I await each morning radio news with the expectation that Mr Shorten will have a new expensive promise for us, and so far I haven’t been disappointed. What does disappoint me is that his accounts of how his party would be able to pay for them are so empty, and there is never a mention of reducing the budget deficit. No journalist seems able or interested in asking questions of this kind. On the one occasion when one did, Mr Shorten’s response was that the wealthy would pay more in tax, and they could afford to. Surely somebody, somewhere, sometime will ask him the hard questions about imagined revenue. Mr Turnbull is avoiding the whole business, alas, apart from sledging Labor on its promises. But the same applies to him.

On the other hand, there has been hardly a word about ‘climate change’, that fearful prospect awaiting our grandchildren that we have to fix right now with an ETS and more regulations. Yet, according to a ReachTel poll of 2400, nearly two in three said they would be more likely to vote for a party seeking 100 per cent renewable energy in 20 years and 48 per cent said they would be more likely to support a party reducing Australia’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050. More than half, 56.4 per cent, want the government to do more on climate change, while 27.8 per cent think the current settings are right and 9.9 per cent want less action. In this poll respondents were reacting to propositions put to them by the interviewers

Why aren’t the parties taking notice? Well, they’re probably more interested in another poll about the perceived important problems facing Australia, by the Roy Morgan team. A summary of responses to this question for the past decade appears in the graph. In the Morgan poll respondents were asked to nominate what they themselves thought were the most important problems facing our country. The Roy Morgan organisation has been asking questions in the same way for years, so the pattern of responses has some validity.

6798-australian-issues-large.122507

Let’s look at Environmental problems, which occupied  second place to Economic problems during the Millennium drought and the fuss about global warming leading up to the Copenhagen Conference in 2009, then slipped away as the drought ended and the Conference that was to bring the world together turned out to be a fizzer. Ten per cent of respondents in the survey conducted this month nominated something or other to do with environment. ‘Climate change’ or global warming was nominated by just seven per cent, men and women  alike.

Why the difference between the two polls? I’ve written about this before, though the search engine for this website didn’t find it for me. Briefly, there is a tendency to respond to questions offering you options in what might seem to be the right, or approved response — that is, if you really don’t have an opinion. It’s called ‘yea-saying’ in the literature. You don’t want to sound like a dill, and you know you ought to have an answer. What should it be? The great conversation out there that you listen to in a kind of way provides the socially acceptable answer. So you give that one. Latin provides a way of asking questions that indicate the kind of response the questioner is expecting. We can do it in English by adding ‘do/are you’ or ‘don’t/aren’t you’ to the text — ‘You’re not in favour of adding any further taxation burden to poor people, are you?’ The only possible reply is ‘Dear me, no.’ Asking questions in a neutral way is quite an art.

When you are asked to nominate something yourself the whole scene changes. Yes, you might still reach for a socially acceptable answer, but you are much more likely to provide an answer that means something to you. I used this technique myself in my own survey research, and deep analysis of the data suggested to me strongly that a personally nominated problem or attribute (of a leader) was highly consistent with other answers — they hung together well. So I have much more faith in the utility of the Morgan results than I do in those of the ReachTel survey.

Let’s look at another aspect of the graph. Back in the best-forgotten Gillard days (2011, say) there was a much greater spread in the range of issues that respondents thought were problems facing Australia. Environmental concerns were important, immigration was important, political leadership was important, and of course economic concerns were most important. But today the economy (work, unemployment, money, foreign ownership, interest rates) is paramount, and the other issues have slipped to much lower levels than was the case five years ago. By and large that was the case in October last year, too, long before the July 2nd election was in prospect. And despite the focus on the leaders in an election campaign, leadership as a problem stands at nine per cent. What are the components of the leadership problem, exactly? They seem mostly to be ‘too much Government spending’ and ‘lack of vision’.

As I wrote above, this graph seems to me to explain the lack of salience of ‘climate change’ in the election so far, and I expect it to continue. The issue is not an attractive one to either major party. Tony Abbott put a well-known sympathiser with the AGW orthodoxy in as his Minister for the Environment, and Mr Turnbull kept him there, to the irritation of sceptics. But there was a simple reason. The Coalition does not want to disturb the faithful supporters of the orthodoxy, which it would do if it put somebody sceptical there. So the Coalition says as little as possible, and makes soothing noises about the need for a clean environment when it has to. Sceptics have nowhere else to go.

