By Jo Nova
Another propaganda poll asks loaded cost-free fantasy-questions to maximize fake “support” for higher emissions targets.
The Resolve Political Monitor always lets the hapless pollee know what they are supposed to say. Look at the way they frame it — the pollsters are supposed to be trying to figure out what kind of Net Zero targets Australians want, but they’re not framing it in terms of science, or what other countries are doing, or whether it worth spending $1.5 trillion to cool the world by 0.0 degrees. They frame the question by telling the voter that “both parties support a net zero target” but some in the Nationals would like to “ditch” it. Then they ask the crowd “what’s best for Australia”.
Presumably they’re hoping to fool Australians into thinking that most people support Net Zero targets (“Both major parties support it”.) Yet, despite this effort to plant the consensus opinion in people’s minds, only 28% of Australians say the current target is the right one. Some 55% of Australia reject this or don’t know what to think.
And only 17% of Australians want the Santa Claus option — the free, uncosted, “more ambitious” 2030 target. And we know when the IPA asked Australians how much they wanted to spend, only 7% were willing to even pay $10 a week or more. So the 17% figure would halve in an instant if the Resolve Political Monitor team asked an honest question about the cost.
In the most loaded push-polling question, The Resolve Political Monitor tells people that most experts think the target will be a 65 -75% reduction, and then asks people if they support or oppose this (do you, fool, know better than the experts?) Even under the weight of the “experts”, most Australians are not buying what they’re selling anymore and 56% were opposed or unsure.
Australians have their say on new climate targets as Coalition prepares for another brawl on net zero
By James Massola and Paul Sakkal, The Sydney Morning Herald
The latest Resolve Political Monitor survey showed 44 per cent of voters supported the goal of reducing the nation’s carbon emissions by between 65 and 75 per cent by 2035…
The Sydney Morning Herald put their best spin on the story and said 44% support the new higher target, even when the other question the pollsters asked in the same survey directly contradicted this, suggesting only 17% actually wanted a higher target. What’s the mark of a junk survey — contradictory answers.
The point of most political polls is not to find out what the voters want, it’s to tell the voters what to think
This loaded poll is there to set up Australians to think the Labor Government are raising the target because voters want them to do that. But even the Labor party knows this isn’t true. If they believed Australians wanted higher targets, they would have taken it to the election.
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash
The money question is always ‘how much would you be prepared to lower your living standards for Net Zero’. But them why would a poll ask a question to which they should know that the answer is zero. But then as has been already shown by Jo I think, living standards have already been lowered.
532
Well, come on, RED THUMB, tell us all EXACTLY why you disagree
with Gerry’s statement.
I’m sure ALL of Jo’s gallery would just lurv to know your thoughts.
300
As cost of living in Australia continues to rise
121
Inflation now up in July. Stagflation is back.
80
Rarely mentioned is the underlying rate of inflation, the official rate is distorted by government taxpayer funded attempts to hide the real rate of inflation like rebate on electricity retail bill price, a discount not lower electricity retail price.
When the rebate stops the electricty price rises to real level
80
Sorry Dennis, bad steering, meant red.
20
Of course living standards have dropped and will crater as the enormous lies of global boiling and ruinables really comes into their nadir. Blackout and the rest of this terrible government (and unfortunately some in the LNP) are true believers; and they believe the public supports them. Listen to Blackout:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/politics/government/they-don-t-like-facts-and-science-chris-bowen-roasts-liberal-party/ar-AA1LiAM1?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=68aea12aa8ed4939aa121c7cb1af23eb&ei=20#comments
Global boiling is easily disproved: human emissions are 3% of the annual flux, CO2 cannot heat the ocean and there is no correlation let alone causation between CO2 and global temperature as the 20thC shows.
Ruinables do not work because they are weather dependent with a CF of ~30%. NO amount of battery can back up ruinables.
We have at least 2 more years of this wretched government with a gutless LNP in the wilderness. Things are going to get very grim.
130
You could, of course compare these results with other surveys like this or this . What you will find is that this survey is in line with the others and is representative of what the majority of the public want.
250
Question for “public”:
Will you sacrifice all your wealth and belongings and your first-born child and spend a trillion dollars to attempt to keep the average world temperature from rising 0.0000001 degrees in 2100?
550
NO, from this person.
110
I don’t think the average person could translate that figure when given in numbers. It needs to be expressed in words.
10
Assuming the issue is “degrees”, let me try this – – –
The tallest building in Australia is the Q1 Tower with 78 floors standing at 322.5 meters tall. [so says Duck Assist] Each floor is about 4.13m.
