yes, and once again I forgot to put down a bet. I could have cleaned up twice now.

William Astley
May 20, 2019 3:53 pm

It is politically correct to agree with the climate change mantra. We hear the message 24/7.

There is no cost to give the politically correct answer back to the pollster.

When it is clear that actual, real ‘action’ to fight climate change will require forced spending of billions on green stuff and the shutting down of the hydrocarbon industry which logically will result in a massive increase in energy costs and job losses, for zero actual change of climate, the voter picks a strong economy, rising wages, and so on.

Bob Hoye
May 20, 2019 5:10 pm

Governments, at all levels and everywhere. have made fear a growth industry.
For their own benefit.
The electorate is beginning to see through the scam.
The next federal election in Canada will be held in this October.
And the governing Liberals have running on climate hysteria.
Think they will lose.

May 20, 2019 6:25 pm

Well re. the rising wages, that was one of Bill Shortens major selling points. Labour fails to grasp the difference between a slow economy, where wage growth is naturally going to be sluggish, and a expanding economy, being the result of increased productivity, which by creating jobs, reduces the unemployment, and the then shortage in some sectors automatically results in demand , thus causing wage growth.

The Socialest thinking is not good at basic economics. This of course shows in their thinking about CC and the resulting belief in windmills and solar panels being the only answer.

I being old enough, think back to a Labour PM in the UK in the 1930 tees, , who faced with massive unemployment said “I want to see all of the chinmeys smoking again Back then the Labour Parties thought of their base as being the s called “”Blue collar workers”

But today with what amounts to professional politicians, from University to a desk job in a Union, or the office of a sitting MP. Then if they toe the party line, but completely out of touch with the electorate, they are in due course nominated for a seat in Parliament.t.

We here in Austraila look back to the days in the 1940 tees when it was possible for steam engine driver to become a Prime Minister


nw sage
May 20, 2019 6:49 pm

“…why were any government measures at all required to tackle climate change?” and the necessary next question – if ANY of these government measures is really taken is there ANY verifiable information that the intended result will be achieved in any measurable way?

May 20, 2019 7:28 pm

“However discredited much of this modelling ultimately was…”

Hey? What? I must have missed that. I saw the modelling by an independent economic expert, I saw him getting called a liar by the leader of the opposition, I saw one of Australia’s wealthiest people publish his home address so it could be (and was) subsequently attacked, causing him to pull out of the climate economic modelling field altogether.

But I DID NOT SEE any rebuttal of his modelling. None. Zip. Nada.

Typical of the big green ratbaggery.

Smart Rock
May 20, 2019 7:48 pm

Isn’t it astonishing that so many people refuse to accept that giving up the basis of their material well-being is in their own best interest? (/sarc just in case)


Isn’t it amazing that so many people are beginning to see that giving up the basis of their material well-being serves only the best interests of the 21st-century green plutocrats and their enablers in environmental NGOs, left(ish) political parties, academia and the media?

a happy little debunker
May 20, 2019 8:35 pm

Priceless interaction on that ABC last night.

Start at about the 4 minute mark

John in Oz
Reply to  a happy little debunker
May 20, 2019 10:18 pm

One has to laugh at the fallback argument of ‘we have to believe the scientists’ whenever the CAGW-manics are asked for the knowledge of the details.

They obviously have never asked the ‘scientists’ for their sources, data, proof, etc.

I wonder if they would buy a bridge from a scientist who told them it was a good idea.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  John in Oz
May 21, 2019 10:30 pm

There is good evidence that they would. They don’t balk at destroying the economy of their own country for what they think the scientist said.

Craig from Oz
May 20, 2019 8:53 pm

The Australian ABC is rapidly becoming a danger to the rest of Australia.

Their failure to even discuss topics and instead jumping straight to the answer they not only want to hear, but they themselves spoke in the first place, means that people are making business decisions based on the moronic predictions being offered.

SportsBet is the (current) most public example, having thrown away over a $1million because EVERYONE told them Labor was going to win. More fool them one might say, but this isn’t the only thing. In the day job a few months ago the concept of a change of government and possible affects on our current projects was raised by employees. Don’t worry, management informed us, we are well aware and have already been in deep discussions with the relevant shadow ministers.