Labor is in a more difficult situation. If it says too much about the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions it will get in trouble with the unions of the workers whose jobs will be at risk. But if it doesn’t say enough, then it risks a leakage of voters to the Greens, who think that there is nothing more important than ‘climate change’. Maybe their preferences will come back, but maybe they won’t. Anyway, neither major party wants a leakage to any third group. Mr Shorten has said that a Labor Government will introduce an ETS that is not a carbon tax. This is playing with words, because the intended effect of an ETS is the same as that of a carbon tax, to make energy more expensive so that we use less of it, since 86 per cent of all our electricity comes from coal, oil and gas. Wind (4 per cent), rooftop solar (2 per cent), and biomass (1 per cent) make up the rest. The fact that no matter what Australia does global temperature will not change is any discernible way is not important to Labor. It’s the perceptions that count.

I’ve no doubt there will be a set piece or two about climate change in the next few weeks. But with only one person in 14 thinking it’s a real problem, there are more important fish for both the major parties to fry. As an endnote, Roy Morgan also asked people what they thought the major  issues affecting the world were. The top three were Environmental (25 per cent), Economic (24 per cent) and Terrorism/ War (23 per cent). Plainly, for Australians ‘climate change’ is a matter that affects other people, not us!

 

 

 

 

Join the discussion 41 Comments

  • Neville says:

    The trouble is that like David Suzuki most Aussies and people in other countries are totally ignorant about their so called CAGW. I’ve challenged people to tell me what percentage of the atmosphere is “made up” of Co2.
    Very few have a clue and when I’ve told some small gatherings that it is 400ppm or 0.04%, some yell BS and some others are very doubtful of my sanity. I then try to tell them this means that our emissions today are adding about 1.2 parts of Co2 for every 10,000 parts of the air we breathe and this usually causes more disbelief. I also tell them that since 1750 this means that we have increased atmospheric levels of co2 by over 33%.
    I try and tell them that atmos levels of co2 in the past were much higher, even as high as 7,000 ppm and yet the planet still survives with much lower levels today. I tell them the planet has been greening for the last 30 to 40 years because co2 is a very beneficial plant fertiliser and submariners live for long periods with very high levels of co2 as part of their job.
    I think I convince some that I’m not a complete BS merchant but I know a number think I’m mad. But I do know that some start to question the orthodoxy and educate themselves and ask more questions.

    • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

      The Great Climate Change Bamboozle

      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
      H. L. Mencken

      Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 GT of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y +/- ?? ebbing and flowing between those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?

      Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 power flux (watt is power, energy over time) increase between 1750 and 2011, 260 years, was 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo RF reflects 100 W/m^2 +/- 30 (can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/- 8. Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.

      One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2. perpetual loop w/o work, 3. cold to hot w/o work, 4. doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses considered by the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming, +/- 12.3 W/m^2. Of course Trenberth says they are all wrong because their cooling results are not confirmed by his predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.

      Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.

      As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

      BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.

      http://2paragraphs.com/2015/07/ivar-giaever-nobel-climate-change-denier-galileo-or-ptolemy/

      http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

  • Neville says:

    Monckton’s global warming speedometer is showing much reduced warming when compared to the first three IPCC report projections. And warming until 2100 looks very low indeed. Way under the IPCC’s speed limit.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/

  • PeterE says:

    Thanks. This contains two very useful short statements that can be used elsewhere:
    1. 86% of our electricity comes from coal, oil and gas. Wind (4%), rooftop solar (2%) and biomass (1%) make up the rest.
    2.No matter what Australia does [to combat AGW] global temperature will not change in any discernible way.
    I hope you won’t mind if I use these statements for the purposes of radio.
    Likewise, Neville’s comment that Co2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, that it is currently 400ppm but has been up to 7,000 ppm in the past, that it is very beneficial for the earth would be very usefully used if it can be conveyed to the wider public. Thanks both.

    • dlb says:

      I wish climate sceptics wouldn’t bring up that 7000ppm figure. As far as we know that was for a relatively brief period 550m years ago. The earth was a vastly different place then, with life yet to get out of the oceans and the sun possibly 5% dimmer compared to now. Estimates for so far back aren’t terribly reliable.

      Between 50 and 250m years Co2 was between 1000 and 2000pm, life flourished on the land but there was no ice anywhere.

      • Alan Gould says:

        dib,
        Surely the usefulness of that ancient 7000ppmv (actually I had thought it was 5000ppmv) for 550 million years ago is to compare it with roughly the same figure for 450million years ago, the earlier period being torrid and the later period being glacial, to illumine how CO2 does not drive planetary temperature. This illumination is then brought to bear on the last 18 years, where ppmv has risen but temperatures have, at least significantly, not done so.
        Certainly, as a modeller myself, I would find it onerous to make an effective greenhouse fabric from a building block composing only 4 molecules in 10,000, so find myself predisposed to see the widespread alarm over CO2 as the description of a sociopathy, not a realistic spook.

        • dlb says:

          Agree that glaciation 450m years ago probably has nothing to do with lack of CO2, but again it is so long ago I wouldn’t like to speculate too much. Within the last 2 million years CO2 levels have been very low and the earth has had many ice ages. A reduced CO2 level could well prime the earth for glaciations.

    • NameGlenM says:

      Someone forgot to put Hydro into the mix.Poor fella is Hydro.

  • margaret says:

    It’s not our fault that we the wider public don’t understand “CAGW” – most wouldn’t even know what the acronym stands for.
    Also when it comes to re-electing a government or electing a new one, climate change, that nebulous slippery term, is obviously only top of the list for those who are not worried about more immediate concerns like the expense and quality of the public healthcare system and the public education of their kids and childcare costs.
    When our children and grandchildren reach the year 2045 it would seem that The Singularity will determine their futures and brave new world will be here until planet earth says “I’m done”.

  • David says:

    Don
    I the reason “…there has been hardly a word about ‘climate change’…” is because all three political parties (Coalition, ALP & Greens) now accept the science behind AGW and now also accept the need to put a price on Carbon. In November last year Coalition, with the support of the ALP and Greens passed into law a cap-and-trade ETS.

    Its over.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/alan-kohler/australias-secret-ets-starts-in-five-weeks/news-story/7f1de2a63db3e8d4a12066f31edcf640

    • Peter Kemmis says:

      David
      You might care to read about what is really happening in Europe, with increasing electricity costs substantially affecting both domestic and manufacturing customers. In doing so, you will read that the costs are largely due to the high subsidies for wind and solar power generation, and there is a growing political reaction against those policies. Becoming less convinced there is an urgent problem, people are starting to ask “why are we doing this?”

      There’s been a fair bit of media discussion about the reports from Kohler and others. Hunt denies it, of course, but as I understand it, in practice few will be caught in that web. That’s why the Greens are decrying it. So the policy issue is actually not over.

      Were they still convinced that global warming was a real problem, and a problem caused by humans, two of those three political parties here in Australia would be making much of what each proposed. I think both are reluctant to stir the possum, as there are no new votes in it – the true believers will vote Green anyway – and its best not to run the risk of alienating any others.

      My own view is that as more people start to recognise more simple facts about climate, their confidence in AGW will quietly decline. At some point, some leader of significance will have enough confidence to cry out “The King hath no clothes!”, and the muttering among the populace will commence rippling across the West , as they shake their heads in excuse “yes, well I never really believed those clothes were real, anyway”. Will that be your excuse also?

      China and India, and Russia as well, will shrug their shoulders and continue as before, but now disappointed that the Western nonsense that has been of such help to them is now collapsing in a heap, a bit like those rusting wind turbines.

      • JMO says:

        Yes David, I am one of those believers (climate change is real and dangerous, we must act now to save the planet etc) who then became to doubt whether the king has any clothes . How did this happen? I started to think, observe (next best thing to experiment), researched and question. Guess what, I now realised I applied some sort of scientific thinking. I questioned the group thinking and their behaviour. I became sceptical.

        Revolutionary is it not David? My,. my scepticism in science , gosh such heresy! Well for group think zombie science it is..

        The pennies are dropping David, more and more are seeing the King has no clothes (well maybe a fig leaf). As Peter said, will you be one to use the excuse “yes, I never believed those clothes anyway”. There is still time to remove yourself from climate alarmists and Cassandras, join the lukewarmers.

        Remember climates change David, they have in the past (sometimes quite quickly) and will continue to do so – get used to it.

    • JimboR says:

      David that Kohler article is gold! I guess Hunt figured that if the extreme right wing nutters of his party were dopey enough to be convinced AGW was a conspiracy theory, then they were also dopey enough to not understand they were voting for an ETS.

      • David says:

        JimboR I agree a good article.

        If you look at the political landscape 5 years ago, we had the Abbott, the then leader of the Coalition, declaring Climate Science “absolute crap” and Bob Brown holding out for a 40% reduction in CO2 and the ALP somewhere in the middle.