The dry adiabatic lapes rate is 0.65 C° per 100 meters. This means that for 300 meters you ascend, the temperature generally drops by approximately 1.95 C°; going down the reverse occurs. With a bit more arithmetic, roughly – ignore the 22.5 m – I get that going from the top floor to the one directly beneath it (#78 to #77), about 15 stairsteps, the temperature will go up by 0.0065 C°. That’s 0.00043 per step.
If Earthlings do everything António Guterres, UN Sec-Gen, asks them to do we will NOT experience the dramatic increase in temperature equivalent to taking a single step (about 20 cm), down.
The average citizen’s response would be “Huh?”
50
I use that single step analogy myself. I think the issue is putting the argument over in an understanble fashion.
People might understand 4 thousands of a degree in words or an analogy, but not when expressed as a figure with lots of zeros.
40
People will always vote/uptick motions that make them virtuous, if there is no direct costs involved. Why wouldn’t they?
Let the people know that the cost of almost everything has risen by n%, (select the correct number based on the industries involved), due to the race to nett zero.
Provide the interviewee with clear details of the cost of escalating the current state to the final, including the sacrifices yet to be made. For example, you will not be able to use electricity if the battery goes flat after four hours. You will be excluded from flights to holiday destinations or they become so expensive that you won’t be able to go, etc.
Then let the people vote. Most polls are not only pushed to a solution by misleading questions, they deliberately question the people when they have not got any information on the topic. No wonder so many are unsure.
What amazes me is the number of people who agree with the question even though they have no understanding. I wonder if they want a bridge, I’ve got one for sale in Sydney.
320
You link to activist sites – undergraduates opinions from Griffith Uni ( geez, a hot bed of dopey young weirdos) to support your point. Spare me .
320
Error. Labor and Greens voters do not constitute “the majority of the public”.
190
Or you could ask the business sector.
Research commissioned by 500 companies and conducted by Deloittes suggest that increasing the 2030 commitment from a 65% to a 75% reduction would generate an extra $370 billion in GDP, alongside an additional $20 million of business investment annually and a $190 billion boost in exports by 2050.
https://www.capitalbrief.com/briefing/500-australian-businesses-back-75-climate-target-7e84fd58-dc7f-4b32-a051-e54869000eb2/
325
Yes Simon, lets ask the Business Sector “How much do you want to invest in wind and solar power without any subsidies”.
And their answer is Zero every time.
Most of those companies (including Deloittes) make a fortune from subsidy farming or serving The Blob. Increasing the target means increasing the subsidies.
290
Let’s have an even playing field. Remove the $14.9 billion worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel producers and major users.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-australia-2025/
Solar is far and away the cheapest source of energy in Australia once subsidies are removed.
122
The Australia Blob Institute numbers are false subsidies. It’s not a “subsidy” if the government didn’t suck as much money out as they theoretically could have in a green wet dream.
Your effort to divert from my point is pathetic. Fossil fuels don’t need any subsidies at all to make profits. But Wind and solar power don’t exist without subsidies. Hence any survey asking business “would you like more subsidies” is fundamentally dishonest and waste of time. It is done by parasites hoping to fool people.
Solar is not even worth installing in capital cities without subsidies. And the battery back up that solar power needs is subsidized too, as is the FCAS frequency stability, and back up power to fill the 50% of the day when solar is 100% useless.
The truth hurts doesn’t it Simon?
280
Possibly the most dishonest report ever … even by the standards of the Australia Institute.
So there’s a “fuel tax” … where people who use fuel get taxed. That means there would be an EV tax as well, right? To tax all the people who don’t use fuel, right? Oh … there isn’t?!?
There would be a windmill tax, and a solar cell tax … for those other energy supplies which aren’t paying the fuel tax … there would have to be otherwise … I mean … otherwise it would only be fuel users getting taxed. Oh wait, it is only the fuel users getting taxed … to pay for those roads that the EV’s and cyclists get to use for nothing. Hmph.
And the coal power stations don’t get taxed to pay a subsidy to solar and wind do they? That would be ridiculous … totally unfair … oh they do have to pay for solar and wind.
But I mean, if I just buy fuel for my generator and use it on my own property … that’s nothing even related to the road … I wouldn’t pay fuel tax on that, would I? Oh darn it seems like I do have to pay tax on that.
So when you add up all the tax paid by fuel users, and compare it to the subsidies going to wind and solar … pretty easy to see who is carrying the load and who is free riding … unless you are the Australia Institute and then you see whatever you want to see, and make a big deal over farmers not getting charged for roads they aren’t using.
Of course this has been pointed out many times and of course they still keep doing it.
120
Oh and this thing … about 30% of the “Fuel Tax” actually gets spent on roads.
https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/inline-images/Figure%202%20-%20Australian%20Government%20road%20spending%20as%20a%20proportion%20of%20total%20fuel%20tax_2.PNG
Have a bit of a think about that for a moment … they take the money from people who use fuel and then 70% gets used on unrelated matters.
Because ya know, without government, who would build da roads huh?
60
The purpose of an excise tax is to pay for externalities such as pollution cleanup. If only 30% of the excise is spent on roads, then that should be the maximum that non-transport fuel users should be subsidised.
09
That’s never been the justification for fuel tax … lookup the history of fuel excise in Australia. The whole reason that farmers are given an exemption has always been because they don’t use the roads.
Just go and do some basic reading … how about this for example?
Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund 1982
The purpose: “To establish and Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund with the aim of upgrading roads in the States and the Northern Territory by 1988, Australia’s bicentennial year.”
Where the money comes from: “It will be fully financed by a surcharge on petrol and diesel fuel excise of one cent per litre from 18 August 1982 to 30 June 1983 rising to two cents per litre from 1 June 1983 to 31 December 1988.
There’s lots of these legislative increases in fuel tax … always justified by roads. You have clearly done no research into this. I’m not going to list every one for you but if you don’t have the necessary background to understand what’s going on, then you aren’t able to contribute.
But even if “externalities” was the actual reason, prove your costing on the “externalities” … I bet you can’t because no one can. It’s all a matter of “I don’t like that guy using fuel” and nothing tangible. Once you have completed this impossible task, show me the legislation where the Commonwealth has clearly documented their working and explained to Australia how they came up with the externality price, and why they are setting fuel tax based on this price.
Good luck finding something which never existed.
10
Simon.
You state above: “Research commissioned by 500 companies and conducted by Deloittes…”
That is a false/misleading statement.
The actual agencies which commissioned the research were Fortescue and Future group.
In your link, Capital Brief states : “The Deloitte modelling, which Fortescue and Future Group commissioned“.
Fortescue, has a green activist founder.
and…
Future group is in their own words: “a collective of super funds and services committed to changing our planet now for a better tomorrow.”
People can also find your 500 companies listed here: https://www.businessfor75.com.au/
On their website you will find this.
In their words:
“Business for 75 is coalition of business leaders calling on the Australian Government to commit to an emissions reduction target of at least 75% by 2035, (from 2005 levels).
This campaign is powered by Future Group, a group of superannuation companies with a bold vision: to ensure all of Australia’s retirement savings contribute to positive social and environmental impacts.
As of 1 July 2025, Future Group supports over 415,000 members and oversees more than $17 billion in funds under management and advice.
Business for 75 exists to demonstrate clear and widespread business support for a strong and credible climate target.
A +75% target will give business the certainty to invest, innovate, and lead, and ensure Australia stays competitive in a global economy that is rapidly decarbonising.”
Hmm… Follow the money Simon.. It has nothing to do with science.
170
I estimate that simply replacing every window in Australia would add something like $300bn to GDP. This has a massive advantage over reducing CO2 emissions: it can be done as often as you like. You don’t even have to break the windows first, so the unbroken windows could generate some handy export income too.
90
Simon, you are wrong. Your so called 500 companies did not commission the Deloittes research.
It was Fortescue and Future group.
So who is Future Group?
https://www.futuregroup.com.au/about-us
And what is the aim of Future group?
Well in their words:
“2014.
Future Super is born.
Frustrated with climate inaction, our founders, Simon and Adam, asked a simple question: Where does power lie, and how can we use it to create a better future?
Recognising the power of investing and the capital in Australian superannuation, they create Future Super — Australia’s first super fund to screen out the fossil fuel industry.”
It’s not about the science is it?
Imho, It is straight ideology, using the financial power of workers and retirees funds to supercharge/achieve their aim.
140
Pension and superannuation funds are long-term investors. There is no point in investing for the future if the biosphere and the economy are ruined.
06
Let’s ask business if they are happy with the endless increases in energy costs.
80
Idiocy. Any increase is from subsidies. Investing in ruinables is like investing in buckets with holes in them.
90
You could, of course compare the opinions of mindless sheep whose knowledge comes from the ABC with other sources like CNN or your daily rag, and expect the sheep to trust the farmer for a bright future.
110
I saw a great cartoon some years ago:
Sheep 1: I tell you, the man and the dog are working together.
Sheep 2: You and your conspiracy theories.
100
Mr. Fitzroy: You could, of course, have missed the point of the article (“polls unreliable, explained succinctly). But you tried very hard to do so, effort really shows!
30
I doubt Surveys done at or by two Universities is representative of what the pubic want. What/ where was their Survey group demographic? Students? Lecturers? People in the Uni area, people likely to be affiliated or benefiting from the Uni in some way? Did they conduct random phone calls all around Australia or the state of the Uni location or just the local area?
My bet is as Jo and others have stated, the silent majority either don’t believe in the climate hysteria “consensus”, if they do swallow the propaganda on the 6pm news they’re still not willing to pay extra for the rubbish solutions proposed by government and academics.
20
I’m surprised by the large number of people who just don’t care anymore. Target go up … target go down … not my problem.
Get on with life, have a few beers, don’t worry so much about what government is doing because if they aren’t ripping you off by one method, they will only try harder to find something else. Maybe the dunno don’t care people have the right idea? You cannot see an awful lot, simply by not looking.
330
Tel, I’m less surprised. Topher Field once drew my attention to the “lucky country” quote which needs to be read in its context.
“Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people’s ideas,”
When a quarter of respondents say “I dunno” it reflects the gormlessness of our “wilted lettuce” society. Governments know this and take advantage.
300
The polls are always biased by the question asked. The Liberals are floundering because they don’t know which way to jump. As Senator Canavan said on Sky people change their minds when they are exposed to facts. Yes was winning the referendum until people were made aware of what they were saying “yes” to. Likewise he believes that when people are made aware of the cost to them of Net Zero they will change their mind. Apart from a very few Nationals talking about cost the Coalition have stayed silent. A concerted campaign comparing the cost of building some new coal fired power stations with the billions being spent on transmission and subsidies would quickly destroy Bowen’s lies. Labor rely on voters being ignorant of the true costs and that is why they refuse to tell them. They vastly inflated the cost of nuclear and the Coalition failed to correct them. Saudi Arabia has just built a huge nuclear plant for 40 billion making Albo’s 600 billion completely ridiculous but he got away with it. The bottom line is that if you want to win you first have to fight.
490
Politicians who are successful know that the time to start campaigning for the next election is the day after the last election.
Some now say they have three years to make up their minds on net zero and other policies are incompetent
170
Thoroughly agree Dennis. That was my observation of Daniel Andrews. ( ex state Premier of Victorian state, for the non Aussies) He saw every day in office as an election campaign day. He looked at every ongoing issue and used it as an opportunity to either support the people who voted Labor, or to recruit new voters to the fold. It was politics first, state second (or third or fourth). He would use the results of this poll to probably congratulate those in favour of more ambitious emissions targets.
190
Preselect candidates and encourage sitting MPs to get around their electorates as soon as possible and meet voters, attend school fetes and other community events, become well known locally and put out a monthly newsletter.
Don’t be a candidate that few voters are aware of on election day
60
Exactly.
I hate this from the “conservative” LNP.
They either believe in net zero or they don’t. No fine print or terms and conditions.
If they believe…fine. The only cost effective, reliable option is nuclear.
If they don’t…fine. The only cost effective, reliable options are coal, gas and nuclear.
Either way, as Lawrie stated the LNP have to unmask all of the lies from Bowen etc. regarding the true cost of sunshine and breezes and transmission lines.
The LNP would have to grow some cojones to do that because I am not seeing that they have any at the moment.
290
The electorate need educating about the nuclear option. All the public know about nuclear is that there’s radiation, radiation lasts for X Millenia, the waste is dangerous & will poison the entire continent in no time at all, fish & frogs will grow an extra eye etc, etc.
Some professionally produced, up to date nuclear engineers need to explain the basics about reactor safety, waste recycling & repurposing, the amount of waste ( lbs ) per annum etc. Safely records from around the world, from the first reactors to the latest reactors, sizes, various fuels & innovations for future development. Important too is the life span of the equipment with overall costs compared to “ the green “ nonsense.
Surely there is someone in the LNP with the imagination to contract professional program producers to undertake such a program. The public need to see & understand the nuclear energy industry to gain their support. Obviously certain media will not cooperate in informing the public ,so that’s a hurdle that’ll need special attention!!
Sitting around discussing gender quotas & other woke nonsensical topics will not save Australia from certain impoverishment thru this green energy hoax. So the party room will be needing a good shakeup & cleansing!!
50
Totally agree, Nuclear for Australia did do an education program of holding free public seminars around Australia in the proposed locations for nuclear sites as per the pathetically communicated Liberal Party nuclear proposal. Not sure if any LNP members attended/ supported any of these info sessions.
It was disappointing to see in the rural location where I attended the two scheduled Nuclear information sessions, that there were quite a lot of Nuclear antagonists / Pro Labor crowd only there to ask childish questions, plus the vast majority of the room was over 60 yrs of age. Are the younger people and middle aged so busy or disinterested in their future that they couldn’t be bothered to attend?
10
Any market research firm worth it’s salt can get whatever answer it wants with clever question construction.
I have worked with market research firms in multiple sectors. In consumer products where most of my experience with market research was, we always strove to get the most honest response possible because the entire point was to find out what our customers wanted. We spent hours agonizing over whether there was any ‘leading’ going on in our questions which could skew results.
But I also volunteered on a number of political campaigns to help with their polling or to craft referendum questions, and there it was the exact opposite dynamic. We spent hours agonizing over question construction in order to ensure they would ‘lead’ the voters to respond they way we wanted them to.
I also did some work on media market research, and there the approach was entirely dependent on whether the results were for internal or external purposes. For internal market research about what viewers wanted, we strove for accuracy and to minimize ‘leading’ questions. For external research that was going to be broadcast/published, it was more of a hodge-podge depending on who the client was. Some wanted push polls that led the respondents to a particular response that could serve as the basis for a story, while others strove for honest results that truly represented public opinion and might or might not lead to a story.
Point being, all opinion polls can be rigged based on the motivations of the client and the skill of the research firm in crafting questions. There is also a sliding scale of just how much you can influence the results of a poll based on the complexity of the question. The more complex the question, the easier it is for the researcher to get a desired response.
110
Pollsters plan their polling and use election results from electorates and polling booths in each electorate to analyse where the most voters for a party the pollster wants to give the best impression via Two Party Preferred method and other statistics by party.
50
They’re not Australians, they look like they’re going to a Trump rally, all happy with the world.
60
Achieving Net Zero, a report with contributors including Australian scientists
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/03/Kelly-Net-Zero-Progress-Report.pdf?mc_cid=3de10e3d7a&mc_eid=4961da7cb1
50
Also, are they really asking the right people? I don’t answer my phone from an unknown number any more. I suspect most people the same. My last phone poll was probably more than 10 years ago and during an election. Nothing like this one. Show me the political make up of the respondees, their age, etc. Do Resolve ( wanky name, by the way) use the same pool of people each poll? If so, that pool of people is probably biased. Possibly a higher proportion of ABC listeners who vote Tesl.
140
My bad- the poll seems to show the political make-up of the responders. (shouldn’t be trying to read these articles on the run). But, even so, like a human medical study, I would need to see much more of the respondees status.
80
lies, damned lies and statistics…..
Instead of political affiliation, can we please have the residential location of the survey respondents? Those living within 50km of a capital city CBD and those that don’t.
Might be a marked difference between paper pushers and those producing marketable goods?
30
Our vast continent is already at net zero thanks to nature. Most of the southern hemisphere actually.
Public ignorance writ large.
260
I believe it was Ian Plimer who said that Australia is actually a huge carbon sink, thanks to all the vegetation on this great continent. But for some reason that didn’t count!
160
And Viv Forbes.
110
They should’ve told Aussies that toxic, unreliable W & S will destroy the environment and cost 7 to 9 TRILLION $ and we’d have to repeat this lunacy every 15 to 20 years.
Very few informed people would agree to this nonsense and yet very few people have the ability to check the evidence for themselves.
Just unbelievable but true.
240
why support a hoax? best not to. Its not complicated
160
If people realised that all the expenditure on ‘Nett Zero’ would actually achieve a net zero effect on the weather or climate at crippling cost and disruption of their lives, one would see a very different survey result.
270
The most important words in this piece are … “do you, fool, know better than the experts?”
The assumption that ill-informed lay-people somehow (a) understand the issue and (b) are in a position to judge whether either the “for” or “against” sides is correct is simply ridiculous.
But the climate scare has always been like this. The UN pumped out claptrap in media releases and the gullible media faithfully repeated it, and in doing so influenced public opinion. This misguided and ill-informed public opinion then put pressure on governments and political parties.
130
I suggest your use of “gullible” is incorrect, and that “complicit” is more appropriate.
Cheers,
Dave B
120
All these surveys are biased to generate an answer in support of the a certain aspect of the Official Narrative.
The question assumes some aspect of an emissions target is necessary or desirable. One question says “Reject all current emissions targets.” That says CURRENT targets, it should say ALL targets.
One of the options should have been to abandon Net Zero and all ruinables altogether.
And it is disturbing that the greatest number of people support current targets (28%), and the second greatest are “unsure” (26%), that’s 54%. And people wonder why Australia is dominated by Labor Governments.
If the fake conservative Liberals wants to win an election they need to abandon the entire ruinables scam altogether and sell that to the public with moral clarity. Not base every decision on surveys of the ignorant and uneducated. They should educate the masses. But they won’t because they are really Labor Lite.
200
Survey 101 –
“Are you still beating your Wife”?
“NO”
“So you were beating your Wife”.
80
I am an enthusiastic supporter, and fan, of fellow-Queenslander Matt Canavan. He could provide a valauble service to our nation, but it would come at a severe personal cost to him. I am proposing that he conduct a personalized educational tour for Minister Bowen to each country that is, either a current nuclear user, or planning to become one.
If he were to carry this out, he should qualify for several Nobel prizes.
100
Again, their ABC and the CSIRO told us before the election that a large Nuclear stn would cost about 8.5 billion $ and Dutton’s plan would cost about 60 billion $ or 0.06 trillion $ and last until 2100.
