Newspoll: 56-44

1,318 comments on “Newspoll: 56-44”

1. More of the same…

2. Turnbull has failed to make any ground.

   But it will be interesting to watch the poll figures from here on – especially if there is another quarter of negative growth and yet more people are laid off.

   The ALP’s lead is still ridiculously large- it cannot last forever.

3. [it cannot last forever]

   Forever is a very, very long time so I’d have to agree with you.

4. [especially if there is another quarter of negative growth and yet more people are laid off.]
   Yes, if this happens closer attention will be paid to the Liberals’ pro-unemployment and pro-recession policies.

5. That depends on who gets the blame, doesn’t it? There’s no sign at all that the voters are blaming Rudd. If asked, they would probably blame (a) George Bush (b) the banks (c) capitalism (d) Howard and Costello. (Has anyone seen a poll on this, by the way?) Turnbull has so far completely failed to make the case that Rudd’s actions / inactions have “made things worse.” It would help if he had a credible shadow treasurer.

6. GP anyway we wouldnt want to get ahead this far out from an election better to do a Colin Barnett and come home strong 🙂

7. GP on the last thread;

   I, and others, have pointed out numerous times that there is a huge role Australia can play in the international community. The fact that it isn’t has been pointed out already by countries like China.

8. [That depends on who gets the blame, doesn’t it? There’s no sign at all that the voters are blaming Rudd. If asked, they would probably blame (a) George Bush (b) the banks (c)]
   U.S. voters are blaming Republicans by a 2:1 margin according to last week’s Wall Street Journal poll.

9. No 7

   Rubbish. On climate change, Australia’s unilateral actions make no difference at all. The real movers and shakers are the US and China, the biggest CO2 emitters in the world.

10. [On climate change, Australia’s unilateral actions make no difference at all. ]
    Why are they unilateral when the E.U., Japan, U.S. either have, or are in the process of setting up trading schemes?
    [US and China, the biggest CO2 emitters in the world.]
    China has taxes on energy intensive exports, U.S. is setting up a cap and trading scheme in the current budget.

11. GP we’d have holes in our heads thinking that if we reduced carbon in Australia and China, USA and India didnt do it that the world would be saved from Climate Change!

    Why should we cost ourselves jobs and force up the price of energy just to please the latte drinkers…

    Cutting our emissions is pointless if USA, China and India do nothing…Havent you ever heard of carbon leakage????

12. ok so glen’s argument now is that its BETTER to be 12 % behind now?? One for the archives

13. [Why are they unilateral when the E.U., Japan, U.S. either have, or are in the process of setting up trading schemes?]

    I was referring to the notion that Australia could be some sort of “leader” by enacting self-damaging climate change policies.

14. [Why should we cost ourselves jobs and force up the price of energy just to please the latte drinkers…]
    Because if countries where GDP per capita is $35,000+ don’t do it, then the countries like China where GDP per capita is ~$2000 won’t bother. Relative to most other countries, the developed economies can afford to do it.

    If we won’t do it, the developing countries won’t do it, and then EVERYONE loses.

    I didn’t realise that conservatism was based around a race to doing nothing? So much for industriousness, self initiative, and entrepreneurialism.

15. [Cutting our emissions is pointless if USA, China and India do nothing…Havent you ever heard of carbon leakage????]

    The Greens seem adamant that there is no such thing. They argue the coal industry should be shut down. That would merely increase coal sales in other coal-producing countries who wouldn’t dare shut down their coal industries.

16. [I was referring to the notion that Australia could be some sort of “leader” by enacting self-damaging climate change policies.]
    No, we are just doing what other like economy countries are doing.

    So where is your argument going? Apparently we shouldn’t do anything, because nobody else is. Then when it is shown that other similar countries are doing something, we still shouldn’t do anything because we can’t be the leader!

17. [I was referring to the notion that Australia could be some sort of “leader” by enacting self-damaging climate change policies.]

    Yes, you idiot. And Glen’s an idiot too. If you somehow pretend that China and other developing countries with per capita emissions less than ours are going to magically do something while we sit on our hands, then you’re mistaken.

    On top of that, if we do it FIRST it will be CHEAPER and we will have new technologies and that we can then sell to the rest of the world.

18. [I didn’t realise that conservatism was based around a race to doing nothing? So much for industriousness, self initiative, and entrepreneurialism.]

    It’s not about a “race to do nothing”, it’s about the futility of damaging our own economy if other countries do not exhibit the same willingness to do so.

