Australians are paying for the Libs’ denialist ways: former PM

Who’s to blame for high energy bills? The Liberal Party, says former PM.

Australians are paying for the Libs’ denialist ways: former PM

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has lashed out at the Liberal Party for its ineptitude in dealing with climate change, saying the party has failed to deliver “a coherent national energy policy”, for which Australians are now paying in the form of high energy bills.

“The Liberal Party has just proved itself incapable of dealing with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in any sort of systematic way,” Mr Turnbull told The Australian.

“The consequence … is without question that we are paying higher prices for electricity and having higher emissions.”

Mr Turnbull delivered this damning assessment in his first interview since relinquishing the Liberal Party reins in May last year. He said that his former party had been influenced by climate change denialists and believes that a true conservative would support the reduction of carbon emissions.

“Conservatives are practical,” he said. “There is nothing conservative, for example, [in] denying the science of climate change. That’s not a conservative position. That is just, well, that is just denying reality. You might as well deny gravity.

“We [need to] have an effective set of rules to govern our energy market and ensure a low cost and stable transition from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy.

“We are paying higher prices for electricity than we should, and we are having [more] emissions than we should, so it is a lose-lose. And if you talk to anybody in industry, the energy sector, they will confirm what I just said to you.”

He said his biggest regret was not defining a new national energy policy, consisting of reliable legacy generators and renewable energy sources that met lower emissions targets.

While talking about the 75th anniversary of the Liberal Party, Mr Turnbull stressed that he led a “progressive and reforming government”, in line with principal founder Robert Menzies’ vision of a party that was “genuinely progressive”.

“Menzies was establishing the Liberal Party at a time when people were rejecting both the authoritarianism of the left and the right, both communism and fascism, and the conventional laissez faire capitalism that people did not think served them well during the years leading up to the war,” he said.

Mr Turnbull said the term “conservative” has been “debauched”, had lost its true meaning, with his former party now more accurately described as “reactionary and populist”.

“I am conservative, but the difficulty is that the term has been completely debauched,” he said.

“Most of the people who claim to be conservatives nowadays would be better off described as reactionaries or populists.

“I mean conservatives respect tradition [and] build upon existing tradition as they embrace change.

“Donald Trump, for example, is not a conservative. Whatever he is, he is not a conservative.

“The space that people have often identified with a conservative approach is increasingly being occupied by populists, who are, whether you describe them as reactionaries or authoritarian populists I’m not sure, but there is certainly nothing conservative about it.”

Mr Turnbull refused to comment on losing the Liberal leadership, saying those details would come out in his forthcoming memoir, but did say he would have welcomed Julie Bishop as his successor.

“Yes, I certainly would have welcomed that … she certainly had the capacity to lead the party,” he said. “She is eloquent, she is persuasive, she is incredibly hard working, and I could not have asked for a more loyal or capable deputy.”

What do you think of Mr Turnbull’s comments? Do you think the Liberal Party philosophy has changed in recent years?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    maelcolium
    8th Oct 2019
    11:06am
    All a bit too late now Malcolm. Maybe if you had been more decisive as PM then we wouldn't be in this mess. You were there to lead the party but you ended up following the hard right membership you now decry as not "true" conservatives. Please stay retired.
    Lookfar
    8th Oct 2019
    11:20am
    I certainly appreciate your sentiment, maelcollum, and agree with you that he should have done the right thing when he was Prime minister, but on the other hand, better late than nothing, - anything that can bring the current butterfly PM closer to the ground could help.
    Paddington
    8th Oct 2019
    11:25am
    He was ousted because he was not far right. They are controlled by the back benchers and have to bow or be sent packing.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    11:55am
    You all speak as if the PM is the power in the land rather than a mouth-piece for his/her party - there is NO inherent power in the PM position other than the support of the party...
    Hasbeen
    8th Oct 2019
    3:17pm
    Turnbull couldn't lie straight in bed. He never was a liberal, & should never have been in the party, let alone leader.

    If you believe anything he says you are a bloody idiot.
    Farside
    8th Oct 2019
    3:56pm
    Turnbull was bounced as leader for supporting and ETS and only installed as PM so long as he toed the party line.
    Anonymous
    8th Oct 2019
    3:58pm
    Has been, if you believe anything ANY lieberal says you are a bloody idiot.
    TREBOR
    9th Oct 2019
    8:01am
    That, Farside, is The Way Of the PM ..... hardly THE power in the land despite common misconceptions to the contrary...
    JAID
    11th Oct 2019
    12:18pm
    The term 'conservative' is so loaded that it would be better not used, or, be retained only for troglodytes. In the Menzies sense Conservative related to Economic conservatism, social responsibility, libertarianism to a reasonable degree with regard to civil rights and to a solid but lesser degree in regard to the role of government and a laissez faire society. A fairly successful Australian re-definition of the balance between freedom of the individual and the harm that individual can wrought in society after Locke, Jefferson and many others.

    Balance is critical but maximisation of individual liberty within that balance is essential. Maximisation is a process not an end and in that it is inherently not conservative. Despite the term which Liberal politicians quite eagerly seem to adopt, the undercurrent in liberal thinking is not at all conservative.

    Liberal stance needs to take account of the best advice available. Certainly, a lot of scientists can be wrong. Scientists should have trained themselves to treat conjecture only as something to be dispassionately proven, identified as of general use and applicability or as false. Sometimes however they are the best people to call upon to make a best guess. Climate change theory is a mix of these things. There appears to be a considerable amount of solid data along with a fair amount of conjecture. This only means that those closest along with listening politicians should make a best guess. not everything they do will be the best course but it is likely to be a much better course than any made in ignorance.

    In climate change we have a solid advantage in taking up what we can of measures to ameliorate the condition regardless of its level of validity. Waste, waste in refuse, contamination, by-products and use of resources. Why would we want to waste? In doing so we, by definition, abuse the resource base and likely the quality of life of those who come after us.

    Whether you agree with everything espoused as climate change science or not the future has an investment in our behaviour now. Part of that behaviour does involve managing response to environmental compromise while maximising individual liberty and thereby the potential of all humanity.
    Hoohoo
    14th Oct 2019
    12:32pm
    Climate change action is a problem for the Liberals/Nationals because of these issues:

    1) Our economy (Balance of Trade) relies heavily on the extraction of minerals & fossil fuels. Any short-term curbing of this will affect their so-called Surplus, without which they have nothing to show for their last 5 years in office, (not that voters seem to demand standards for politician's productivity).
    Of course the long-term benefits of curbing the fossil fuel industry & seriously addressing climate change are not considered within the 3 year electoral cycle & they have clearly shown that's all they really care about - winning office. So climate change will continue unabated with the LNP because they won't put a price on carbon emissions, they dogmatically won't stimulate the economy by giving some investment certainty for alternatives to be developed by non-fossil fuel industries & they & their mates are doing very nicely within the status quo.

    2) The LNP will never stand up to Industries like almond tree orchards or cotton farming by huge corporations in areas that feed water into the Darling River system, no matter how inappropriate it is to irrigate country that has such low average annual rainfall.
    The same can be said for CSG & coal-mining in arid areas (Adani's mine) that pollute & waste huge amounts of fresh groundwater.
    Today there's been reported yet another fish kill on the Darling, but no-one ever directly connects such events with all the water stolen by cotton, coal seam gas & coal mining, because the govt (or Labor) won't do anything about curbing those industries. In fact they subsidise them & have every intention to continue to subsidise them.
    RoyW
    8th Oct 2019
    11:15am
    What a sad man. The science is not settled and it is Australia's growing reliance on the "free" energy sources that is costing us a fortune.
    Paddington
    8th Oct 2019
    11:20am
    What a lot of rubbish. The science is screaming at us. What is sad is that the children have to beg us to act. At least consider it is not worth the risk to do nothing if you cannot get onboard.
    the_Albert
    8th Oct 2019
    11:25am
    What a sad man. Still believing that claptrap. No wonder "the party has failed to deliver 'a coherent national energy policy', for which Australians are now paying in the form of high energy bills". It's the denialists who are responsible for that.
    Lookfar
    8th Oct 2019
    11:38am
    Roy W, the free energy is called that because you don't have to dig up mountains of coal and transport it to these humungous machines to be burnt at 33% efficiency to produce electricity, - this is what costs, as those ageing monsters have been paid for decades ago.
    So the sources of Renewable energy, being the sun and the sun powered wind, are free, - not "free" but actually FREE.
    That they require very little maintenance as well, makes them even cheaper, - how can you get cheaper than free, you may ask, but maintenance is a biggy with the old coal dinosaurs, as is disposal of ash, water usage, insurance, and other such.
    Oh, and the Science IS settled, it is only extreme right propaganda that says otherwise, and it doesn't work, - look at the American coal industry, - down to 14%, - 11% next year and credit lowered because they con no longer use the unsold coal as surety because Moodies don't believe that they will sell that coal!
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    11:57am
    Every business costs more at startup - that is the time of highest capital expenditure - and so it is with 'clean energy' - which is, BTW, beginning to make inroads...

    Whether this will result in 'lower prices to the consumer' is another story - I doubt it... once there is a cash cow coming in, those with their hands on its bell will not let it go...

    Public utility used to work ever so much more efficiently....
    KSS
    8th Oct 2019
    12:26pm
    "Climate change" may be settled but we are a long way from from a consensus on what may or may not be causing it. Therefore, an equally long way from resolving it! Hysterical teens not withstanding, it needs far cooler heads than that to make any difference.
    Bazza51
    8th Oct 2019
    2:49pm
    If I owned a power station 20 years ago and made 20 million$ profit by supplying energy 24hrs per day and then the Government ( of all persuasions ) came along and gave massive subsidies for people to fit rooftop solar, and to businesses to build wind and solar farms which supply the bulk of the energy supply during the daylight hours, then I still have to make my $20M but can only do it during the night time hours. But because the people with solar only use smaller amounts of my power I have to charge more to make my profit.

    And none of this takes into account the need to recycle the masses of solar panels and batteries every 10 to 15 years.
    Bazza51
    8th Oct 2019
    2:49pm
    If I owned a power station 20 years ago and made 20 million$ profit by supplying energy 24hrs per day and then the Government ( of all persuasions ) came along and gave massive subsidies for people to fit rooftop solar, and to businesses to build wind and solar farms which supply the bulk of the energy supply during the daylight hours, then I still have to make my $20M but can only do it during the night time hours. But because the people with solar only use smaller amounts of my power I have to charge more to make my profit.

    And none of this takes into account the need to recycle the masses of solar panels and batteries every 10 to 15 years.
    MarkAdel
    8th Oct 2019
    3:20pm
    There are plenty of scientists in the world that have refuted climate change.
    The green scientists have been proven to provide false statistics.
    Mary
    8th Oct 2019
    3:36pm
    Paddington, The Science is not settled. Do some research. Why did 32105 Scientists sign a petition this year to be presented to the UN, stating that the data collection, modelling and predictions of the science of climate change is seriously flawed? To date none of the IPCC's climate predictions have ever been realised. I will repeat None. Nada. Nothing. Do you ever see that reported? No. Why is that? Why don't the media and Governments and the UN want you to know about this? The petition was presented to the UN and was promptly ignored. Why? Anyone that says the science is settled should wonder why 32105 Scientists are ignored or shut down for their views by the UN whilst a schoolgirl is believed. Why?
    Triss
    8th Oct 2019
    4:00pm
    Surely if climate change wasn’t a natural part of the planet we would still have megafauna wandering around.
    Anonymous
    8th Oct 2019
    4:01pm
    MarkAdel: "There are plenty of scientists in the world that have refuted climate change."

    Bollocks. Nobody has refuted it at all; rather the reverse!

    Mary: Read here and weep:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/
    Tanker
    8th Oct 2019
    4:20pm
    Mary one of those "scientists" was Hugh Morgan formerly CEO of Western Mining whose qualifications were in Law. he is also a vocal member of the Liberal Party and one of their principal fund raisers.
    Tanker
    8th Oct 2019
    4:20pm
    Mary one of those "scientists" was Hugh Morgan formerly CEO of Western Mining whose qualifications were in Law. he is also a vocal member of the Liberal Party and one of their principal fund raisers.
    The Care Bear.
    8th Oct 2019
    4:53pm
    My Solar System is Free, not only that my provider owes me $496 to date.
    paid for in 3 years so ongoing it's a cash cow.
    Mary
    8th Oct 2019
    5:13pm
    Lookfar, Re renewables. Why is a wind turbine free energy? You need coking coal, chromium and iron ore, you need copper and aluminium, zinc coating to protect it. you need oils for lubrication, magnets, carbon fibre, fibreglass and concrete. That all requires things like mining, transportation, refining, manufacturing, maintenance and then the recycling of its components at end of real use which is 18 to 20 years. What is the cost to the planet of this wind turbine in CREATING Co2 emissions? Do you know? It is not free energy... It needs fossil fuels for it to be created. It needs fossil fuels to be maintained. It needs fossil fuels to be recycled and decommissioned. Lookfar, I would be glad to send you a report on the real CO2 footprint of a wind turbine over its lifetime. The report states that if a 2mw wind turbine operates at 100% efficiency then it would be CO2 neutral in 12 years.. Which is great! Both of us would love that outcome. The report stated that the average turbine is only producing 27% of its rated power output through out its lifetime due to variable winds. maintenance etc. The report concluded that the manufacture and running of a wind turbine is NOT carbon neutral. It adds to the humankind CO2 emissions. Wow Lookfar! A report that states that wind turbines are not free sustainable energy. Why are we not told this? Why are renewables promoted as free in emissions when they are not? Why do we jump on board with that and take it as truth without question? Just asking
    Mary
    8th Oct 2019
    6:35pm
    Tanker, Unfortunately Hugh Morgan was not a signatory. Research better. You still have 32105 actual scientists to discredit. I will ask you Tanker. Why does the UN ignore the petition of 32105 scientists that are stating that the data collection, modelling and predictions of the science of climate change is seriously flawed? Why would the UN deny their petition? Why are their views not allowed to be debated? If the science is proven then the UN could crush the 32105 with their "proven facts" that they sell to us.. The petitioners would have been discredited... But it didn't happen. The UN swept it under the carpet. The petition was ignored, the media didn't report it. Why? Please answer why Tanker..
    danielboonjp
    8th Oct 2019
    7:54pm
    the science is well and truly settled, aside from those who are too dim-witted to read it
    Mary
    8th Oct 2019
    8:58pm
    Intellego. Why do you need to wish me to weep? Are you a misogynist? Do you think my thoughts, beliefs and integrity are less than yours because I am a woman? It seems that you are able to hide behind your avatar and throw insults time and time again without retribution. Well. We need to respect all views. And if we don't like a persons view then we need to respectfully debate with each other without hate. We may not then agree but there should be respect for each other. Intellego, I feel you do not debate fairly on this site. If you disagree It seems that your first defence is to resort to bully, harass and use misogynism against women. I am offended by you belittling me and I am calling you out and I want an apology.
    TREBOR
    9th Oct 2019
    8:03am
    Waiting for the first full bill here, so I can work out how quickly the solar panels etc will be paid off... maybe look for the best deal...
    maxchugg
    9th Oct 2019
    11:25am
    The science is settled. Trouble is, it isn't science. Scientific method requires every hypothesis to survive every possible attempt to discredit it before it becomes scientific fact which is then only a temporary situation until it can be disproved. For example, the once scientific fact that matter can be neither created nor destroyed had to be modified with the invention of the atomic bomb.

    In the case of so-called climate science, all evidence which supports the theory is given enormous credibility, that which contradicts is totally ignored. Billions are spent annually supporting the theory, virtually nothing is spent in examining the evidence which refutes it, something which is never mentioned by those who wish to argue that the so-called deniers are funded by the petroleum industry.

    If the science is so well established, why is it that opposition to the presentation of alternatives to the "settled science" is so intense that there are numerous examples of refusal to even publish arguments which oppose the doctrines of the new religion, however valid those arguments may be?

    Surely the case of Peter Ridd should open the eyes of the politicians at least. Even though Ridd successfully sued his former employer, James Cook University, for wrongful dismissal because he dared to contradict, with solid evidence, comments made by his employer on the fate of the Barrier Reef, the university is now reported to be appealing the decision to award Ridd $1.2 million in damages. The taxpayer will be footing the bill for the university's appeal, Ridd will be on his own but, fortunately, he will be supported by those nasty climate deniers and, hopefully, the next outcome will be that Ridd will win again and costs will all go to the university. Poor old taxpayer who will have paid out several millions as a result of unconscionable conduct on the art of the university.

    Another terrible outcome of the Ridd case is that he was reported as having said that he was aware of the probable consequences of his actions but could afford to proceed because he was close to retirement. Surely this means that there are other "scientists" who do not accept that the "science is settled" but maintain silence for fear of losing their employment.
    maxchugg
    9th Oct 2019
    11:25am
    The science is settled. Trouble is, it isn't science. Scientific method requires every hypothesis to survive every possible attempt to discredit it before it becomes scientific fact which is then only a temporary situation until it can be disproved. For example, the once scientific fact that matter can be neither created nor destroyed had to be modified with the invention of the atomic bomb.

    In the case of so-called climate science, all evidence which supports the theory is given enormous credibility, that which contradicts is totally ignored. Billions are spent annually supporting the theory, virtually nothing is spent in examining the evidence which refutes it, something which is never mentioned by those who wish to argue that the so-called deniers are funded by the petroleum industry.

    If the science is so well established, why is it that opposition to the presentation of alternatives to the "settled science" is so intense that there are numerous examples of refusal to even publish arguments which oppose the doctrines of the new religion, however valid those arguments may be?

    Surely the case of Peter Ridd should open the eyes of the politicians at least. Even though Ridd successfully sued his former employer, James Cook University, for wrongful dismissal because he dared to contradict, with solid evidence, comments made by his employer on the fate of the Barrier Reef, the university is now reported to be appealing the decision to award Ridd $1.2 million in damages. The taxpayer will be footing the bill for the university's appeal, Ridd will be on his own but, fortunately, he will be supported by those nasty climate deniers and, hopefully, the next outcome will be that Ridd will win again and costs will all go to the university. Poor old taxpayer who will have paid out several millions as a result of unconscionable conduct on the art of the university.

    Another terrible outcome of the Ridd case is that he was reported as having said that he was aware of the probable consequences of his actions but could afford to proceed because he was close to retirement. Surely this means that there are other "scientists" who do not accept that the "science is settled" but maintain silence for fear of losing their employment.
    Hoohoo
    14th Oct 2019
    12:46pm
    The denialists are trying to convince the rest of us that burning more fossil fuels will have NO effect on the future. What kind of science is that?
    Einstein states in his theory of energy conservation: every action has an equal & opposite reaction.

    The denialists are clearly deluded or their vision is clouded by political &/or business interests. They must be very nutty professors indeed if they think Einstein got it so wrong!
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2019
    10:55am
    The Chief Scientist was asked what would be the effect on the climate if Australia effectively ended all emissions which are supposed to contribute to global warming. His reply was that the outcome would be virtually nothing.

    Those who have been labelled denialists by the zealots for their new religion do not argue that burning fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate, they argue that the effects of climate change are drastically overstated by the computer models used by the IPCC. The sea level has not risen, the Maldives did not go under water by 2000. A dam near Brisbane which should not have been built because it would never fill because of ongoing drought overflowed and flooded Brisbane, another one did the same in Townsville. Perth has not co-operated with yet another bogus prediction and is not yet a ghost city. Climate records in such places as Rutherglen in Victoria have been "homogenized" - which means rigged - to show that instead of minor global cooling in the last century there has been minor warming.

    Check out the internet by searching under "Earth is greening" and find dozens of articles supporting this fact, and one solitary report from the Scientific American stating the opposite. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and maybe speculate why scientists are so willing to throw out the rule book, accept every tiny scrap of evidence which supports their faith and reject everything that contradicts.

    What is labelled as climate science is not science because it totally disregards the rules of scientific method which require every possible effort to be made to falsify any hypothesis before it becomes scientific fact, and even then can lose the status of scientific fact if at some later time it is disproved.

    The argument that denialists are deluded is nonsense. For ages it was argued, with zero supporting evidence that those who reject the bogus science are funded by the petro-chemical industry, that the climate change religion reduces receives massive support from governments is ignored. Donald Trump is reported to have discovered that in a year the US government spent between $20 and $30 billion.
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2019
    10:55am
    The Chief Scientist was asked what would be the effect on the climate if Australia effectively ended all emissions which are supposed to contribute to global warming. His reply was that the outcome would be virtually nothing.

    Those who have been labelled denialists by the zealots for their new religion do not argue that burning fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate, they argue that the effects of climate change are drastically overstated by the computer models used by the IPCC. The sea level has not risen, the Maldives did not go under water by 2000. A dam near Brisbane which should not have been built because it would never fill because of ongoing drought overflowed and flooded Brisbane, another one did the same in Townsville. Perth has not co-operated with yet another bogus prediction and is not yet a ghost city. Climate records in such places as Rutherglen in Victoria have been "homogenized" - which means rigged - to show that instead of minor global cooling in the last century there has been minor warming.

    Check out the internet by searching under "Earth is greening" and find dozens of articles supporting this fact, and one solitary report from the Scientific American stating the opposite. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and maybe speculate why scientists are so willing to throw out the rule book, accept every tiny scrap of evidence which supports their faith and reject everything that contradicts.

    What is labelled as climate science is not science because it totally disregards the rules of scientific method which require every possible effort to be made to falsify any hypothesis before it becomes scientific fact, and even then can lose the status of scientific fact if at some later time it is disproved.

    The argument that denialists are deluded is nonsense. For ages it was argued, with zero supporting evidence that those who reject the bogus science are funded by the petro-chemical industry, that the climate change religion reduces receives massive support from governments is ignored. Donald Trump is reported to have discovered that in a year the US government spent between $20 and $30 billion.
    Hoohoo
    18th Oct 2019
    12:15am
    maxchugg, your last two sentences are quite a mystery to the English language. I was hoping those two sentences might summarise your lengthy post with a concise touche, but instead they make little sense at all & the mere mention of Trump's name does nothing to give your argument any credibility (he DID invent fake news, you know).

    Is this English?: "...the climate change religion reduces receives..."

    That's crappy science by you, stating that sea levels have not risen, because the Maldives did not go under water by 2000. How dare you prattle on about the rules of scientific method after that load of rot! How about a lot of other places - don't they matter?
    Are you denying that the Kiribati Islands & other parts of the Pacific are NOT being inundated by an encroaching ocean?

    I used to live on an island & I sold up because of encroaching salt water. The local Council keeps on raising the fill level for new development. Salt water crosses roads & comes up the stormwater drains into the CBD on big tides. In the middle of a terrible drought! It's a recipe for rusted out cars, I can tell you!

    The only reason some governments are spending money to try to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change is because business & insurers are demanding it.

    Had you considered that places that are "greening" are happening because what was permafrost has melted to allow for plants to grow? Or the treeline has expanded for the same reason?
    Has this happened to such an extent that it more than compensates for the increasing numbers of catastrophic fires around the globe OUTSIDE of the summertime? Or the deliberate clearing & burning of native forests around the world? Rainforests that are so dry they're burning for the first time in their existence? Peat bogs on fire? That's a hell of a lot of melted permafrost!

    I think your sources of information are sponsored by business interests that think they can't adapt & remain profitable, or at least, not keep them in the luxury to which they've become accustomed. Yes, mitigation will cost us in the short term & growth rates ad infinitum may have to be reconsidered. I predict the cotton industry on the Darling River catchments will be extinct within the century. We'll know by then we must conserve precious fresh water for human consumption, food production (no almond orchards, either) & healthy river environments to stop the continuing mass fish kills.

    Governments need to take responsibility & stop playing these shameful games.
    andromeda143
    8th Oct 2019
    11:16am
    The Liberal Party is a disgrace and is incapable of serving the public good. The sooner it fragments and disintegrates the better. This country is in a state of paralysis because of the unholy alliance between right wing reactionaries and the frightened voters who are afraid to embrace change.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    8th Oct 2019
    11:24am
    Unfortunately they are the best we now have.
    Eddy
    8th Oct 2019
    12:58pm
    I predict in the next 30 years or so the Liberal Party, unless they re-invent themselves to appeal to the younger generation who will be coming into voting age, will go the way of the DLP and Australian Democrats into political irrelevancy . All us old dinosaurs who grew up in the Menzies era of ' "reds under the beds" will gradually pass away and the younger "climate change" generation will take over. The ALP have re-invented themselves several times so it can be successfully done.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    8th Oct 2019
    1:09pm
    I predict the Labor party will be gone in 10 Years.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:15pm
    Well - I predict the end for both majors - they are irrelevant to modern day Australia, and are flying in the face of public requirements in many ways - as if they are above the people as sovereign.

    I propose that all the relevant issues - immigration policy, power security, energy security (fuel etc), preferential treatment for some, social 'plan' (or lack thereof), infrastructure plan (or lack thereof) - all be put to a plebiscite - a binding plebiscite.

    Let The People Decide!! I, for one, am sick of government by minority special interest group - and that includes industry groups, too....

    Power To The People!!
    Eddy
    8th Oct 2019
    2:42pm
    Trebor, how about including politicians salary increases to your plebicite list.
    Anonymous
    8th Oct 2019
    4:02pm
    "I predict the Labor party will be gone in 10 Years."

    Joke of the week.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    6:51pm
    Ah, yes, Eddy - I went to that one later..... an absolute necessity.

    Let the People Decide what their elected servants are worth.... and it sure ain't income for life.
    libsareliars
    11th Oct 2019
    5:25pm
    @Eddy
    I sure hope they go the way of the dinosaurs Eddy.
    Hoohoo
    14th Oct 2019
    12:51pm
    Spot on andromeda143. & very true Eddy.

    When the frightened older people drop off & the younger generation take their rightful place at the table, there will be a huge change for the better. At least they'll vote for the future.
    Polly Esther
    8th Oct 2019
    11:18am
    Mr Turnbull conveniently for himself has a very short memory, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. He is at last in his right place and for goodness sake should be the last of the has been "liberals" to cast stones.
    Paddington
    8th Oct 2019
    11:23am
    He has every right to speak just as you have. I prefer him to the far right in the LNP.
    KSS
    8th Oct 2019
    12:28pm
    Yes Paddington he has the to speak. We just don't have to listen or afford him any credibility!
    Hoohoo
    14th Oct 2019
    1:05pm
    The worst thing Turnbull did was let himself be bullied by the far right (I can have a vision of Tony seething in a pile of his own excrement).

    Turnbull didn't have the courage, unfortunately, nor the lack of integrity to go back on his word. He could've just thumbed his nose at them as soon as he became PM. At that time, there's no way the Libs would've changed leaders, considering that's the only reason how Abbot won office from Labor (leadership instability & the crucifixion of Gillard/Rudd/Gillard). Turnbull missed his chance & paid the price for the rest of his time as PM. And Australia has also paid the price by our government having no energy policy.

    It's amazing to look back & see how powerfully the media distracted everyone from thinking getting rid of Turnbull was not the last straw for leadership instability. "Vee haf vays to make you stupid" said the right wing media.
    mogo51
    8th Oct 2019
    11:26am
    I agree with you Maelcolium, I was one who wanted him rather thab Abbott, but he is a fence sitter and a tree in the wind!
    He should indeed go back to Potts Pt and count his milions. Hjs attempts at being philosophical are not and will not mean anything ever.
    He had his chance to do something but the blithering rabble put him to the sword.
    flowerpot
    8th Oct 2019
    11:49am
    But we lost Julie Bishop in all the mess. I've no idea how when you have someone of her calibre, you end up with Scomo - and I voted Green!
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:16pm
    Good Grief! (to quote Charlie Brown)...
    Sceptic
    8th Oct 2019
    2:16pm
    I am not sure if that is a boast or an apology, flowerpot.
    danielboonjp
    8th Oct 2019
    7:56pm
    to Septic (correct spelling); anyone who votes Labor or LNP needs to apologise
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    11:45am
    Or those who voted for Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson. These two hijacked the whole election. Morrison & the LNP were the beneficiaries, just as Palmer planned it.

    Palmer spent about $70 million on an election he had no desire to win a seat in (he was either absent or asleep last time he was in Parliament). Ironically & tragically, $70 million is what he still owes workers from his zinc mine in Qld. His type are vermin, parasites & a blight on society.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    11:54am
    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/07/privatisation-pushed-australias-electricity-costs/
    Boomah52
    8th Oct 2019
    12:07pm
    Funny that the country which now owns vast amounts of our country is soon to be the world leader in nuclear power and technology, whilst their satellite still plays with wind up rubber band aeroplanes lol.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:18pm
    Ah yes - the old South Eastern Province - Austrochine....

    Soon it will be the shiftless Whitey who is making land claims because his ancestors worked this land... but all they do is sit around and drink booze and bash their women and children, and they wouldn't work in an iron lung ..... how the goanna turns...
    Farside
    8th Oct 2019
    4:11pm
    which country is that Boomah? Certainly not China, which accounts for less than 2% of investment and is ranked only 9th with lower annual growth than all ranked above it. More than 97% of Australian companies are wholly Australian owned. Foreign owners of agricultural land represent less than 0.5% of all land and China is not in the top three.

    https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/Pages/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia.aspx
    The Care Bear.
    8th Oct 2019
    4:57pm
    Don't keep flooding this site with facts Farside, it spoils the entertainment.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    6:55pm
    My studies of Asian Pacific Basin and Region issues make it clear that a region is an economic factor - ergo - when any nation has a massive economic 'footprint' in another - that is virtually (sic) the same as owning the joint or that percentage of it under that 'footprint'.

    Think... think......

    This is part of Terrorism/Counter-terrorism studies, BTW.. and national security. Hence my comments on energy security, fuel etc, and all the other 'securities' - including immigration security as a national issue ....
    Farside
    8th Oct 2019
    10:13pm
    sorry Care Bear, I try to resist using facts but sometimes the urge is overwhelming in the face of "alternative facts" at best, and ignorant opinion at worst. On the plus side, most of the entertainers are not deterred from pushing their opinions.
    TREBOR
    9th Oct 2019
    8:07am
    Consider what I said above in the light of 'States Without Borders' - an extension is that adherents to the 'global economy' are citizens of a 'state without borders' (same as IS which is a state of religious ideology), and thus should have no citizenship rights in a nation......

    Much work is needed here, grasshoppers, to resolve the current impasse of Offshore Vultures sucking the life's blood out of nations....

    Lock the Gates!!
    Misty
    9th Oct 2019
    2:28pm
    Too late TREBOR the horse has bolted.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    11:51am
    Wow, Farside. The media would have us think otherwise. Who ARE the top three countries?
    Horace Cope
    8th Oct 2019
    12:18pm
    Turnbull was like a dog chasing a car, what was it going to do if it caught it. The only reason that Turnbull wanted to be PM was to please his wife as it was her dream, not his. He planned and plotted to achieve her goal and once in the job had no idea what to do. He was a lawyer and investment banker, not a politician and it certainly showed. Like Rudd, Turnbull is now trying to rewrite history. I disagree that he was of the far right, I believe that he as more left leaning and his policies aligned more with Labor than the Liberals.
    Captain
    8th Oct 2019
    4:21pm
    Agree.
    KSS
    8th Oct 2019
    12:22pm
    Well what do you expect him to say? A twice failed leader hoisted by his own petard! He was irrelevant 18 months ago and he is just as irrelevant now. He left politics in a fit of pique, so he should stay out of it now.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:20pm
    At the moment I consider most politicians irrelevant and a waste of money for life...
    Triss
    8th Oct 2019
    4:03pm
    Never a truer word, Trebor.
    Charlie
    8th Oct 2019
    12:40pm
    So what great positive incentive are we supposed to get out of that?
    Keep using the words climate change instead of global warming and you will really get yourself tied in knots, trying to figure (what causes what) and being wrong most of the time.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:22pm
    Cold winter - climate change... hot summer - climate change.. seems like the climate changes every three months or so.... and the ice packs either spread or shrink depending on climate change...... and the ocean rises and falls twice each way in every 24 hours..... (or so - the moon is a recalcitrant)...
    Curious
    8th Oct 2019
    1:03pm
    I have the same sentiment as the comments made here. However, I wonder whether our readers read this article beyond what Malcolm Turnbull said. If a man of his stature, financial and business background, and worldly experienced, could not straight-up LNP and awake them up in the right direction to make Australia great again, it is a deadly diagnosis of the toxicity in the political party. The prognosis isn't any better, as we lost the talents such as Julia Bishop and others. The powerful few dictate to the majority, toeing the party line, suitability of candidates for the power portfolios, understanding of economic growth meaning to Australia in balance with climate change, and Australia's standing and leadership in the Pacific Ocean and Asia, our major trading partners and the rest of the world. The current government has a lot to catch-up to do their job properly. I hope, Malcolm's little article will be a catalyst for the better.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:29pm
    My son - as I've said before - if those are 'talents' we are in dire straits.... words are cheap - action costs money.... REAL action not just dumping on retirees and the unemployed as if by some Divine Right of Elected Government...

    (Read my dissertation on that issue - just as there was no 'Divine Right of Kings and Emperors' - there is no Divine Right of Elected Government... let's keep moving forward... socially and philosophically.. the next true upward step is genuine Power To The People As Sovereign - not to their elected representative servants.... a quantum leap inf perception and perspective)....

    Bring on the Plebiscite - easy to add to a voting paper:-

    e.g. "Do you agree with our current immigration policy/mix?" (tick yes or no)...

    Easy as pie..... gee - I wonder why our parties won't come at such a simple thing? Cost-saving - get a solid handle on a lot off issues all at once and start the next election cycle in accordance with the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box...

    but no - they always screech that the cost of a plebiscite is too high.. for the simple reason that they will not hold plebiscites in conjunction with a national vote, but insist on doing them as separate things (so they can screech "too costly"!).
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:33pm
    Lessee now:-

    "Do you agree with our current immigration policy/mix?" Yes/No
    "Do you agree with Gay Marriage?" Yes/No
    "Do you agree with affirmative action/Equal Employment Opportunity as it stands?" Yes/No
    "Do you agree with the current retirement funding for politicians etc" Yes/No
    "Do you agree with the current superannuation approach?" Yes/No
    "Do you agree with foreign nations buying up huge swathes of property here?" Yes/No
    "Should foreign housing purchase be limited?" Yes/No

    The list goes on - and slowly the nation heads towards Reality....
    Curious
    8th Oct 2019
    3:05pm
    Hehe, Trebor. Be careful. You may be leading the first Australian Plebiscite Revolution, parallel to what is going on in France now.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    6:59pm
    Damn - should I be careful what I wish for?

    Do you agree with gulaging all "Trebors'? Yes/No... (glarg - the mind boggles)....

    I was waiting for someone to come in and demand to know what we did with all the dissenters and those suddenly excluded by a plebiscite - and I was ready - "We'll just send all the undesirables and enemies of the state and put them in the gulag... no problem-o!"

    Say we had a plebiscite that said "ban Episcopalians" - what do we do with the current Epos speaking in tongues? (yardle, yardle). Oh, dear, what would St Gough or St Bob do?
    Curious
    8th Oct 2019
    7:55pm
    Trebor. St Gough and St Bob were gifted leaders, who changed Australia and put it on the world map. Right now, we have no one of the same calibers.

    If you think you can bring in the plebiscite without mayhem, please let me know. I get ready with my knitting and crosswords besides the guillotine, cheering vivre L'Australie!
    TREBOR
    9th Oct 2019
    7:53am
    Allons, mes enfants - au Bastille!! Or is that Awr - the bastards steal?
    TREBOR
    9th Oct 2019
    8:15am
    P.S. 'The greatest danger to Parliament is Democracy'..... and a corollary is that Parliament was installed as a means of channeling the desire of The People as Sovereign away from actual sovereignty, and into a process by which they can fervently hope that their elected servants will actually serve The People....

    Obviously this is a failed experiment... given that neither of our two major parties, which essentially together make up The Tag Team, actually serves The People, but instead serves minority special interest groups.

    "Do you wish a Royal Commission into the judiciary?" Yes/No.

    (beware Royal Commissions - they are not royal commissions, but extensions of Parliament as above - if 'Er Maj 'erself were 'ere, she'd send in the Beefeaters and throw the money changers out of Parliament, bring back the rack, and cancel the lifetime Christmas for these parasites.... however, under our Parliamentary system, 'Er Maj 'erself is subordinate to Parliament, to which the greatest danger is democracy = the People As Sovereign).

    Do you consider the INDUE card should not be applied to those who've done no wrong? Yes/No
    Misty
    9th Oct 2019
    2:34pm
    They are all in Parliament for what benifits them not the country.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    12:06pm
    Sounds OK in theory, TREBOR, but some issues require much more nuance than Yes/No options for truthful expression.

    Remember the referendum on the Republic & how John Howard wedged THAT question? The end result was that the people who wanted a Republic to replace the British Monarchy were split in two & forced to say Yes or No to a different question.

    Another thing about Sovereignty - we can't take it back because the ones who say they have it took it illegally in the first instance. Traditional Owners never ceded their Sovereignty of the land. Yet it's still called "Crown Land".
    GrayComputing
    8th Oct 2019
    1:14pm
    Scomo is correct that state at the UN that locally we only pollute 0.1% in the climate change. What he did NOT say at the UN was:

    "BUT OUR COAL EXPORTS ACCOUNT FOR 30% OF GLOLAL WARMING !!

    We little Aussies are always batting above the average Damn.
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:34pm
    Yes - but when you're a Third World Banana Republic living a champagne life on a beer budget..... and subject to the whims of offshore corporations that pay no tax....
    Bazza51
    8th Oct 2019
    2:37pm
    Your maths don't add up, How could our coal exports account for 30% of global warming when,
    Total global warming is not only provided by coal
    And as per the following graph, we only produce 12% of the worlds coal.
    The Top 20 Coal Producers In The World
    Rank Country Coal Production (million tonnes)
    1 China 3,874.0
    2 United States 906.9
    3 Australia 644.0
    4 India 537.6
    Bazza51
    8th Oct 2019
    2:37pm
    Your maths don't add up, How could our coal exports account for 30% of global warming when,
    Total global warming is not only provided by coal
    And as per the following graph, we only produce 12% of the worlds coal.
    The Top 20 Coal Producers In The World
    Rank Country Coal Production (million tonnes)
    1 China 3,874.0
    2 United States 906.9
    3 Australia 644.0
    4 India 537.6
    Curious
    8th Oct 2019
    3:31pm
    Just for the record, according to Wikipedia:-
    The top nine coal-producing countries.

    Australia produces only 6.23% of the world's 2019 coal production. This shows globalization has been a total failure in terms of climate change. The world shifts its manufactories and productions to the developing countries, which have no alignment with the Western World. Their expansionism is now registered by their coal production. Who is to be blamed? The bloody greedy entrepreneurs in the world, who make billions.

    Coal production (million tonnes)
    Rank Country/Region [1]2019 2016[2] 2015[3] 2014[4] 2013[2]
    — World 7727.3 7,460.4 7,861.1 8,164.9 8,074.6
    1 China 3523.2 3,411.0 3,747.0 3,874.0 3,974.3
    2 India 716.0 692.4 677.5 648.1 608.5
    3 United States 702.3 660.6 812.8 906.9 893.4
    — European Union 490.1 484.7 528.1 491.5 557.9
    4 Australia 481.3 492.8 484.5 503.2 472.8
    5 Indonesia 461.0 434.0 392.0 458.0 474.6
    6 Russia 411.2 385.4 373.3 357.6 355.2
    7 South Africa 252.3 251.2 252.1 260.5 256.3
    8 Germany 175.1 176.1 183.3 185.8 190.6
    9 Poland Poland 127.1 131.1 135.5 137.1 142.9
    Lookfar
    8th Oct 2019
    9:16pm
    Gray Computing, - Australia is the third biggest Exporter of coal, 30-% of Exported coal, - it is more important that we are significantly adding to the World consumption, not just what we use.
    What is really interesting is that now enough info is around to be able to say that we could make More money selling Renewable Energy to Asia than we can ever make out of selling coal, and that will be an expanding, not contracting market,and wont help destroy our much more important Industry, Tourism, - how many decades ago was it when the Sydney Morning Herald had on it's front page 142,000 (?) coal trucks equals one tourist?
    maxchugg
    9th Oct 2019
    12:01pm
    What a load of rubbish to argue that our coal exports contribute 30% to global warming.

    The Vostok ice cores have shown that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide happens after warming has taken place and is a consequence, not a cause, of global warming, which is hardly surprising. When the oceans are cool they retain and absorb carbon dioxide, when they warm they release it into the atmosphere.

    Despite a recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the levels are still at historically low levels and, in the unlikely event that current efforts to restrict CO2 emissions are successful, the survival of plants is at threat. Just as increased CO2 has caused increased greening of the planet and record crops, a decrease will have the opposite effect:

    (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not pollutant.
    The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilization of plant life.
    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
    Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS, it supports all life on earth.

    Finally, if increased atmospheric CO2 on Earth is causing global warming, why is it that the polar icecaps on Mars are also melting? It is an "inconvenient truth" that there is a link between solar activity and temperatures not only on Earth, but on every planet in our solar system.
    maxchugg
    9th Oct 2019
    12:01pm
    What a load of rubbish to argue that our coal exports contribute 30% to global warming.

    The Vostok ice cores have shown that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide happens after warming has taken place and is a consequence, not a cause, of global warming, which is hardly surprising. When the oceans are cool they retain and absorb carbon dioxide, when they warm they release it into the atmosphere.

    Despite a recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the levels are still at historically low levels and, in the unlikely event that current efforts to restrict CO2 emissions are successful, the survival of plants is at threat. Just as increased CO2 has caused increased greening of the planet and record crops, a decrease will have the opposite effect:

    (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is not pollutant.
    The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilization of plant life.
    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
    Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS, it supports all life on earth.

    Finally, if increased atmospheric CO2 on Earth is causing global warming, why is it that the polar icecaps on Mars are also melting? It is an "inconvenient truth" that there is a link between solar activity and temperatures not only on Earth, but on every planet in our solar system.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    2:04pm
    I don't think we can rely on Wikipedia to be exempt from the deliberate propaganda on this issue. It's no wonder so many people blindly swear allegiance as denialists, when we have mainstream media pushing fake news, alternative facts, or simply muddying the waters to confuse people who want to know the truth of things, but can't be bothered (nor can they be expected) to carry out their own scientific research. This is why it's foolish to believe less than 2% of experts while ignoring the other 98% of experts.

    Here are some facts:
    - Australia's carbon emissions are 1.3-1.5 of global emissions, the highest per capita in the world.
    - Australia extracts & exports a lot of coal & gas, to be burned & cause carbon emissions elsewhere in the globe. To say Australia isn't responsible for these emissions is like a priest saying he isn't responsible for the pregnancy of a girl he raped, because SHE's the one who's pregnant (& therefore guilty).
    - There is only a tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, so ANY percentage rise is very significant.
    - fossil fuel burning in Australia only accounts for 30-40% of our total carbon emissions. (I think cow farts account for about 30%?)

    Maxchugg, your scientific method is practically non-existent when making claims about polar ice caps melting on Earth & Mars. There are just so many variables, literally worlds apart, for it to be possible to make comparisons. Of course solar activity will affect both planets, but you are conflating issues by drawing your own conclusion. It's an example of muddying the waters to confuse people.
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2019
    11:34am
    Hoohoo, who mentioned Wikipedia? I cited the IPCC statement that CO2 is not a pollutant but is essential for plant life.

    As for the "facts" of Australia's carbon emissions, remember the Chief Scientist who was asked what would be the effect upon the climate if Australia effectively ended all emissions, and replied "virtually nothing?"

    Strange, isn't it, that, according to your opinion, although the melting of icecaps on Mars is in synch with recent slight warming on Earth is attributable to variables which are not identified for the obvious reason

    As for "muddying the waters to confuse people", I repeat what I have posted elsewhere. Every prediction made by "climate scientists" has failed. The Maldives were to be submerged by 2000, followed by Tuvalu. The Maldives are still above water and spending countless millions on infrastructure, Tuvalu has grown. Australia was to have endless droughts and a dam near Brisbane should not be built because it would never fill. It filled, overflowed, and flooded Brisbane. Later the same thing happened in Townsville.

    If the homogenization - lowering old temperature records - to show that global warming is happening is not muddying the waters, then what is?

    What about the emails from the university of East Anglia and the so-called "hockey stick"? Quetly buried, of course.

    Getting back to the polar icecaps, remember Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicts we could see ‘an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year (2016)? It hasn't happened.

    Please let us have your explanation for the conduct of James Cook University for wrongfully dismissing Peter Ridd because he dared to contradict, with evidence, statements his employer had made about the Barrier Reef? Are you happy, as a taxpayer, to know that, having lost a case for wrongful dismissal and ordered to pay $1.2 million in damages the university is now appealing, no doubt in the vain hope that costs of defending himself will cost Ridd a further $1.5 million and silence him. The university risks nothing because if they fail in their appeal, the taxpayer will pick up the tab. And, if the university loses again, it could be a very expensive tab if they are landed with their own costs plus Ridd's as well.

    It doesn't end there. Ridd indicated that he was not surprised by the action which his employer took against him, but could afford to take the risk because he was close to retirement anyway. Surely this indicates that there are other scientists who know the facts about climate change but are silenced by fear of losing their employment.
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2019
    11:34am
    Hoohoo, who mentioned Wikipedia? I cited the IPCC statement that CO2 is not a pollutant but is essential for plant life.

    As for the "facts" of Australia's carbon emissions, remember the Chief Scientist who was asked what would be the effect upon the climate if Australia effectively ended all emissions, and replied "virtually nothing?"

    Strange, isn't it, that, according to your opinion, although the melting of icecaps on Mars is in synch with recent slight warming on Earth is attributable to variables which are not identified for the obvious reason

    As for "muddying the waters to confuse people", I repeat what I have posted elsewhere. Every prediction made by "climate scientists" has failed. The Maldives were to be submerged by 2000, followed by Tuvalu. The Maldives are still above water and spending countless millions on infrastructure, Tuvalu has grown. Australia was to have endless droughts and a dam near Brisbane should not be built because it would never fill. It filled, overflowed, and flooded Brisbane. Later the same thing happened in Townsville.

    If the homogenization - lowering old temperature records - to show that global warming is happening is not muddying the waters, then what is?

    What about the emails from the university of East Anglia and the so-called "hockey stick"? Quetly buried, of course.

    Getting back to the polar icecaps, remember Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicts we could see ‘an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year (2016)? It hasn't happened.

    Please let us have your explanation for the conduct of James Cook University for wrongfully dismissing Peter Ridd because he dared to contradict, with evidence, statements his employer had made about the Barrier Reef? Are you happy, as a taxpayer, to know that, having lost a case for wrongful dismissal and ordered to pay $1.2 million in damages the university is now appealing, no doubt in the vain hope that costs of defending himself will cost Ridd a further $1.5 million and silence him. The university risks nothing because if they fail in their appeal, the taxpayer will pick up the tab. And, if the university loses again, it could be a very expensive tab if they are landed with their own costs plus Ridd's as well.

    It doesn't end there. Ridd indicated that he was not surprised by the action which his employer took against him, but could afford to take the risk because he was close to retirement anyway. Surely this indicates that there are other scientists who know the facts about climate change but are silenced by fear of losing their employment.
    Hoohoo
    18th Oct 2019
    12:58am
    Curious was the one who mentioned Wikipedia.

    If little countries like Australia, (who emit 1-2% of total emissions), banded together we'd amount to about 30% of total global emissions. So if every little country refuses to do anything about emissions that is simply irresponsible & might I say, childish.

    Add to that 30% the emissions Australia exports, makes Australia a much bigger player. We are a rich country who should show some leadership on the issue, instead of shirking like cowards. The Chief Scientist was not taking this into account when he made that comment about said "virtually nothing". Even so, "virtually nothing" is still something, is it not? Besides, after the routing of the CSIRO by the Liberal Govt, who's to say how credible are the scientists who managed to keep their jobs? Did they just keep the yes men on?

    It's not just CO2 that causes the greenhouse effect, it's also methane & other carbon-based gases that cause problems. The climate science predicts more severe storms which means more intense cyclones & flooding, more extreme temperatures (hotter & colder with a greater range of temperatures) & more extreme droughts.
    We can't point to one extreme event & call it climate change, but we can listen to 98% of experts in the field who are studying a plethora of different systems & measuring trends. They know more than you or me, maxchugg.

    I don't know how reliable the sources of your information are, but there's no doubt that cherrypicking bits from here & there, will turn up information to back up the denialist's view. Trusting the media is becoming a more difficult prospect by the day, so homogenization, emails from the university of East Anglia and the so-called "hockey stick"
    become problematic in the big scheme of things. I repeat, 98% of experts in the field know more than you or me, maxchugg.

    Why do less than 2% of them think they can pull the wool over our eyes? Because they have big stake-holders urging them on & the ear of far right wing radio jocks & tabloids.
    Tricky
    8th Oct 2019
    1:35pm
    Not to mention the NBN that the LNP screwed up under the direction of Murdoch!
    Lookfar
    8th Oct 2019
    9:25pm
    Tricky, I recall that, before he became a Liberal he was so into promoting the best possibly NBN, and then whilst Prime Minister the right put the meat hooks into his back and he was dragged before them, blood running down his legs, forced to recant and tell the voters he could only support the copper network. Well, it is normal, that politicians have to sell their souls to get into parliament, but I remembered his former position on that issue and felt for him then.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    1:29pm
    The same thing happened to Turnbull regarding having a policy on energy.
    shirboy
    8th Oct 2019
    2:06pm
    I am not a Liberal voter but I recognized the fact that Malcolm Turnbull is a gentleman. Scott Morrison comes across to me as "a wolf in sheep's clothing".
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    2:35pm
    More like a galah in sheep's clothing... but a rather sinister galah with an absolute sense of entitlement..... a dangerous type...
    KSS
    8th Oct 2019
    2:49pm
    You mean he wears a more expensive suit that actually fits? Right?
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    7:00pm
    sheepskin coat .......
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    7:01pm
    tailor made.....