Why? Again, because everyone told Australians that Labor would win government. Well they didn’t, and now that is 100s of hours of middle and senior management time companies will never get back.

Not only does the ABC cost Australians roughly a billion a year in taxes, but by being utterly unable to correctly report on current trends or even discuss conflicting possibilities it is also costing Australian business millions as well.

Close it, and then salt the earth as a warning to others.

Another Ian
Reply to  Craig from Oz
May 21, 2019 12:50 am

“Close it, and then salt the earth as a warning to others.”

It is happening – unfortunately to Australian business though

Reply to  Craig from Oz
May 21, 2019 3:27 pm

I’d say SportsBet is looking to recoup the million they lost on actual sports betting. Betting on polls is like betting on a horse when you don’t know the jockey gets left and right mixed up.

All the lefties have forgotten that the polls are statistical MODELS and often can’t “predict” anything. The best they can do is suggest a possible outcome from many possibles.

May 20, 2019 9:50 pm

Our view was 12 years is plenty of time, she’ll be right mate. Next election the cries will be only 9 years, still heaps of time whats the rush. Eventually we will be having elections well after we are all supposed to be dead and these pathetic humans will still be imitating harbingers of death.

Reply to  Warren
May 20, 2019 10:25 pm

Sinodinos is one of the remaining Turnbull acolytes. We all know it and ignore everything that comes out of his mouth.

John in Oz
May 20, 2019 9:57 pm

None of the people arguing to ‘fight climate change’ have explained what the climate will be like after they win the battle.

Will there no longer be bush fires, hurricanes, droughts, floods? Will sea levels remain static?

No doubt they will argue that all of these natural disasters would have been worse except for their gallant efforts.

We have Bill Shorten to thank for this win after he told a reporter that asking for a price on his climate change policy was a dumb question, then back-tracking to ‘explain’ that he really meant a dishonest question. Lots of rhetoric, no detail and an expectation that we voters just have to ‘believe’.

The fool that calls them idiots is no drongo.

Reply to  John in Oz
May 20, 2019 10:14 pm

Plebersek has no idea how much CO2 is currently in the atmosphere, without this knowledge it would be impossible for her to tell you how much nicer the weather will be post policy implementation.

Its a dumb /dishonest question because its not about making the weather nicer!

May 21, 2019 4:40 am

There is a whole bunch of twitter feeds with lefties trying to understand how they lost the Australian Election

The best response

The moral of the story is don’t have policies that mess with coal miners jobs. Leave the coal miners alone and go ride a bike to reduce carbon emissions or something.

May 21, 2019 12:27 pm

In surveys, people know that the correct answer for the pollster is to say that they believe in ‘Global Warming/Climate Change’. When people go to vote they can see that there is nothing wrong with the weather in 2019, nor is there anything unusual in the weather. They also feel their wallet and know that ‘Climate Change Solutions’ will cost them a great deal of money and possibly also an arm and a leg.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
May 21, 2019 12:34 pm

Everyone loves the climate cult – until they find out how much the climate cult will cost them.

May 22, 2019 9:04 pm

One Green Party candidate elected out of 151 in the House . Not surprising , but what are the unions doing supporting a Party who’s stated intent is to shut down fossil fuel jobs. ? Why would the members of a Union
condone their dues going to a party that will destroy the middle class if their agenda was imposed ?
Australia dodged a huge bullet . Now how about having a Prime Minister that lasts a while or they will be right back into the same unproductive nonsense ?

May 23, 2019 5:44 am

The ABC lives in a bubble, only 14% of Australians are regular viewers/listeners of the ABC. Despite 100% of Australians paying $1.3 billion pa to fund it, only wealthy inner city leftists pay attention to it.

So the leftists of the ABC believe their surveys which are only contributed to by other leftists in the ABC bubble and they think the entire country agrees with them because they never leave their bubble and never hear other opinions.

I have met wealthy inner city lefties who truly believe the Australian electoral system is rigged because they are convinced they have ever met anyone who would vote for the right.

%d bloggers like this: