Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Professor Michelle Baddeley, even voters who support openly climate skeptic parties believe politicians should invest in renewables and CO2 emissions reduction.
Almost 90% of us now believe climate change is a problem – across all political persuasions
Published: May 17, 2022 5.59am AEST
Michelle Baddeley
Associate Dean Research/Professor in Economics, UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyIf a week is a long time in politics, three years is an eternity. Since the 2019 election, Australia has endured devastating megafires and unprecedented floods. Meanwhile, news of extreme weather such as India and Pakistan’s horrific heatwaves has poured in. And international pressure to act on climate change is growing.
Perhaps in response, Australian views of climate change have become less partisan. A new poll my colleagues and I organised of around 1,100 Australians found almost 90% now believe climate change is a problem. That’s an average across the political spectrum, from the Greens to One Nation.
Not only that, but almost 80% of us are optimistic, believing it’s possible for Australia to halve its emissions by 2030.
…
In our 2022 poll, views converged. Now, similar proportions of left- and right-leaning voters rate highly the need for government action on environmental damage and climate change.
…
In short, we found concern for the environment is nearly universal. Fully 94% of all voters believe environmental damage is a problem and 89% believe climate change is a problem.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/almost-90-of-us-now-believe-climate-change-is-a-problem-across-all-political-persuasions-183038
I highlighted One Nation in the quote above. To give you an idea of the absurdity of the claim that even One Nation voters prioritise climate action, check out One Nation’s climate policy;
Climate
One Nation believes Australia should withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement signed in 2016.
Australia has committed to the deepest and most savage carbon emission cuts in the world on a per person basis. This commitment is predicted to slow the Australian economy with enormous job losses. In our view, this economic suicide cannot be justified on the evidence put forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
We know that the majority of people believe in man-made global warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This belief is reinforced by media coverage of events like forest fires and droughts, but government policy needs to rest on the evidence and there is a growing concern about the evidence on which the claims of man-made global warming rests.
It is just too easy to allow our memories, often unreliable, to accept the often repeated claims that it has never been hotter. Given the economic costs, we believe we need to listen to the evidence.
It is the evidence we should take regard of when making policy. The history of science is that it’s the evidence that counts.
We have confidence in evidence when the experiment can be repeated and the same results are achieved.
We have confidence in science when the evidence is consistent with the theory and that theory predicts events in the future.
Scientists predicted global warming would lead to extremes of weather, which would be more intense and more frequent, but despite media reports extreme weather events were more common prior to 1960 than at any time since.
…
Read more: https://www.onenation.org.au/climate
How about One Nation’s views on Net Zero?
Net Zero Common Sense
Pauline Hanson December 03, 2021
Labor never learns…
Labor has doubled down on its threats to destroy jobs and the Australian economy by taking yet another radical emission reduction target to the next Federal election.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
In pledging to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030, it’s abundantly clear that Anthony Albanese has obviously learned nothing from the 2019 Federal election, when Queensland voters played the decisive role in delivering a stunning defeat to Bill Shorten in a contest Labor stupidly thought it could not lose.
With the Morrison-Joyce government caving in to international pressure aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050, the choices for Queensland and Australian voters at the next election are narrowing.
Only Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is working to protect Australian jobs, mining, manufacturing, and agriculture from the predations of green-left international climate zealots who attack easy targets like Australia while letting the world’s largest emitter by far—communist China—get away with increasing emissions at an annual rate greater than our entire national total.
One Nation needs your support at the next Federal election to win the balance of power and prevent Labor, the Coalition and the Greens from sacrificing our jobs and the Australian economy on the altar of climate change.
When will Australia wake up to the fact that climate change is pseudo-speak for global wealth transfer? And it’s not to our benefit.
Source: https://www.onenation.org.au/net_zero_common_sense
How do these unequivocally climate skeptic party policy positions reconcile with Professor Baddeley’s claim of strong support for climate action, even amongst One Nation voters?
It is possible Professor Michelle Baddeley believes One Nation voters are so dumb they don’t understand that One Nation are hardline climate skeptics.
But doesn’t it seem more likely that Professor Baddeley’s poll somehow failed to capture the genuine views of voters? At the very least it seems likely One Nation voters at least do not think climate action is a priority, compared to other issues.
We have all seen a series of increasingly absurd claims about popular demand for climate action, especially in the leadup to Australia’s federal election this Saturday, but in my opinion Professor Baddeley’s claim of near universal strong support for climate action truly jumps the shark.
“90% of Aussie Climate Skeptic Voters Believe in Climate Action”
It doesn’t say that. It says 90% of all voters.
” A new poll my colleagues and I organised of around 1,100 Australians found almost 90% now believe climate change is a problem. That’s an average across the political spectrum, from the Greens to One Nation”
The younger people are the more they believe, indoctrinated at public schools from a very young age, as The Bolt Report on Sky News reported a week ago with a guest panelist who explained how the propaganda is made available to teachers on line, very professional videos supplied complete with instructions for teachers and teaching aids for the students.
The presentations are created and supplied by a cooperative of various left leaning climate alarmist groups and are supplied on application with no charge. However, teaching requires many hours of school time that replaces the official Department of Education curriculum. And do not have the approval of State Education Departments.
Disgraceful situation.
Not to mention the kids taken out of class by the teachers to do a climate protest march, as required by the left wing teachers union. Usually on a Friday after lunch. Most parents are livered with this.
Ask not what you can do for your country but what can your country can do for you?
The poll is garbage, like most polls are.
It suggests that the One Nation members are for the opposite of their stated positions.
How can anyone lend credence to this fabricated pile of propaganda.
It doesn’t say that. That is the point of “90% of all voters”. In fact 85% of voters voted in 2019 for Coalition/Labor/Greens. For One Nation it was 3%. They could all be in the other 10% of the total.
In the row labelled One Nation it has rankings over 5 in every category that is in opposition to their stated positions. Either people lied to her about being in the One Nation group or …
They were people who voted for One Nation candidates, not One Nation members. But the numbers in that table average people’s subjective numbers for the importance of… Perhaps 5 means they think…not very important at all.
So people vote for candidates but, they don’t agree with the platform they run on?
Pretzel logic is not my forte, I like the album though.
ROFL now Nick is defining what 5 means. Lets face it the average dropkick would say 5 is in the middle but not Nick because he is special and can define what he wants.
So lets do a Nick anything less than a 10 means they don’t consider climate change is a problem so I am betting that group is now a couple of percent for the entire population.
While we are on our redefinition drive we are going define a scientist as someone we approve so now the 97% consensus is 0% because we don’t approve of those who were in the paper.
This is a great game .. I love it.
To clarify Nick’s voter breakdown for those playing at home.
(2019 figures from AEC)
85% of the turnout are Lib/Nats/Labor/Greens. United Aust got 3.4% One Nation 3% ‘Independent’ 3.3% and then we are left with a bucket of minor minor parties each getting 0.0something percent.
AND… 5.54% informal
AND that is from a 91.89% voter turnout.
So 16.42m registered voters.
1.33 million just don’t even bother to get their name crossed off the list.
of the 15.08million who do ‘vote’, 835,223 are either unable to understand the concept of putting a number in each box, starting at 1, leaving no box empty and not repeating any number OR deliberately choose the ‘Screw the lot of you’ choice and hand in a blank card.
(I have scrutineered on multiple occasions – deliberate informals are about 80-90%)
So – that is the breakdown of the Aust 2019 primary votes based on data published by the AEC.
How this supports or hinders Nick’s original argument I will leave up to the floor to decide.
Averages mean nothing if a party does not contest a seat. Note in the Senate in Qld at the last election the One Nation member Malcolm Roberts (who is a strong skeptic and knowedgable person with an MBA and Mine Manager ticket) was elected in 4th place out the 6 senators. It is very likely the ON senator standing in this election in a few days has already been reelected by postal and prepoll votes.
“Averages mean nothing if a party does not contest a seat.”
It’s an average of votes. You only get votes if you contest seats.
In 2019, with 3% of the vote nationally, PHON got 2.5% of the senate seats. It helped that their support is concentrated in Qld.
Agreed Brad. At the last election in Qld. Senator Roberts ON came 4th of the 6 elected senators. At that election the 3rd LNP member (who is also a climate skeptic and has voted such in the senate) came in 5th place. There was only one elected ALP (socialist) who was elected. That is coming election Senator Canavan a National party member in the LNP is an outstanding skeptic saying people are realising the climate activists are failing and the idea of net zero will be overturned. Canavan will be reelected in first or second place out of the 6 positions.
“… In short, we found concern for the environment is nearly universal. Fully 94% of all voters believe environmental damage is a problem and 89% believe climate change is a problem. …”
Same numbers, breakdown of all voters. But nowhere does it say 90% of climate skeptic voters believe in climate action, as your headline asserts.
As I noted above, at the last election 85% voted for coalition/lab/green. 3% voted for One Nation. There is ample room in the totals for all PHON voters to oppose climate action.
Then why not say so? You’re reaching Nick.
Why not who say what? The fact is you have no basis for your headline claim.