    8th Oct 2019
    3:56pm
    Of course it's the bloody Lieberals' fault. They're vermin!
    TREBOR
    8th Oct 2019
    7:01pm
    My pet rat is seriously offended!!

    8th Oct 2019
    3:56pm
    Of course it's the bloody Lieberals' fault. They're vermin!
    Cat
    8th Oct 2019
    7:05pm
    What is a "legacy generator?"
    Gra
    8th Oct 2019
    7:17pm
    Why would you bother giving Malcolm Bullturd the time of day. He is nothing but a pteulant spoiled brat with his nose out of joint. Did his best to destroy the Liberal party while a member and now trying his utmost as an outcast.
    Misty
    9th Oct 2019
    2:37pm
    He and Tony Abbott as well.
    danielboonjp
    8th Oct 2019
    7:52pm
    Malcolm Turnbull is a sneaky spoilt brat; a conniving, manipulative and under-handed; Kerry Packer once said of Turnbull "don't stand between him and money".
    His own Mother despised him (much as Barnaby Joyce's Mother despises him); and left for saner pastures.

    The media has molly-coddled him and LNP and suppressed his many underhanded deals, such as an island slated for world heritage (near the Solomon Islands) with magnificant stands of hardwood trees, up to a thousand years old ... which he arranged to be clear-felled before it was out off-bounds.

    I wish he and his equally sociopathic wife a slow and painful death, that burns up all their ill-gotten gains
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    2:28pm
    Whoa Daniel, don't hold back now!

    That Solomon Islands story is undeniably despicable - I haven't heard of it till now. Though I'm not surprised, because this behavior is how most successful business-people behave. It's much easier to be successful if you have no moral compass regarding poor people or country. Money trumps everything else - it's like a religion where the ends justify the means.
    MICK
    8th Oct 2019
    8:58pm
    Whilst I had little time for terrible Turnbull when he was PM I find it ironic that HIS party are now after him.
    The reality of this government is IT IS CONFLICTED and controlled by the fossil fuel industry. If the planet is near death it will still be promoting coal and trying to shut down any opposition. That's what this bunch of puppets do. It is not a government of Australia and I'd wish those ho voted for it stood back and looked at who it makes policy for and who funds it. Elementary dear Watson.
    I can hardly wait for the trolls who turn up when there is a political story to run their same old BS. I stand by the facts. They stand by accepted coal industry behaviour: discredit and smear anyone who posts contrary views.
    TREBOR
    9th Oct 2019
    8:18am
    When the threat of popular dissolution via a vote is near, they'll come out of the woodwork...

    Never knew what that was until I auditioned for 'Hot Seat Millionaire' - and stayed in an 'otel... it had bugs crawling from the woodwork... and I got twenty minutes sleep before the audition and still passed... the little bastards were bloodsuckers... but the sink and hot water worked wonders...
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    2:34pm
    I think the trolls are on holidays, MICK, as TREBOR suggests - their reward for the marvelous job they did during the last election campaign.
    Lookfar
    8th Oct 2019
    9:03pm
    Mary, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in America, 32,000; answering a letter sized questionaire with no requirement to prove they are scientists is a sick joke, - works out about 2% and has been around for many years despite being totally disproved. Don't worry, there is no need to weep, - there is one born every minute.
    Dot
    9th Oct 2019
    8:04am
    Bye Bye Malcolm and thank God the social butterfly has gone as well (Julie Bishop)
    Dot
    9th Oct 2019
    8:04am
    Bye Bye Malcolm and thank God the social butterfly has gone as well (Julie Bishop)
    Lookfar
    9th Oct 2019
    7:59pm
    Dot, just press the Post Reply ONCE, and as suggested, wait, - the message has got to find it's way out of your computer, (delay), on to the Internet, then your server, (delay) then into the YLC server then computer and then back again through all that again, (delay) it sometimes takes as long as 10 minutes or more, - go make a cup of tea and relax.
    On the Ball
    9th Oct 2019
    9:32am
    KSS You say climate change exists but it's not proven to be man made. I disagree, even on simple basic maths, but look at it this way:
    If WE dont do anything and it is eventually proven (even to you) that it WAS man made, its then too late. Surely if we act now at least we gave it a try. Better to try and fail than not to try at all.
    Oh, and what will you say to your grandkids when they say: "Grandpa, why didn't you do something?"
    libsareliars
    11th Oct 2019
    5:32pm
    Well said On the Ball.
    On the Ball
    9th Oct 2019
    9:32am
    KSS You say climate change exists but it's not proven to be man made. I disagree, even on simple basic maths, but look at it this way:
    If WE dont do anything and it is eventually proven (even to you) that it WAS man made, its then too late. Surely if we act now at least we gave it a try. Better to try and fail than not to try at all.
    Oh, and what will you say to your grandkids when they say: "Grandpa, why didn't you do something?"
    On the Ball
    9th Oct 2019
    9:32am
    KSS You say climate change exists but it's not proven to be man made. I disagree, even on simple basic maths, but look at it this way:
    If WE dont do anything and it is eventually proven (even to you) that it WAS man made, its then too late. Surely if we act now at least we gave it a try. Better to try and fail than not to try at all.
    Oh, and what will you say to your grandkids when they say: "Grandpa, why didn't you do something?"
    Jotar
    9th Oct 2019
    6:40pm
    The key question for Oz to consider is the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming. Unfortunately all politicians have been sucked into the "CO2 is evil" parade. I suspect that in 30 years time Oz will still be here but with a vastly diminished economy. By then hopefully someone with the intellectual/communicative skill to confirm and promote the benefits of coal-fired electricity will be at our economy's helm and steer us back to prosperity...China permitting.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    2:51pm
    The key question, Jotar, is for Oz to consider the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming. As I said earlier, there's only a tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, so ANY percentage rise will have a very significant effect.

    The denialists are trying to convince the rest of us that burning more fossil fuels will have NO effect on the future. What kind of science is that? Einstein states in his theory of energy conservation: every action has an equal & opposite reaction. The denialists are clearly deluded or their vision is clouded by political &/or business interests. They must be very nutty professors indeed if they think Einstein got it so wrong!

    I too, suspect that in 30 years time Oz will still be here but with a vastly diminished economy, BECAUSE OF THE DISRUPTIONS CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. You must think that coal is the only way Australia can make money - we're a lot cleverer than that, given the opportunity. Coal is on the way out. The sooner we get on board the sooner our economy can adapt & thrive.
    Jotar
    9th Oct 2019
    6:40pm
    The key question for Oz to consider is the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming. Unfortunately all politicians have been sucked into the "CO2 is evil" parade. I suspect that in 30 years time Oz will still be here but with a vastly diminished economy. By then hopefully someone with the intellectual/communicative skill to confirm and promote the benefits of coal-fired electricity will be at our economy's helm and steer us back to prosperity...China permitting.
    Lookfar
    9th Oct 2019
    7:44pm
    Jotar, do you have any evidence to prove that the more CO2, there is in the atmosphere, the less global warming there will be?, or that there will be no more global warming from increased CO2?
    CO2 has been proved time and time again by conventional science to absorb a percentage of Infrared radiation, the which it then re-emits in all directions, - if that did not happen, the heat that we absorb from the sun would all disappear overnight, and we would wake up the next morning, (but only if we lived in very well insulated houses) to find the temperature way below zero and most vegetation dead.
    If by some miracle you re-located to Mars, which has only a tiny amount of CO2, you would be able to experience that phenomena first hand, and if instead you re-located to Venus, where the atmosphere is app. 99% CO2, the temperature is 460 degrees Celsius, day or night, at the equator and the poled so you would quickly be cooked and then burn.
    So you can quickly see that there is a difference in planetary temperature with different amounts of Carbon Dioxide, and there are lots of experiments you yourself can perform to affirm that, but none to deny it, - how inconvenient..
    So, now we are close to doubling the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, and despite all these wonderful mechanisms the earth has to absorb that extra heat, - warming up the oceans, melting the glaciers and ice caps, etc. it is getting warm down here, and getting warmer, as the CO2 traps the extra heat.
    Perhaps you could get out of your armchair and go help the fieries with the latest bushfires, - not in 30 years but right now.
    I would opine that anybody who doesn't believe that those extra CO2 and other gases are causing global warming, and that Human beings have put those gases in the atmosphere, they are barking mad, and that if you feel I am including the honourable prime minister, you may well be correct.
    In regards to rising from the grave in 30 years time and proclaiming the new age of coal, I would suggest that your grand children will be the first in the queue to enforce your re-internment. - if any of them are left alive.
    - see https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Does+CO2+block+infrared&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
    Jotar
    9th Oct 2019
    9:44pm
    Lookfar,
    There is no doubt climate is changing.However experts in the behaviour of atmospheric gases (e.g. Dr John Nicol) estimate that extra CO2 is responsible for only a small fraction of the "catastrophe" predicted by IPCC modelling. What we need is some real science to get off the emotive bandwagon and discover the real drivers of climate. Who knows we may need the coal-fired behemoths to provide us with reliable energy to cope with the impact of climate change.