And 7 to 9 TRILLION $ would cost 116 to 150 times that full Nuclear cost and have to be replaced every 15 to 20 years.
The capacity factors for toxic , unreliable W & S are only 30% W and 15% S while cheap, clean and reliable Nuclear Stns have CFs of 93%.
140
BTW the lousy, unreliable, average capacity factor for Wind equals just 3.6 months per year and just 1.8 months average CF for Solar.
This is just laughable lunacy and yet very few people seem to have the sense to understand the simple sums and evidence.
Why is it so?
120
Again I’m using the W & S Net Zero Australia cost of 7 to 9 trillion $ and supported by US Princeton Uni, Melbourne Uni and Qld Uni.
But even the 1.5 trillion $ cost from Jo’s article would mean that W & S costs would be about 16.6 times more than Dutton’s Nuclear power stns.
110
Sorry another mistake that I’ve made this morning. Jo’s 1.5 trillion $ cost is 25 times the cost of 7 Nuclear power stns and not the 16.6 times I’ve written earlier.
I’ll just have to try harder.
80
Nett Zero “is achieved by both drastically reducing emissions, for instance from fossil fuels, and by removing the remaining, unavoidable emissions through methods like planting forests or carbon capture technologies. “
It is impossible to change atmospheric CO2. CO2 is in global equilibrium at all times with the 98% of CO2 dissolved in the vast oceans which cover 3/4 of the planet. Water too. The seas do not rise because it rains or the annual snow melts across the Northern Hemisphere. Equilibrium. Who proved it did not apply to CO2? Why this naive bucket view of the planet, random amounts of any gas? Especially super soluble CO2. And all of fossil fuels contribute a tiny 0.02% to total CO2 annually, distributed 98% ocean, 2% atmosphere.
Planting forests has no effect on CO2. And of course “carbon capture technologies” are a very expensive lie. But I suppose scientists and engineers work on nuclear weapons too.
The ridiculous lie was all proven by NASA satellites along with another five countries involved in analysing the data, including Australia. But nothing is said, certainly by the CSIRO. What happened to ethics?
So trees have zero effect on CO2, despite sequestering trillions of tons of CO2 between 1988 and 2014. Just look at CO2 in the atmosphere. A dead straight line for the last 50 years, oblivious to rocketing CO2 outputs.
While NASA and the CSIRO talk of ‘fertilization’ they know CO2 went up 14% and trees went up 14%. Not only are legislated Australian Carbon Credits science fraud, as CO2 goes up we get more trees in exact proportion. We saw the same when the massive East coast bushfires dumped CO2 from millions of trees in the South Pacific, causing a mass bloom in CO2 hungry phytoplankton. Again, ‘fertilization’.
So why do they persist in these lies? Is it just the money or is it the destruction of all Western democracies, as the other 95% of humanity could not care less. Especially China, India, United States, Russia and everyone else.
220
And the anti Semitic Albanese government has just discovered that their good friends in Iran are not very nice while in Australia. Would it surprise them to also know that their friends in China are very happy to sell them sub standard steel, very short lived windmills, slave built solar panels, transmission lines and towers and electric cars while dictating our coal and iron prices? Are they actually naive enough to believe net zero makes sense? Or are they just taking instructions with six Prime Ministerial trips to China and not one to America.
291
And while Alabanese and Bowen highly praise China’s supposed move to net zero, they might have noticed that the Chinese consumption of coal has tripled in the last twenty years and they now produce 60% of the world’s steel and 40% of all CO2, historically more than all other countries combined. So why are we even bothering? Who needs a fake survey of Australians when the situation is so obvious? Idiots of the South Pacific. And that’s the nice view.
280
TdeF, I can answer your question “why do they persist in these lies?”: the long march through the institutions has succeeded.
160
Tragically that march, started by the German communist Rudi Dutschke in 1967 is now complete.
Most people thought Communism ended in 1991 after President Reagan brought about the collapse of the USSR, but it was just made less visible.
Now Australia even has a full-on communist PM as documented by Trevor Loudon in Comrade Prime Minister: Anthony Albanese’s 40-Year Alliance with Australian Communism who is removing us from the US Alliance and aligning us with China and radical Islam under the Red-Green (Islamist) Alliance.
And also in accordance with China’s wishes for the West to destroy its economies with Net Zero, Australia is one of the world’s most fanatically committed to that as well.
The thing about the Left is that just like The Terminator “they absolutely will not stop, ever” to quote Kyle Reese.
110
The short march through the Australian Labor party. And the Greens who also hate Israel. I would love to hear the caring Greens explanation for siding with Hamas who murdered so many people at a music festival and in their homes.