19. everything Brough has turned his hand to since the election has been a crashing failure, especially anything political, the coalition would be better off bringing in new young turks to take over, can anyone imagine the riff raff there now as PM? Abbott, Hockey, the mincing poodle? somehow i dont think so, anyone who has hopes that Cossie will get the intestinal fortitude is dreaming.

20. [That would merely increase coal sales in other coal-producing countries who wouldn’t dare shut down their coal industries.]
    So that means you should support an ETS like the government model that gives energy intensive export industries time to adapt.

    You know, so we can clean up other parts of the economy, and thus ‘spend’ our pollution cap on the industries that can’t be cleaned up.

21. [It’s not about a “race to do nothing”, it’s about the futility of damaging our own economy if other countries do not exhibit the same willingness to do so.]
    But other countries ARE taking action, so we can’t be left behind.

    I can see the Liberal’s next election campaign slogan “Go for doing nothing!”

22. This is a question of whether we really believe what the climatologists are telling us or whether we don’t. If we don’t, it won’t matter if we and other countries do nothing. But if we do believe it, then we ought to straining every nerve to get our government and every other governmnt to cut emissions *at least* by 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050, regardless of economic or political considerations, because if the climatologists are right then the alternative is the greatest demographic catastrophe since the Black Death, only on a global scale. While we are quibbling about 5%, this is rapidly becoming the mainstream view. I count myself as a moderate sceptic on this, but eventually we who are not climatologists will have to accept the overwhelming weight of expert opinion on this.

23. [Yes, you idiot. And Glen’s an idiot too. If you somehow pretend that China and other developing countries with per capita emissions less than ours are going to magically do something while we sit on our hands, then you’re mistaken.]

    I resent your personal attacks. They are neither appropriate nor necessary. Also, per capita emissions are a meaningless statistic that disguise the fact that China is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world (a few hundred percent higher than Australia’s total emissions) and has a disastrous environmental record.

24. [everything Brough has turned his hand to since the election has been a crashing failure, especially anything political]
    He just needs a safe seat – anything with a 20%+ margin should be safe enough for him.

25. [Talk about overstating our influence.]

    Not really. Of course people are going to extremely interested in how Australia, a very wealthy country with some of the highest per capita emissions in the world manages to reduce emissions.

26. [I resent your personal attacks.]

    I resent your short sighted idiocy. Omg I’m turning into ShowsOn.

    [Also, per capita emissions are a meaningless statistic that disguise the fact that China is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world]

    There’s nothing wrong with that fact. China has the biggest population in the world.

27. [Of course people are going to extremely interested in how Australia, a very wealthy country with some of the highest per capita emissions in the world manages to reduce emissions.]
    Exactly. Our wealth is on par with Japan, Japan is introducing a carbon trading scheme, so should we.

28. [I resent your short sighted idiocy. Omg I’m turning into ShowsOn.]
    No way! This blog is only big enough for one of us. 😀
    [There’s nothing wrong with that fact. China has the biggest population in the world.]
    And an overwhelmingly POOR population, including a few hundred million that live on US$2 a day.

29. No 22

    I do not place faith in computer modelling that predict climate patterns 100 years into the future. We can’t even predict the weather in 5 days with pinpoint accuracy and yet we are expected to believe such climate models.

30. And your qualifications in the relevant sciences are what exactly, GP?

31. [We can’t even predict the weather in 5 days with pinpoint accuracy and yet we are expected to believe such climate models.]
    So just be honest and admit you are a climate change denier, instead of pretending you’re just arguing about how to fix the problem.

    Life is so easy for you, if you don’t admit a problem, then you don’t have to think out a workable solution.

32. GP, you manage to both seriously underestimate the the nature of climate modelling and you exaggerate the emphasis that modelling plays in demonstrating what is going to happen to our planet.

    Another reason not to sit there and do nothing and expect everyone to do stuff while continuing to be one of the most inefficient and polluting countries in the world is that we have the most to lose out of the developed nations.

33. [And your qualifications in the relevant sciences are what exactly, GP?]
    It is his political philosophy – right wing post modernism. According to G.P., if you can’t be 100% sure about something, then you can’t be sure at all.

    Therefore, there is no point making any decision in life, because the reasons for any decision are most likely wrong.

34. No 26

    [There’s nothing wrong with that fact.]

    Then why do you seek to obfuscate it with pernicious references to per capita emissions?

    The earth is surely unconcerned with per capita emissions, but rather the total volume of CO2 emissions.

35. Gotta say, I am astonished at Kev’s ratings.

    For me, and we all know how I am Very Kevvie, but gee, I could be a trifle… mm….disappointed.