It’s his post he gets to define things … fair is fair Nick, I mean if the Amazon can become Amazonia for you … it is the same.
Going with Nick’s idea, that One Nation and United Australia Party fit into the 10% of skeptics;
Total non One Nation Voters = 100% – 3.37% = 96.63%
Subtract United Australia Party (also climate skeptics when the wind blows the right direction)
96.63% – 3.43% = 93.2
Rebase for non UAP and non One Nation voters:
90% / 93.2% = 0.9656 -> 96.56 percentage
ROUNDED is 97% – MAGIC NUMBER.
Always enjoyable to see you come here to argue,get taken to the cleaners and still come back for more.
Really? The headline is clearly false. Eric has given up trying to justify it. But of course, no-one cares.
NS is 100% right. The headline is wrong. It is beyond me why people here keep trying to justify it. Eric clearly misunderstood the people the 90% represented.
1100 out of what, 25.6 million. That’s, let’s see, such a low percent that it is meaningless. But then most polls are. How does that saying go…there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
The poll might be meaningless for many reasons, Tom, but you need to read-up on statistics because 1100 is a perfectly good sample for such a population.
By all means criticise the findings but make sure your argument is sound — I’m afraid yours isn’t.
Anyone marking my comment down clearly doesn’t understand sampling statistics.
I have no more faith in the findings of this poll than anyone else but if we’re making an argument it has to be robust. Questioning the sample size just reveals ignorance of how statistics works.
“Questioning the sample size just reveals ignorance of how statistics works.”
Indeed, 1100 is a very reasonable sample.
None of it matters. Clearly the so-called poll is flawed. 1100 people? What was the demographic representation? The so-called professor is making subjective statements on flawed data acquisition.
“It doesn’t say that.”
What it does say is that Goebbelifcation, which is breathlessly repeating lies supported with emotional manipulation, is an unbeatable way to coerce people into believing things that just aren’t true. Of course, like it was in Germany during WWII, it’s unsustainable, as the truth will eventually emerge, I only hope its not too late.
The immutable truth is that while CO2 is a GHG, the climate change power of incremental emissions from burning fossil fuels is so close to negligible, there’s no reason to be obsessing it, much less consider ‘mitigations’ that will destroy the free world to the benefit of China.
Nick, perhaps you can explain why climate alarmists hate the fact that the free world has dominated the path taken by the world since WWII and would rather see Chinese oppression shape the future?
”It doesn’t say that. It says 90% of all voters.”
Funny thing. Of all the people I talk to, less than 10% think climate change is a problem. Of that 10%, nearly 100% would be greens. Sort of sums up the whole CAGW scenario.
You should get out more.
So do you
Yes climate change is a problem. Ice ages, little ice age pestilence and famine, massive changes in sea level in both directions, sudden cataclysmic events that shade the earth and kill species etc. CAGW is not one of those problems except in models – nowhere else. It is a fraud to use terms like “climate change” which everyone with critical thinking understands is real when in fact you are really talking about mythical anthropogenic catastrophic warming of the troposphere which has failed to appear.
Totally depends on the question.
Bloody idiot mongs, then. Call me when there are hippos in the Thames like the Neanderthals had.
In my opinion sceptics understand that climate change is natural, and so called renewables are not cheap when all costs are accounted, are intermittent in delivery and unreliable, and that a healthy and growing economy is essential, and therefore that fossil fuels cannot be replaced by wind and solar installations.
We also know that CO2 is vital for life on this planet and even with 1,500 ppm in the atmosphere life could be improved, warmer living conditions and greater yields from food crops etc.
We also know there have never been any ‘tipping points’ in the whole history of Earth and we exist in a very cold period.
She’s a progressive
Saying it makes it true
I simply do not believe this – and would like to know a bit more about the quality of that poll that “Michelle Baddeley and her colleagues organised among 1100 Australians”.
There must be a Federal Government election taking place soon?
/sarc.
Once you commit to fabricating the data, pushing the”consensus” and censoring dissent, it is pretty easy just to continue and fabricate polls and even votes. Its all on the same hymnsheet
The author by claiming that the “devastating megafires and unprecedented floods” are something that has not occurred at some time in the past, either since or before settlement, has put his credibility on the line. What happened to the notion that the species in the forests are a result of fire over the ages, and that the water ways and flood plains were formed by persistent flooding?
The present but gradually ever changing climate zone Australia became much hotter and drier around 130,000 years ago, the rainforests retreated and became just 3 per cent of forest area and eucalypts that are heat and drought tolerance replaced the rainforests.
And of of course, naturally, since “The Little Ice Age” peaked the warming has melted the ice and living conditions have become tolerable again, and that spans only a couple of hundred years to date.
The “dreamtime” or past history stories of Indigenous Australians (the Aborigines) include very long periods of droughts and of flooding rains and resulting floods exceeding the worst since white settlement in 1788. One report I read about the NSW Hunter River (Port of Newcastle at the heads) was about the Hunter River drying up completely above the high tide reach and tribes moving into the hills (Great Dividing Range – Barrington Tops) to access natural springs still flowing.
But now they occur more frequently.
c’mon, there’s no comparison between the weather last century and this….
Those wetter droughts and drier floods are now occurring more frequently?
Is it always frequently or also more infrequent .. one can never tell with you?
Are we having hotter cold spells and colder hot spells as well?
Sounds bad … so all we have to do is stop using fossil fuels and it will all fix hey.
Yep, current weather is much more benign than during the LIA.
Or didn’t you know that !
And of course, actual real data, shows not much change in anything in the way of so-called “extreme” weather in over 100 years.
Australian gum trees have evolved to thrive with fire. For example
https://www.livescience.com/40583-australia-wildfires-eucalyptus-trees-bushfires.html
So sure, anthropogenic CO2 is fertilising the Australian forests and causing around 15% more growth since the 80s which directly translates into more fuel for the fires, but fires themselves are truely common.
Well, even if they did seem to ocurr more frequently to those with short memories or without the ability to read data, there is no evidence that CO2 has much to do with it.
there’s no comparison between the weather last century and this
Only because you weren’t around last century to see it…
That’s only true if you ignore the actual data, which you usually do.
Utter cobblers. Stop lying, griff.
Professor Michelle Baddeley, an expert in behavioral economics and behavioral finance. I fail to see anything in her background that suggests studying science or engineering. She does have an interest in psychology.
It could be she’s researching the behavior of voters when given dodgy information for a new book. Maybe it’ll be titled “When Lies Work – and When They Don’t”.
In a chaotic system it is certain there will be chaos. Sometimes the chaos such a system generates, is dramatic.
The weather and ultimately the climate is in chaos. That is its natural condition.
The crazy thing going on with climate is the evolved idea, we as humans can overwhelm the natural variability of the chaos by destroying civilisation and reducing the amount of CO2 we release in the atmosphere.
If the concept of a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world can result in strong gales blowing in another part of the world, is accepted. Then we would need to model all butterfly wing activity, to be confident we had a full model to guide us.
The models that tell us we are heading for uncontrollable climate outcomes don’t even model clouds, let alone butterflies.
Here is the thing.
We are heading for uncontrollable climate outcomes, because that is how chaotic systems work. They can not be controlled.
Snow is on again and off again in Boulder for this weekend. We’ll just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, arctic ice is inching closer to its mean for 1981-2000.
If pollsters ring me up asking voter intentions I either say
I just hang up and block the number.
PureProfile…. Paid research partner of the CONversation/ mono-log
Is anyone but a far-left gullible actually going to take anything they produce as being relevant to reality !
You have got to be kidding !
I might add that PureProfile’s main page looks like a bad case of child-like far-left “safe zone”
AUSTRALIA has had eight mega-droughts over the last 1000 years. The biggest was a 39-year drought between 1174 and 1212 AD during a century of aridity (1102-1212 AD) during the global Medieval warming.
There was a 23-year mega-drought from 1500-1522 AD. It was continent-wide. Tree ring studies in Western Australia covering the period from 1350 AD show many 30-year droughts during the Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1850 AD.PC
Professor Ian Plimer
Polls?
9 out of 10 cats….
Someone forgot to the survey author that the answer is always 97%
Australia has a preferential voting system you vote “for “every candidate some with more preference than others . She is just being a smart ass cow
Australia now alternates between severe drought and fires, then sudden catastrophic floods. All climate related.
Living in Australia you’d be daft not to recognise the impact of climate change
What impact? Australia is a big place, watching British press you’d think half of Australia was on fire or whatever. But that is very far from the truth.
You don’t live there, do you?
So you get your information from the Grauniad and the BBC….
You’d be daft not to realise Australia is 20 times the size of the UK, with multiple climate zones.
It floods in zones it used to flood and has droughts in the zones it used to have droughts. There is not more floods and droughts.
Do you know the words to our National Anthem?
Perhaps more figuratively the poem “I love a sunburnt country”?
Droughts, fires and floods are the Australian climate.
WRONG,
There are no significant trends in Australian weather patterns
You are just making up BS like you always do.
Bushfires are actually less prevalent and even the 2019 season burnt one a fraction of area in the largest year’s burn.
Floods happen, no proof of any change there, either.