140
Kos Samaras tweets relentlessly about these Resolve polls, attached to a comment that it will be electoral suicide for the LNP to ditch net zero. He never accepts that net zero is absolute trash and/or the LNP should reject it outright because it’s just wrong.
170
“Please answer this survey, but first take notice of what the experts say”
60
A lot us know of KS. He was one of the “ I stand with Dan” fanboys during the COVID bollocks. In fact, probably the biggest. Along with the Kouk. Unfortunately, most of what he says is correct , because he and his ilk know what to say to get all their lefty mates voted in. Particularly when there is no functional opposition either at state or federal level.
60
Jo’s first introductory paragraph says it all.
In a similar vein there is the spluttering “association” type science used by the IPCCCC “Frameworks” to link elements of earlier work by Arrhenius and Bohr with the concepts pushed in the CAGW drama.
One of the major giveaways is in the dodgy use of the term “greenhouse gas”.
Yes, CO2 is used in greenhouses, but it is used to facilitate the growth of plants in the protection of the greenhouse not to heat the place up. All plants gobble up CO2.
Even Arrhenius eventually accepted that CO2 wasn’t going to cause heating.
The Bohr model of atomic physics paints CO2 as having an “energy spit” at more than 30 degrees below zero, way up there where those Jumbo Jets cruise.
CO2 in our local atmosphere does not “gobble up” phantom energy and overheat and endanger our very existence, it must behave itself and follow the rational science of atmospheric physics.
So, if people being polled can say No, then they are heading in the right direction, but even if they don’t understand the true science, perhaps they’re reacting to the smug looks on the faces of our national and international politicians.
80
Porsche axes plans to build electric car batteries as demand collapses
Overhaul to trigger job losses as German car giant winds down operations at Cellforce
Porsche has scrapped plans to build its own electric vehicle (EV) batteries after collapsing demand from drivers.
The German carmaker announced that it will wind down operations at its production subsidiary Cellforce and refocus the division on research and development instead.
Oliver Blume, chief executive of Porsche and parent company Volkswagen Group, said: “Porsche will stop pursuing the production of its own battery cells due to reasons of volume and a lack of scale.”
Porsche confirmed the overhaul would lead to job losses, but it said that some workers would be transferred to PowerCo, a separate battery start-up owned by Volkswagen.
The IG Metall union previously said that around 200 of Cellforce’s almost 300 workforce would be laid off.
China dominates the market
But Western manufacturers have struggled to gain ground against China. Northvolt, the Swedish EV battery-maker, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, marking a major setback for hopes of a European battery champion.
Porsche’s about-turn underscores the darkening outlook for European EV makers.
EVs and hybrids accounted for more than a third of Porsche’s sales in the first half of the year, with rising demand for models such as the Macan SUV.
But demand is still lagging behind expectations, with the US market under pressure from Donald Trump’s move to roll back EV targets.
Porsche had previously scrapped plans to expand production at Cellforce, citing a “lack of volume worldwide”, while Mercedes-Benz, Ford and Honda are among other companies to have scaled back their EV plans.
110
Meanwhile German Chancellor (Australian Treasurer Snake Chalmers) Admits That Welfare State Is Running Out of Other People’s Money
The biggest, boldest lie of every welfare state is that the goods and services it is providing to its citizens are “free.”
Those of us with brain cells and an aversion to lying know that this is not only untrue, but also impossible.
Politicians are fond of throwing taxpayer dollars around like drunk Kennedy cousins on summer break in Monte Carlo in order to make voters love them.
Despite being full-throated advocates for “sustainability” when it comes to almost anything else, socialist welfare state types are committed to an economic system that simply cannot go on forever. In the immortal words of the late, great Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.” How long it is before “eventually” happens is entirely based on the habits of prevaricating, spendthrift politicians, obviously.
As Americans are painfully aware, even capitalist countries are plagued by the socialist tendencies of many of their politicians. A bloated welfare state is obviously not any red-blooded capitalist’s ideal; that kind of bloat comes from politicians who still insist that socialism simply hasn’t been done correctly yet.
Europe’s various welfare state countries are often pointed to as dream scenarios by American leftists. Never mind that the comparisons are absurd from the get-go, Democrats have never let glaring illogic slow them down. One prominent European leader is now offering a painful truth: his welfare state has gotten too pricey.
This is from a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece titled “A Politician Speaks the Unspeakable”:
Thank you, Chancellor, for this burst of candor. Mr. Merz is doing what no one else in the top ranks of Western politics seems willing to do, which is broach the fundamental dilemma of the modern West. Nations have built welfare and entitlement states that are so large they have outstripped the ability of slow-growing economies to pay for them. Yet because the entitlement cushion is so broad and reaches deep into the middle class, it has become nearly impossible to reform.