        But since then Abbott and other extremists (Michin and Newman ) have been relegated to the pages of history. Brown has been replaced by the far more pragmatic Di Natali. The result is a far more political consensus on climate change.

        The remaining climate science recalcitrants remind me a bit of the occasional isolated Japanese soldier who continued to fight well after the conclusion of WW2.

    • dlb says:

      David, I think you should tell Andrew Bolt about Kohler’s article, while I go out and get some popcorn 🙂

    • Alan Gould says:

      David,
      No! No! No! It is not over. Surely you know the wonderful Louis MacNeice lines

      “The glass is falling hour by hour, the glass will fall forever.
      But if you break the bloody glass, you won’t hold up the weather.”

      Does that last phrase need repeating as a chorus? Weather? Climate? It’s never over, while reliably overhead.

    • margaret says:

      It’s The Australian – user pays, wants my subscription.

      • dlb says:

        Margaret, try typing “Australis’s secret ETS starts in five weeks” into Google. It somehow circumvents the subscription page. This is always worth a try, but some articles are still locked.

  • bryan roberts says:

    I realise I am of a generation that could amazing thing with numbers, like adding them up in our head, and perhaps it has made us less credulous than the majority of the commentariat. Numbers matter, as both sides of politics (and their supporters) assert that Australia cannot maintain its position as a First World Country without a continuing stream of migrants. We are also assured that our country, in its inexcusably extravagant use of energy for fripperies such as lighting, cooking, air conditioning, and in the far reaches of Tasmania, maybe even heating, is irrevocably pushing our precious planet to the brink of disaster. However, in full knowledge of the portentous consequences, our government(s) insist on increasing our population by about a million new residents every 4/5 years, while simultaneously telling us that we have to decrease our CO2 emissions and reduce our impact on the environment. I am no longer surprised by the innumeracy and economic incompetence of our overlords, although I do sometimes wonder what happened to the education system between the ten or so years after I left school and the arrival of the first wunderkind.

  • Peter WARWICK says:

    Margaret is dead right. The vast majority of Australians are illiterate when it comes to science. Why, because until a few years ago, science and mathematics was for the boffins, and if you were not a boffin, there was always wood work and home economics. Part of the problem was that teachers were not literate in science and mathematics. State education departments have always been slow to “see the future”, and it is much easier for an education bureaucrat to dust off last years syllabus, rename it “THE REVOLUTION IS HERE” in a jazzy cover, and push that out.

    The vast majority of Australians do not have a suspicious, searching, evidence seeking mind, and believe just about everything they read/ hear in the Main Stream Media, where the term CLIMATE CHANGE is used with gay abandon. I think if Channel Nine A CURRENT AFFAIR said, squeezed between the car crashes and dodgy second hand car dealers, that if your undies are too tight today, then CLIMATE CHANGE has caused it, it would be believed by the average Australian.

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Love the last sentence, Peter!

  • bryan roberts says:

    “The vast majority of Australians do not have a suspicious, searching, evidence seeking mind, and believe just about everything they read/ hear in the Main Stream Media”

    Actually, Peter, I question that assertion. If you read ‘The Conversation’, which is a left wing echo chamber, it may be true, but on ‘The Drum’, a surprisingly number of dissenting posts get through. No kudos to the ABC, but facts is facts. The population does contain a number of people who can do arithmetic in their heads, who are not Green idiots, and who are extremely pissed off with almost everything.

  • Neville says:

    A new study from the GWPF just confirms Dr Hansen’s “BS and fraud ” view of the 2015 Paris COP 21 con. Here’s a quick summary——————

    “This is the conclusion of a new paper by Law Professor David Campbell (Lancaster University Law School) and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

    For the last 25 years, international climate change law has failed to agree a programme of global emissions reductions. Indeed this law grants a permission to major emitters such as China and India to emit as much as they see fit. Global emissions reductions therefore have always been impossible and since 1992 global emissions have enormously increased.

    Indeed, the Paris Agreement contains a categorical statement that countries such as China and India will not be obliged to undertake any reductions.

    The UK Government proposes to continue with decarbonisation even though Britain’s unilateral decarbonisation is utterly pointless and thus wholly irrational”.

    Full paper (PDF)

  • Neville says:

    In this 5 minute video Bjorn Lomborg completely demolishes the media CON about electric cars . I must admit I was amazed at some of the points he makes. Well worth 5 minutes of your time.

  • margaret says:

    Two weeks ago Romano DelBeato commented on Towards a Mature Discussion …
    “I have found this website and Don’s article very recently, so pardon me if this has been explained before. Any answer to Don’s plea for engagement in discussions on AGW must include the fact that the subject matter is very technical and complex and so the number of competent contributors who have a grasp of the facts and can make valuable contributions is very small. The case for alarm about AGW is strongly based on climate models. As a meteorologist who has some appreciation of how those models work, I can say that the number of experts in the world who have a comprehensive grasp of the characteristics and limitations of those models is very small indeed, perhaps two or three hundred only. There is some genuine engagement in discussion of the models, but only those few experts can participate…”

    That makes sense to me and I’m happy to rely on those experts to continue to make valuable contributions but I am not sure how many of the commenters on this website are experts and, being a sceptic doesn’t equate to ‘knowing the truth about GW, AGW, and CAGW’ which seems to me to be what a few commenters think.

    • dlb says:

      National football players are experts, and you don’t have to be terribly bright to see when they are playing badly.
      Economists are even a better example. They use computers they are certainly experts and their field is poorly understood by the lay population, but how often do they get predictions wrong, and are they free from political bias?

      One doesn’t need to be a tailor to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

      • David says:

        Dlb I read your discussion with Neville with interest.

        I think if examine both the quantity and quality of posts made by Neville on this site I think it is fair to say that after Don, Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, and perhaps one or two others I think it is fair to say that Neville is arguably among the 10 most influential climate skeptics in Australia.

    • Peter Kemmis says:

      Hi Margaret,

      I readily admit I am not an expert in the field of climate science. It is an extraordinarily wide field, embracing such diverse fields including palaeontology, astronomy, meteorology, physics . . . and of course, mathematics and modelling. No scientist claims expertise across all of those fields. I am no expert in any of those fields. But I have enough wit to read, observe, and judge whether some proposal, policy, argument or conclusion makes sense or not.

      Romano is correct, “the case for alarm is strongly based on climate models”. Well, Margaret, the outputs of those models are proving to be just plain wrong! Doesn’t take an expert to see that. I’m not one to accept automatically an appeal to authority, which Romano has evidently done. And reading a few books about climate over the millennia, does give a better perspective. But I won’t restate what you have already read on numerous occasions on this site.

      This site of Don’s is a bit like an atheists’ convention, where believers are welcome to explain their disagreement. I’m sure others value your contributions as I do for their reasonableness, courtesy, and segues. There are occasionally others who arrive with placards painted with different colours and with varying messages, which they wave about vociferously; the essential theme of each placard is the same: “The end is nigh!”

    • JimboR says:

      Margaret I think you’ve nailed it. My approach to staying above the chatter is to decide who to believe, rather than what to believe. Get your climate science from those working in the field, and you won’t be too far off the mark. Even amongst that niche group there’ll be specific areas where there are diverse views and disagreement, but that’s simply an indication that the scientific process is working and eventually the best theories will bubble to the top. The pseudo-science you’ll read in the blogosphere is best avoided although sometimes worthy of a read just for the entertainment value.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Hate to disillusion you, Margaret and JimboR, but what you should both do, if you can’t be bothered putting your heads out the window to check, is look at the logic awa the evidence.

        When you are aware that climate always changes and we have warmed a bare 0.8c since the end of the LIA, that represents a tiny fractional change c/w past climate change. Then ask yourselves, if this is the total amount of the warming how much of that might be due to man-made emissions?

        And it can only be a small part.

        If, OTOH, you are prepared to put your heads out the window and make personal observations you will notice that next week’s king tide is somewhat lower than it was 50, 60 or 70 years ago.

        No sea level rise = no global warming [worth worrying about].

        Mind you, you do need to have been paying attention for a while but you can also verify it by asking people who have been.

      • bryan roberts says:

        You don’t need to be an expert to find you can still book a flight to Funafuti, and not on a seaplane. Nor do you need more than normal eyesight to read the graphs published by our very own Bureau of Meteorology – Pacific Sea level Monitoring Project – that show no sea level rise for decades.