“Australia now alternates between severe drought and fires, then sudden catastrophic floods. All climate related.”
And no relation to CO2 visible.
All you are doing is describing normal Australian weather, Griff. There is nothing unprecendented weatherwise happening in Australia. It’s always been a place of weather extremes. Just like California.
You see CO2 involved in every weather event. That’s because that’s what you want to see.
Assertions and opinions are not evidence of anything, Griff.
Australia has alternated between drought and flood for at least the last 100,00 years.
As a young woman Dorothea Mackellar wrote in her poem My Country around 1900, she was living in Great Britain at the time and thinking about family pastoral properties that she loved at home in Australia: “a land of droughts and flooding rains”.
alternates between severe drought and fires, then sudden catastrophic floods
So climate change causes droughts AND floods? What does it NOT cause?
Sorry if this is somewhat long, but here in Australia witha Federal election on Saturday, we face a choice between an almost certain “Biden” like socialist Labor government, or one that has shown is knows what it’s doing. This speaks more about the future of Australia than climate change.
The choice is between voting for emission reduction policies that renowned economists have shown will grind our economy and our way of life into chaos; massive loss of sound jobs, crippling our industry, farming, mining, manufacturing, small business, commerce et al., that will produce zero benefit to our climate. These are the ruinous costs of believing that reducing Australia’s minuscule 1.2% contribution to global emissions will “save the planet”. The Emission Reduction Targets; ERT’s of ALP 43%; Coalition 28%; Teals, all 60% by 2030 except one 75% and another 50% by 2050; and the most ruinous Greens 75% by 2030: All fly in the face of Dr. Brian Fisher’s celebrated 2019 analysis of Labor’s 45% ERT which showed conclusively that it would utterly ruin us. Refusing to acknowledge this pending catastrophe caused Labor to lose the “unloseable” election. Yet the ERT’s proposed above are much more ruinous, and one must ask, do the real scientific facts support them?
In 2013 the IPCC research paper “Evaluation of Climate Models” authoured by some 90 scientists, dealt with this fact (at Page 769): “Climate Models and the ‘Hiatus’ [pause] in Global Mean Surface Warming of the past 15 years”. In other words, warming had paused from 1998 to 2013. Then, as of April 2022, the highly reputable University of Alabama Satellite Monthly Mean Lower-Troposphere data base, lengthened the current ‘hiatus’ in global temperatures to 7 years and 8 months: Again, in other words, statistically significant warming had paused from 1998 to 2022; i.e., 24 years. In all this time CO2 emissions, partly from fossil fuels have risen from 366 parts per million molecules to 418ppm, up 14% mainly due to China’s rise in emissions to a whopping 28% globally.
Just last year one of the world’s most celebrated climate scientist William Happer, Princeton University’s eminent Emeritus Professor of Physics, said that “after decades of propaganda, most people really believe there is a real climate emergency. They may mean well, but they have been misled by decades of misinformation. As a scientist who knows a lot about climate, I can assure you that there is no climate emergency… policies to address this phoney climate emergency will cause great damage.”
Three months ago, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen, another eminent climate scientist said, in his highly scientific presentation “Honest Science”, that “Global warming from the beginning has been more about politics and power than about science.” He pointedly stated that “all climate scientists (wherever they work) were on the public purse, and that to keep their jobs they had to bend to the wishes of their paymasters”, the political class. A Plethora of climate computer Models are funded by the IPCC on which the UN sets Political climate policy. It seems they were the political answer. Lindzen stated “the role of models is not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible”.
,
” This speaks more about the future of Australia than climate change.”
I hope that Oz goes with the more sceptical. The important thing is you do have a choice, whereas us poms are stuck with none at all.
Seems a suitable time to quote the reason for the Small Dead Animals blog
“Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me “what Canadians think”.
In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.” “
Why do 90% (or perhaps somewhat less, if we don’t trust the economist
quoted here) of the people, at least in Australia, even people who fully
recognize that the climate change movement is full of mindless hysteria,
believe atmospheric carbon dioxide is a major cause of “climate change”
and this climate change will wreak havoc on the earth any day now and “we”
(read “the government through the use of widespread coercion”) must therefore
reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to stop this (without specifically
detailing how this miracle could possibly happen — by reducing our
emissions? — how would that be effective if others don’t reduce
theirs?)?
For instance, the piece states such glorious non-sequiturs as:
“We know that the majority of people believe in man-made global warming
caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This belief is
reinforced by media coverage of events like forest fires and droughts …”
This statement involves mountains of intellectual sloppiness devoid of
even an inkling of understanding of the subject matter subsumed under
those words. If global warming were caused by carbon dioxide in the air,
since we know the carbon dioxide in the air is generated substantially by
man burning fossil fuels, why repeat the obvious that global warming would
thus be “man-made”? What about retention of the Sun’s heat by surface
ocean conditions causing global warming? How is a forest fire made much
more widely extensive because temperatures rise by 1 degree Fahrenheit?