160
I received an email from Liberal HQ today, asking me to donate so that they could “hold Labor to account and fight for policies that grow enterprise, investment, and jobs” by ‘cutting red tape, boosting productivity, and securing jobs“, the premise being that “Labor has introduced 5,034 new regulations and 400 new laws since Mr Albanese became Prime Minister? The cost of compliance is $4.8 billion, based on the government’s own analysis.“.
My reply (in full bar salutation etc):
“I have donated to the Liberal party before, but I will only donate again when the Liberal party announces that it is totally opposed to Net Zero, that it will cut all government support for wind and solar renewable energy, and that it will ensure that Australia’s industry and people have access to plentiful cheap reliable energy using all of coal, gas, hydro and nuclear energy.
Please note that “climate change” is a deliberate fraud, created by the world’s political left to increase their own power and to crush the people. The “97% of scientists” nonsense is part of the fraud. It has to stop, and I will now only vote for a party that is committed to ending the Net Zero disaster and everything that comes with it. Yes it is important to oppose Labor’s strangling regulations, but they are only part of the bigger picture.“.
I cc’d Angus Taylor and Nampijinpa Price in the hope that there is a factional argument going on in the Libs and that HQ would fear factions more than they fear Labor.
Will it do any good? Who knows. But if we don’t tell Lib HQ loud and clear and often that Net Zero is a disaster then we surely won’t get anywhere.
290
Yeah !!!
90
I’m guessing 83% of the people answering had no idea that emissions had targets.
“Excuse me Sir, Mam or Other…
what is your target for emissions in 2050?”
“Well, my main target is to still be emitting in 2050.”
Turgid comes to mind.
Turgids fly in private jets to turgid conferences about turgidity.
And turgidly ponder a turgid 43% target for 25 years from now.
Not 42, not 44, but a turgid 43.
Then ask for opinions on turgid cr@p no normal person even understands.
Like intersectional non-binary patriarchal colonization and gender affirming cultural appropriation of cis-gender BIPOC micro aggressive land acknowledgements because Trump is H!tLer.
And that’s a short list of the turgid faux intellectual cr@p that’s been force fed to us for the last decade or more.
130
Honk Honk to that!
I still prefer the Kiwi transliteration “Nutt” Zero myself.
80
Should ask,
1/ Do you want the power to be there when you flick the switch.
2/ Do you care how it is produced.
100
I fully support Net Zero: 💪💪👌👌
# Net Zero taxes being spent on green grifter Ponzi schemes. 💰
# Net Zero burning battery cars. 🔥
# Net Zero Green created unemployment 😱
# Net Zero mass-migration of unemployable welfare-chasing Rent-Seekers. 🔥💰🏃♂️🏃♀️🏃♂️🏃♀️
# Net Zero African child slave labour digging for “green minerals” so they can make cheap green batteries. 👹💰🔥
110
Latest Poll Results:
87% support using child slave labour to dig the “cheap” rare earth minerals to make cheap electric batteries to subsidise the woke rich. 🔥👹💰💰💰
90
Umm, with respect to how much money has been outlaid so far on this wonderful journey to Nett Zero.
Just imagine this for one fleeting minute.
There are now 91 Industrial wind plants in Australia, and that equates to a total Nameplate of a whoppingly humungous, just think how big ….. 13,460MW.
Forget how much they have cost us over the years, because, well, you know, that’s unimportant, because we have to get to nett zero you know, so hang the cost.
In all, those 91 (count ’em) Industrial wind plants delivered a huge amount of electricity into the grids to power so many millions of homes, and that energy delivered to the grids came in a a whopping 28.2TWH.
It’s (shh! don’t do this Tony) so unfair to even begin to compare that power delivery with those ancient, unsafe, unreliable, dinosaur stranded asset coal fired power plants from the 1980’s, so now almost (well more than really) 40 years old disgusting coal fired power plants, but hey, let’s do that exercise eh!
Just two for those filthy dirty coal fired plants, both in NSW, the Bayswater plant, and the Eraring plant, well, they delivered an almost insignificant 31.9TWH of energy into that same AEMO grid last year.
Umm, wait a minute, surely that can’t be right, that’s more than the total wind power delivery in the same year.
So, let me see if I’ve got this right.
We’ve outlaid billions and billions of dollars on NINETY ONE Industrial wind plants, and we still haven’t generated enough power to equal two lousy ancient coal fired power plants with a Nameplate of only 5500MW, so only 40% of wind’s Nameplate.
Someone saw us coming I think!
Roll on nett zero, no matter what the cost!
Tony.
220
Born Lucky
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/13/born-lucky-stars-align-perfectly-for-pms-son-with-mammoth-bet-on-wind-power-outfit-infigen/
60
Grafton max temp today 28 C. Ve are haffing ze globale boiling in ze August, meine hairies.
90