    Jotar
    Jotar
    9th Oct 2019
    9:44pm
    Lookfar,
    There is no doubt climate is changing.However experts in the behaviour of atmospheric gases (e.g. Dr John Nicol) estimate that extra CO2 is responsible for only a small fraction of the "catastrophe" predicted by IPCC modelling. What we need is some real science to get off the emotive bandwagon and discover the real drivers of climate. Who knows we may need the coal-fired behemoths to provide us with reliable energy to cope with the impact of climate change.

    Jotar
    Mary
    9th Oct 2019
    10:00pm
    Lookfar, With Venus, the CO2 is 96.5% of the atmosphere and that is not the 99% "fact" that you stated. In your post you are stating that the CO2 level is why that planet is hot at 460c day and night. Your post gives no consideration of any other external or internal influence that affects that. Why?... Lookfar, we currently have a CO2 level in our earths atmosphere that is 0.04%. Which is slightly less than Venus with its 96.5%. We are also further away from the Sun than Venus. The radiation and heat from the sun is vastly reduced exponentially with distance. You have compared the two planets and then you have made an assumption that we are in a crisis because Venus is hot because of its 99% CO2 level. So in your opinion, we as a result will fry because we have 0.04% Co2 in our atmosphere. There is no sense in what you say. Stay calm, debate well, research and don't alarm. Stay well Lookfar
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    3:16pm
    Mary, it's because there's only a tiny fraction of CO2 in our atmosphere, that ANY percentage rise will have a very significant effect.

    Lookfar's comments are very well considered, if slightly off the mark in quoting the very high % of CO2 on Venus. Jotar is the one questioning the significance of CO2 % affecting Earth's climate, (please see my response to Jotar above), with MAXCHUGG earlier bringing up the difference regarding Mars & it's icecaps melting.

    It is you too, who is muddying the waters to confuse people, by now talking about the high % of CO2 on Venus. By comparing planets you are comparing apples with oranges. Yes, there are many variables - too many in fact, to draw sensible conclusions. Some theorists say that Venus came from outside our solar system, explaining that's why it's so different & much hotter & why it spins on its axis in the opposite direction to the other planets.
    Briar
    9th Oct 2019
    8:40pm
    This bloke is a narcisist... it is only ever about himself.... he cannot just accept that he is a tosser and was the worst PM that Australia ever had. He is a multi millionaire with all his money invested in the Cayman Islands because it is a tax free society. Hardly a good recommendation for an Australian politician, let alone a prime minister, to show that he had faith in his country. So glad he got the boot. Go play with your NWO and UN chums Turdbull as Australia doesnt give a toss about you.
    Julian
    12th Oct 2019
    10:49am
    This guy suffers from relevance deprivation.

    It is common knowledge that he is still smarting from potentially losing out in those heavy investment his family made in renewables. Self interest is the agenda conveniently disguised as the crap he sprouts.

    Not interested. Shut up and go away.
    Lookfar
    12th Oct 2019
    1:06pm
    Hi Julian, I am feeling your post is just asseveration, it needs some facts and figures to back it up or we can't take it seriously.
    Sure, Ex PMS , are notorious for wanting to keep airing their opinions, - look at Howard, Kevin Rudd, and Tony Abbott, but allegations about investments in Renewables, with the incredible growth of Renewables in Australia, sounds a bit funny, perhaps only wishful thinking, but it should not be an attempt to deceive, so I think either prove it or retract, and if you can't prove it we can only accept you haven't the guts to retract.
    Apologies if I am mistaken.
    Hairy
    13th Oct 2019
    12:26pm
    I agree Mary renewable energy is not free .
    Lookfar
    13th Oct 2019
    2:01pm
    Hairy, the renewable energy itself is free, - who do you pay for it?
    Of course whatever means you use to convert it to electricity and despatch it to peoples' houses, factories etc. is not free, nor is the machinery that the burning of coal in to make electricity, free.
    However the mining, transporting and removal of waste coal is not free, whereas the sunlight that powers your solar or Wind or Hydro is free.
    Even better, most renewable energy equipment is very low maintenance, whereas coal burning equipment is very high maintenance, - another reason that renewable energy is so much cheaper.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    3:22pm
    That's why the denialists HATE renewable energy, because there's no self-serving middleman getting a cut of the pie. Such middlemen DO NOTHING except take the profits & deliver huge bonuses to their CEO's. They produce nothing at all. They suck off our economy like parasites.
    Hoohoo
    15th Oct 2019
    3:28pm
    This is why they can't control energy prices - because they can't tell Big Business to stop doing what they do.

    Not only that, these companies falsely claim they have invested in renewables because common folk who have installed solar & remain on the grid, feed it back on to the energy "provider's" ledger.

    If you want cheaper energy prices you have to choose the cheapest way yourself - solar. It's a pity the poorest & most vulnerable don't have that option.
    Lookfar
    15th Oct 2019
    5:53pm
    Hi Hoo Hoo, I appreciate you comments, and hope you may understand that the mention of Venus is to do with a small sub-sect in the Denialist camp that imagines that the more carbon dioxide the better, - so leading to people like Mary saying that the slightly lower than 99% percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere that she claims is the case will not cause one to cook or burn, whereas even just one percent will achieve that, and so certain nails need a massive hammer.
    This highlights, imho, a serious mistake in the Denialist camp, that things similiar can be regarded as the same, which the Universe and every human being will roar our denial of such nonsense, so it is not surprising that the Earth a thousand million years ago, - whilst having a level of carbon dioxide similiar to the modern world was a staggeringly different place and even then one which we could not thrive in.
    New research is developing that seems to show that as the carbon dioxide level increases, many of the Staples, ie. wheat, Corn, Rice, Barley, etc. become less nutritious, ie have a lesser amount of protein, carbohydrates, etc, the which is a chilling possibility.
    Furthermore, but still in it's early days, is research based on increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in a Greenhouse, (I have a friend doing such), and it seems that beyond a cetain level, Flowering plants show less and less ability to survive. - Only students of the past evolution of the Earth could understand the dire consequences of such a thing, but dire is actually too weak a word for the consequences of that.
    Many folk on this site may not know that in the distant past, the atmosphere of the earth was Aneorobic, - ie no oxygen, - but mainly ammonia, methane, water and the noble gas Neon, and so totally unsuitable for the life that until recently swarmed over the earth, (although lately somewhat less species)..
    However a tiny bacteria evolved, goodness knows how, that could split the oxygen in these other substances out, to release free oxygen, that allowed us to have a place to live here on the earth, - quite amazing, the process could produce a poisonous variety of oxygen, that would kill the organism, - and indeed more likely, but these tiny wee creatures took into their bodies a couple of atoms of Iron, - the which they spun up, (?) to produce a magnetic field, that with the appropriate chemical surrounding, produced the right version of oxygen, that did not kill it, - f-ing incredible, how could they know how to do that?
    Whatever, we have to understand that we are part, possibly a very important part, of an evolving Earth, which we are now being very delinquent in the steward-ship of, and seem to be determined to drive ourselves onto the reef of cataclysm, just to allow the super rich to wallow in endless, blind, selfish, greed. - (actually not endless as Nero found out).
    For those who would try to understand the miracle of this tiny creature that made such an important contribution, I warn, need to concentrate..
    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08720
    Hoohoo
    18th Oct 2019
    1:12am
    I appreciate all your interesting comments, Lookfar, & the lengths you go to understanding our amazing world.
    I have to admit I'm busy with work & other projects, so I don't make time to research myself. I trust that 98% of experts know more than 2%.
    Thanks, I'll check this out another time: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08720