How can an ocean being warmer and thus pumping more water vapor into the
atmosphere cause droughts?
Are people just ignoramuses? Or are we “climate deniers” really selling
people such a line of goods as to make us indistinguishable from the
global warming hoaxsters we are criticizing? I think it is the latter.
The problem is many leaders of the climate change skeptical movement,
including many who appear on this website, don’t bother to try to attack
the idea that carbon dioxide in the air is warming the earth. On the
contrary, they pay it lip service. In fact, this idea, originally from
Arrhenius, was totally rejected by virtually every scientist on earth for
at least 70 years after Arrhenius proposed it in the 1890s. The switch
came when various Leftist scientific illiterates took over academia
politically (starting in the 1960s) and exercised their managerial powers
over academia to cancel any scientist who would dare question Arrhenius’s
hypothesis. This was the victory of mentally dysfunctional, self-important
“humanities” professors, not of science.
What warms planets is the Sun, not the composition of their atmospheres.
Atmospheres only have a small retention of heat effect, secondarily to the
Sun, and this depends mainly on the number of their molecules/atoms per
unit volume and their temperatures, not their compositions. Where has
there ever been laboratory evidence, for instance, that if half of the
carbon dioxide in a sample of Earth’s atmosphere at one atmosphere
pressure were replaced by argon (or any other non-greenhouse gas), one
molecule for one atom, this would have any significant differential effect
on the total heat absorption of infrared radiation (over a wide range of
frequencies) passing through that sample? As far as I know, no such
results were ever reported in the scientific literature. And this assumes
that radiation is the main way by which heat energy passes through our
atmosphere (and thence to space), which is also not the case.
You can repeat a lie as many times as you want but that doesn’t make it
true. You arrive at the truth through a demanding adherence to
recognizing and explaining facts and making sense of them through
deductive and inductive thinking and with reference to facts and theories
of other disciplines. Not by engaging in an echolalic exercise in groupthink.
Let’s not engage in the same tactics of those whose veracity we
wish to detract from. Let us not accept their carbon dioxide
demonology.
David Solan
The general consensus of politics in Australia for my demographic- (50-70 yo white males) is “The worlds totally f@#$ed”
The interesting break even point is – have the liberals promised just the right amount of climate action not to upset sceptics or fence sitters.
Who cares about alarmists, they vote left anyway.
The team from my local member, Dr Katie Allen often call me for surveys.
I always tell the caller my main concern is doing too much on climate action.
Oh dear, SchMo is trying to look empathetic again…
the conversation…1100 polled
=trashworthy
nice if it was right but the real giveaway is the UAp figures, no way are they falling for the renewables furphy
Nup, no chance of that.
In 2015 (not an El Nino nor La Nina year) with with a passive Indian ocean diploe Australia absorbed 0.41 petagrams (10 to the 15th) of CO2.
acp-2021-16.pdf (copernicus.org)
This dwarfs the estimated 593 megatons (10 to the 9th) emitted by Australians.
Basically Australia emitted 0.00015% of what it absorbed
Global emissions are not Australia’s problem…
Australia’s CO2 emmissions are “in the noise” as far as global emissions are concerned. Australia could stop all its CO2 emissions and it would not make any difference to global emissions. Assuming that CO2 emissions reductions are even necessary, which I do not.
Australian politicians should get over this obsession with reducing CO2 emissions. Nothing they do will have an impact on the weather or the temperatures. Give it up.
From the article: One Nation believes Australia should withdraw from the United Nations Paris Agreement signed in 2016.
Australia has committed to the deepest and most savage carbon emission cuts in the world on a per person basis. This commitment is predicted to slow the Australian economy with enormous job losses. In our view, this economic suicide cannot be justified on the evidence put forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
We know that the majority of people believe in man-made global warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This belief is reinforced by media coverage of events like forest fires and droughts, but government policy needs to rest on the evidence and there is a growing concern about the evidence on which the claims of man-made global warming rests.
It is just too easy to allow our memories, often unreliable, to accept the often repeated claims that it has never been hotter. Given the economic costs, we believe we need to listen to the evidence.
It is the evidence we should take regard of when making policy. The history of science is that it’s the evidence that counts.
We have confidence in evidence when the experiment can be repeated and the same results are achieved.
We have confidence in science when the evidence is consistent with the theory and that theory predicts events in the future.