  • Neville says:

    We know that Paris COP 21 was BS and fraud and that Obama’s EIA has informed us Co2 emissions will be 34% higher by 2040. But now we also find that Russia could throw another spanner in the works to make it bigger mess and more nonsensical than it already is. Meanwhile in the real world China and India and other non OECD countries can do what they like. And none of this fraudulent agreement is actually enforceable at all.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/russia-throws-a-wrench-in-paris-climate-ratification/

  • dasher says:

    Have been reading a lot about renewables in Europe. Spain’s, Denmark. Germany and UK there are serious issues with subsidies, electricity prices, reliability of power, disfiguration of the landscape with wind mills etc etc……if you just relied on the ABC and Fairfax for your information of this you would think we should “just do what the europeans are doing”. We are not even curious enough to check how things are progressing. Our politicians are no better as they are captured by the orthodox view one way or another and are doing their constituents a great disservice by not applying the sort of rigour to justify the massive costs ..we could spend billions for no return. For some, more windmills and more solar is good, but few ask what do they achieve and at what cost…if we buy a garden blower we ask ourselves these sort of questions. Doh!

  • Neville says:

    When Lomborg’s team say they are being optimistic about their future projections for S&W energy they are right. The latest US govt EIA May 2016 report states on page 2 that renewables are the fastest growing energy source and are growing at 2.6% per year until 2040. They predict nuclear will grow by 2.3% per year, that’s 4% of world energy in 2012 to 6% by 2040.

    So let’s be super generous and attribute all of the 2012 ( 1.2%) renewables of geo-thermal, solar and wind to just S&W. If that was to grow by 2.6% per year until 2040 that would be about 2% of world energy production not 2.4%. Of course S&W only contribute about 0.4% of the world’s energy today, so that would really be about 0.7% of world energy by 2040. So Lomborg’s S&W estimate of 2.4% by 2040 is very optimistic indeed.

    Yet the Labor and Greens donkeys are proposing to increase renewables by 50% and 90% over similar periods. Anyone see a problem with that? These people are barking mad , but if we believe the latest polling they could be the next govt of OZ. Here’s that May 2016 report again. See page 2.

    https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_05112016.pdf

  • Neville says:

    How does anyone expose the corruption and fraud involved in the decades long CAGW mitigation scam? Don’t forget that this fraud and con involves every country on the planet, plus most journos and media.
    When a 43 year old accountant tried to get the US SEC interested in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme he had no luck. He immediately understood this was a Ponzi scheme after a brief look at the DATA, but everyone else refused to show much interest. He worked solidly for ten long years before these donkeys woke up. Madoff was arrested and charged and after his trial everyone suddenly understood that he had run the biggest Ponzi fraud in history.
    Of course Madoff’s Ponzi fraud was tiny compared to the trillions $ to be wasted on CAGW mitigation that won’t make a scrap of difference to the temp or Co2 levels. The numbers involved to expose this fraud are readily available for everyone to read. Co2 emissions we are told will actually INCREASE by 34% by 2040 and yet there was dancing in the streets of Paris just 5 months ago and the media wildly proclaimed the planet would be saved. Will they ever wake up? Here is how the biggest Ponzi scheme was busted after 10 years hard work by Harry Markopolis.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/12/busting-bernie-madoff-one-mans-10-year-crusade/?r=AU&IR=T

  • Neville says:

    Trump has highlighted his approach to so called CAGW, but it doesn’t matter what he does because until 2040 the majority of new Co2 emissions will come from non OECD countries. The US Co2 emissions are back to early 1990s levels, while non OECD countries emissions have soared over the last 25 years.
    I still think there is probably a small AGW component in world temp increase since 1950, but it is very hard to detect. The slight warming since the end of the LIA is probably just a natural recovery after the coldest sustained period for thousands of years. And we should be very grateful we live in such a prosperous warmer period where every person on earth lives much longer than 50 years ago. See the latest ABS reports.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-energy-idUSKCN0YH2D9

  • Malcolm says:

    All environmental issues are driven essentially by visible dirt and smells. Without this aspect, the carbon dioxide hypothesis was never going to be long-lived. It was kicked along for a time in various countries by droughts and other weather events, but eventually even the dullest person has come to realise that nothing overall has changed. In Australia, research showed quite clearly that the long drought was a major factor supporting the continued concern. The failure of the capital cities to run out of water, and the imminent La Nina mean this issue is completely dead in mainstream Australia. It doesn’t even register in political surveys in the US. The Greens are going to need to find something new or they will disappear along with climate change alarmism.

  • […] had mentioned in a previous post that I would look at the Greens’ policies in due course, and I’ve started. But the […]

  • […] couple of years ago, as I wrote the other day, the components of that grid power (the eastern grid, which means Queensland, NSW and the ACT, […]

  • […] mentioned before that those who nominate ‘climate change’ as their most important issue come to about 7 per cent of the electorate, and that is consistent with the Greens’ share of the […]

Leave a Reply to Alan Gould Cancel Reply