    However, each time I feel crappy, or thirsty, I am vastly cheered at the Harradine of the South, Nick X. What a Dear!

    Guess everyone south of the border hates him, but I sure as hell don’t.

36. [Then why do you seek to obfuscate it with pernicious references to per capita emissions?]

    It’s not an obfuscation.

    For some reason you believe it’s fine for Australia to lead the world in polluting but you want everyone else to clean up their act to save our natural resources.

    In terms of the total volume of CO2 emissions, more than 30% of them are from countries that produce the same or less than Australia. If we don’t have too do anything then that’s 30% of emissions that will not only remain static but grow, in comparison to others as they reduce. Stupid idea.

37. [So just be honest and admit you are a climate change denier]

    I don’t deny climate change. I am simply skeptical of hysterical claims that 90% of the world will be dead in 50 years or that climate change will be “cataclysmic” unless urgent action is taken.

    Even if one denies climate change, the transition to a renewable energy economy is desirable anyway. The point is that the policy response should be calm and measured – because actual people will be materially effected by these structural changes.

38. [It is his political philosophy]

    To be honest, I think it’s an undergraduate law mindset. You don’t have to be an expert in anything (except arguing) but you can pretend to be, and pretend your ill-informed arguments have equal weight to those coming from people who actually know stuff.

39. [I am simply skeptical of hysterical claims that 90% of the world will be dead in 50 years ]

    I ask again: what qualifications do you possess that entitle you to be sceptical about the emerging consensus among climatologists?

40. [For some reason you believe it’s fine for Australia to lead the world in polluting but you want everyone else to clean up their act to save our natural resources.]

    But the point, which you entirely (or deliberately) miss, is that we do not lead the world in pollution. China does. It’s record is absolutely abominable and yet you seek to defend it.

    Per capita emissions are a clever way to deflect attention from China.

41. [Per capita emissions are a clever way to deflect attention from China.]

    I’m not deflecting attention from anything, don’t be disingenuous. You’re not bothering to respond to my posts that you can’t argue against and that says enough for me.

42. Adam if the Greens and environmentalists were so afraid of CC they’d embrace Nuclear Energy to replace Coal as the baseload energy source for developed and developing nations…how can we take that lot seriously when they deny the use of a technology that could prevent what they dont want to happen!

43. No 39

    I don’t require qualifications to be skeptical. Just like I don’t require qualifications to criticise other things.

44. No 41

    [I’m not deflecting attention from anything, don’t be disingenuous.]

    But you are. You say Australia is a leading world polluter when its total volume of pollution is many magnitudes lower than that of the biggest polluter, China.

45. [Adam if the Greens and environmentalists were so afraid of CC]

    I’m not talking about Greens and environmentalists, I’m talking about climate scientists. I might well agree with you about nuclear, but that doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for taking a coherent position of reducing carbon emissions *now*.

46. No 42

    Exactly.

47. [ don’t require qualifications to be skeptical]

    In matters of science, yes you do.

48. Re 31,

    ShowsOn and GP:

    GP needs to read this book [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) ] and get a real education. Mind you, if you read all the way through the Wikipedia page (as opposed to getting the book, a library would have it) it presents a pretty inclusive summary. I am fully in the climate change camp and have a copy of Al Gore’s video, An Inconv. Truth. I purchased a copy of this book because I wanted to educate myself about what has happened to other societies over the years. Very, very good and if you read all the way through it with an open mind, you will see that it is comments like GP’s in #29
    [
    Generic Person
    Posted Monday, March 9, 2009 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
    No 22

    I do not place faith in computer modelling that predict climate patterns 100 years into the future. We can’t even predict the weather in 5 days with pinpoint accuracy and yet we are expected to believe such climate models.
    ]

    that are the root cause of societies that ultimately fail. They didn’t believe and didn’t make the move either at all or didn’t make the move until it was too late. Glad we don’t have a army of GP clones running the government right now, oh yeah, we voted that mob out in November 2007 😀

49. [You say Australia is a leading world polluter when its total volume of pollution is many magnitudes lower than that of the biggest polluter, China.]

    I’ve dealt with this just above, you ignored it.

    Hey Glen, how do CO2 emissions for nuclear compare with, say, wind, solar, hydro or geothermal? What’s the cost comparisons? What are the lead times? Answer those questions.

    Hint: I’ve answered them about a dozen times in other posts. Everytime I give you the facts, you runaway.

50. No 47

    Adam, much of the scientific evidence upon which climate change policy is based is all computer modelling. Why should the future of the world be entrusted in a computer model? Forgive me for wanting real, measurable facts instead.

Comments are closed.