Scientists predicted global warming would lead to extremes of weather, which would be more intense and more frequent, but despite media reports extreme weather events were more common prior to 1960 than at any time since.”
Damn! I’m joining the One Nation party! What’s not to like? They summed up the human-caused climate change scam quite accurately. Someone in Australia actually has some common sense when it comes to CO2 and temperatures! Maybe all is not lost Down Under.
But how many believe in climate change enough to make some significant lifestyle change or financial sacrifice? The word “believe” these days just mean “mental assent”, not “believe enough to actually do something about it “.
Another manipulated poll, another set of absurd statements trying to convince everyone there is a consensus for action when none exists.
If the consensus exists, why the need to convince everyone?
Solar is big business in Australia which is rooted in a rebate subsidy system.
https://www.canstarblue.com.au/solar/solar-rebates-currently-available/#nsw
https://au.renogy.com/blog/solar-panel-incentives-and-rebates-in-australia/#:~:text=As%20of%20May%202021%2C%20a,at%20the%20point%20of%20sale.
Solar in Australia might make sense since it is mostly sunny. Sunny or not, cashing out subsidies or making a profit on subsidized businesses always make sense from a money stand point skeptic or not. If I am cashing out or profiting from a subsidized industry and my local economy is benefiting, skeptic or not how can I not support it as a climate solution. Wouldn’t I want to say whatever to protect the cash flow. The whole deal is completely political
What I want to know:
Are people happy with the solar battery system in their home?
How much does their home based solar system make them independent from grid delivered electricity?
Jeff, we have a standard rooftop solar on the Sunshine Coast that has allowed us to not have an electricity bill for 4 years whilst sending most of the power generated back to the grid with a minimal subsidy. We don’t have a battery, because they are still costly and inefficient plus I understand the lithium ones are a fire hazard. So whilst we may not have recovered our initial investment in solar, the overall economics remain marginal, depending on grid power costs in future.
This is the only kind of renewables power I support, however I am against the government mandated priority acceptance of rooftop solar over baseload generator power from our coal fired stations in Queensland, We need them operating as efficiently as possible not just as standby sources to even out the grid, as this will reduce the power costs to everyone who doesn’t have solar to rely on.
Regarding the climate change scam related to CO2 atmospheric warming, observational science is already proved that water vapour the main GHG via clouds, controls or moderates infra red radiation from the sun and back to space, CO2 has a minor greenhouse effect at current levels and will have less at higher levels. Therefore, the whole fossil fuel emissions and Net Zero business is in scientific terms total bollocks!
We Aussies are really going to regret our lack of modern investment in our fossil fuel dominant power system, instead embracing the lunacy of so called cheap ,but unreliable scaled up renewable power. The cleanup, replacement and disposable costs for all these new systems remain unknown, I guess we will find out over the next 10-15 years.
My friend has a solar / electric system which he loves, he only has to turn on the grid after a string of cloudy days.
My biggest concern with his setup is the 20kg of Lithium he keeps in his pantry.
I am tempted to go solar / battery, the growing instability of the grid supply is a concern. But for now I’ll rely on my Dewalt backup generator.
9 out of 10 people having concerns about environmental degredation is probably a good number. How many of those concerned about CO2 being the primary cause of degredation is a whole different and complex issue. It is likely that “littering” is the primary enviro-concern for 6 of the 9……
Consensus is the fool’s path. My own counsel I will keep.
A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Perhaps, but without the context of other priorities? Environment is a concern, but only after the top 10 priorities have been dealt with. Climate and environmental priorities are lower in most other countries.
79% believe halving emissions by 2030 is possible? Good luck. The funny part is 95% believe OTHER people should do their part. 85% believe there should be stronger regulations towards manufacturing EV batteries (mining). Yeah, let’s make one that more expensive.
No one asked if we should ramp up some new oil and gas industries the world has never seen before. Manufacturing 100’s of millions of EV chargers, and inverters. Lets really get the wheels of carbon turning in order to micro-manage every watt.
After seeing how Aussies allowed their government to behave during the plandemic, I think they deserve the worst government they can get for a while.
This does seem to be a constant with socialists.
They are convinced that they know what you are thinking, better than you do.
And it is the reason they fail. Central planners can never anticipate the myriad schemes people will use to avoid their absurd policies. So, they never achieve any stated goal.
After witnessing the mess government made of the covid issue why on earth would anybody want the government in charge of anything. Complete incompetence, led by liars and cheats who blame misfortune on everyone except themselves. Bureaucrats and administrators disgust me. Before you say they aren’t all bad let me ask you where are the good ones standing up to the liars and cheats?
“Perhaps in response, Australian views of climate change have become less partisan. A new poll my colleagues and I organised of around 1,100 Australians found almost 90% now believe climate change is a problem.”
**************
Here we go again, a science-based polling question asked of members of the public who are (sadly) mostly not scientifically literate.
Like asking the cleaning and maintenance staff at a hospital their opinions on heart surgery procedures. CO2-based CAGW narrative grossly oversimplifies a very complex and chaotic system that is climate.
These polls are about as reliable as the BoM temperature records.
“It’s an Ill wind that blows no-one any good”. The same can be said of wildfires
https://youtu.be/EivYWt9GAI4
Neither the fires or the floods were unprecedented, that’s wrong or they cant read a history book or they live in giant cities like Sydney where they go from their air conditioned homes to their air conditioned cars to their air conditioned office and back again and claim to know what climate is.
Voters in Australia think we are doing OK. But they also understand that the rest of the world doesn’t really care. China for example. Note that they don’t really want to do too much themselves. Other people should sacrifice. The lack of understanding as to what is necessary to meet targets is at pandemic levels. The sacrifice and cost aren’t realised. Even though even the csiro has stated a trillion dollar cost, it hasn’t sunk in. They don’t realise it affects every aspect and corner of their lives and the economy. Agriculture, transport, food, clothes Building and construction. Everything will be harder and more costly. In many cases alternatives will be limited. Corporations are jumping on the band wagon. A major supermarket company coles gloated they were aiming for “zero emissions” , taking out the “net”. I wrote to them saying I will be holding them to that. They have no clue.
Australia seems like a nice place to build a big inland sea. There and the Sahara.
Junk survey.
If we can assume a ’10’ is full support then we can clearly see that not all Green voters ‘fully support’ the survey concepts.
So, quoting the same ‘research study’:
“New Research(tm) has exposed a critical split in the priorities of Green Voters on key environmental issues!”
For Griff.
Early December 2019 I was caring for a friend in palliative care who died in early January of inoperable lung cancer, she never smoked. Sitting with her in an age care facility room there were bushfires inside our coastal town, to one side, to the distant right, further north on the same street all major bushfires, Rural Fire Service fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft flying constantly for many hours to extinguish the bushfires.
Out of town Mid Coast New South Wales were much larger bushfires that destroyed many homes, farm sheds and fences, but much more of the district with no bushfires. In Queensland, various other districts of New South Wales and in Victoria there were major bushfires.
The total areas burnt were actually a small part of Australia, yet dangerous and frightening for people who experienced the bushfires up close.
And by February-March 2020 there was very heavy rainfall and flooding natural disasters.
States of the Commonwealth of Australia are responsible for fighting fires including bushfires, and dealing with all other natural disasters that take place from time to time. State Emergency Service (SES) and State Rural Fire Service (RFS) are two volunteer groups that have a small number of full time employees and all funded via State Government budgets, with assistance from the Federal Government, a funding example for 2018/19 was part contribution for a new Boeing 737 tanker-fire bomber aircraft to join the RFS Air Wing.
To call a climate emergency for bushfire seasons or floods, even cyclones, is nonsense. The climate zone here has been hot and dry mostly for 130,000 years or more, rainforests replaced by eucalypts that tolerate dry conditions, and today just 3 per cent of forest is rainforest.
Griff doesn’t bother with facts.
The whole premise of this article is false. The data has been collected on an ABC website. Anyone who visits them ABC website is probably 90 % likely to vote Green Left. So the sample is automatically skewed way to the Left. It is not a true random sample. Ignore it.
Unfortunately there are now more voters (young and old) who believe that the bushfires and floods are unprecedented and a result of climate change. All down to people being too lazy to think for themselves and do a quick Google.
If this poll is accurate then Bonhoeffer’s observation becomes truly scary. “Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless.”
One pseudo-science practitioner (economist) tackles another pseudo-science (“climate science”) using a butter knife to carve a beef roast.
I am still waiting for the Climate Change crowd to explain how they plan to control the sun, ocean currents, axial tilt, winds, clouds etc
It’s a biased poll conducted by an obviously partisan professor for political purposes, probably taking its sample from a biased audience and misrepresenting it to the author’s needs. Her conclusion:
Read more: How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts
That’s a promising sign, if the next government can use this groundswell to bring in policies that would substantially accelerate our progress towards net zero emissions, and tackle our many other environmental threats.
In recent years, Australia has gained a reputation for dragging its heels on climate action. This survey shows that there is a real, significant appetite for action across the spectrum of Australian voters.
Since when does a “poll” state a conclusion which is so clearly polemical.