Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Nov 18, 2009


Morgan released a telephone poll yesterday (split into two parts) that looks at public perceptions of global warming and views on the current CPRS legislation. It was a phone poll running off a sample of 674, giving us an MoE that maxes out around the 3.8% mark.

The first question asked was “Which of the following is closest to your view about Global Warming?”. There were for possible responses, and we can track them across time:


The results here support what we’ve seen in both Essential Research and Newspoll polling on this topic over the last 12 months or so – a growing level of generic scepticism towards global warming. Yet, where it becomes interesting isn’t in the headline results (although they’re interesting enough), but in the demographic and party ID composition of those results.

viewbydemo viewbyparty

Men (37%)  and non-capital city (36%) respondents are two largest and undoubtedly interrelated cohorts that believe concerns about global warming are exaggerated.There really is a substantial gender and geographic gap on global warming. On the political ID side of the equation, Labor and Greens voters have near identical levels of belief on the need to act, with the Greens having a slightly more “we’ll all be rooned” component and the ALP having a slightly larger skeptics component.  The 11% of Greens voters that believed concerns are exaggerated was a little out of left field. I’d imagine they’d be the life of the party and any Greens shindig.

Yet, this still doesn’t tell the whole story. We can compare these results from an identical poll Morgan ran on this topic 3 months ago, back in August. If we measure how the demographic and Party ID responses have changed over the period – we can see how how and where the campaign against global warming has been having it’s largest effect.

changeviewbydemo changeviewbyparty

On the demographic side, the gender/geography polarisation has ramped up. The proportion of non-capital city respondents that believe that if we don’t act now it will be too late declined by 10% over the previous 3 months, shifting straight across on net to believing that global warming concerns are exaggerated (9% increase). Similarly, there was a 6% drop in the proportion of men that believe we need to act, with a 5% increase in the proportion of men now believing that concerns are exaggerated. The number of women skeptical of global warming didnt change over the period, although the intensity of female belief on the issue shifted, with a 5% reduction in women believing we need to act – all moving across to now believing it’s already too late.

On the political side, that shift in female intensity of belief on global warming was mirrored with Labor voters –  a 7% reduction in the proportion of skeptical ALP supporters occurring since August, and an 8% increase in the proportion of Labor voters that believe it’s already too late. The Coalition has reduced its “need to act” proportion by 7%, mostly shifting to the skeptical position.

Interesting here is the Greens – and not so much in terms of how the beliefs of their supporters changed over the period, but in how they did not change.

That 4% increase in the level of skeptical greens voters is probably neither here nor there (I hope so for their sake!) – but the absence of any real growth in the “It’s already too late” component of their voter base suggests that their nihilistic fringe on this issue has already maxed itself out for the time being. There appears to be much less political currency for the Greens in doom mongering over global warming than there is in being seen to constructively address the “If we dont act now it will be too late” part of the debate – something they might want to keep in mind when it comes to their media tactics.

The other question Morgan asked was on the CPRS legislation:

“There’s proposed legislation before Federal Parliament for a carbon emissions trading scheme to be introduced in Australia.Do you approve or disapprove of this legislation?”

We only have two polls worth of results on this question – so we don’t have any long term trends available, but we do have the three month change data.


While 50% still approve of the CPRS – there’s been a 5% drop since August, a 7 point increase in disapproval of the proposed CPRS and probably a slight reduction in the numbers that say they “don’t understand”.

On the results by demographic cohort and Party ID we get:

cprsbydemo cprsbyparty

The demographic side of the CPRS issue is not far removed from generic views on global warming, with men and non-capital city respondents having the lowest level of approval, and women and those in the capitals having the highest. The large disapproval rating for men and the non-capital cities is highly likely to be driven by those over the 50 years of age – Morgan also has that data on their site in the links given at the top of the post for anyone that wants to check it out.

On the Party ID side, a majority of Greens voters approve of the CPRS – making the Greens the party that is most out of step with the actual views of it’s constituency. A clear majority of Labor voters approve and a plurality of Coalition voters disapprove – the Greens really are the odd one out here. As the Democrats demonstrated, minor parties need to be pay more attention to the way their policy aligns with the views of their constituents than the major parties – particularly over their core issues.

With the Coalition, the cost/benefit risk of their opposition to the CPRS is pretty dangerous – they’re almost caught in a lose/lose situation. If they pass the CPRS, 45% of their voters will disagree with the party’s actions, while if they prevent the legislation from passing, 37% of their voters will disagree with their actions – that is a substantial chunk of political grief lurking in the background regardless of what they ultimately do. If the Coalition block the legislation, it opens their predominantly female capital city flank up for electoral attack by Labor and the Greens at the next election – which really would be dangerous since we already know that the Coalition and Malcolm Turnbull are weak with female voters.

If we move on to how the demographics and  Party ID responses changed over the last 3 months.

changecprsbydemo changecprsbyparty

Again, the big movement was in men and country voters, having a respective 9% and 11% reduction in approval responses over the CPRS. Yet while the change from approval on the CPRS for males went straight to disapproval on net, with country respondents it was split between an increase in CPRS disapproval and “Can’t Say”. Quite a few country respondents became skeptical skeptics.

Which is fair enough – I’d be loathe to believe a  word Barnaby said about anything more complicated than a cup of tea as well.

The other thing on the demographic side that stands out is how the “Don’t Understands” clarified their position into mostly disapproval over the last three months, suggesting the undecideds are breaking against the CPRS legislation, in both the capital cities and the country regions.

With the Party ID breakdowns, the biggest movement was a 19 point increase in disapproval of the CPRS legislation (from 16 in August to 35 in November) – although that also contains those strange “concerns are exaggerated” Greens and there was a large number of undecideds breaking into the disapproval camp. Labor had a slight bump up in support and drop in disapproval, while the Coalition had a 12% reduction in the proportion of their voters that approve the CPRS running with an 11% increase in those that disapprove.

All up, there’s quite a bit of info to chew over here.


Elsewhere: Larvatus Prodeo


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

87 thoughts on “Global Warming and CPRS Polling

  1. Nothing Empowers The Third Eye Better Than Taxpayer-Funded Chardonnay « Under The Milky Way

    […] Minchin, like Howard, is chained to the past but Howard’s chains were cultural, not political. Howard at least gave lip-service to Climate Change, but Minchin is dying in a ditch on this and could take the entire party with him. Psephological analysis of the electoral devestation to be wrought on a Climate Change Denialist Liberal Party shows that the only electoral survivors will be those on the ideological right – leaving essentially a rump of old men sailing surely into an ideologically blinkered, though iceberg-less, oblivion. (Note: It is men and non-capital city dwellers that are Australia’s AGW Denialists according to this poll and analysis by Possum […]

  2. Is climate change denialism the new Hansonism? « city of tongues

    […] the community. A few weeks ago Roy Morgan released some polling data about the question, which Crikey’s Possum has offered some useful commentary on. Several things stand out in the Morgan data. First, belief in climate change and the need for […]

  3. Cat

    Ok given the above and the hilarity of the Libs behaviour this week (the gift that just keeps on giving) are the Libs saying damn the middle ground we need to solidify our base before we lose it too or do they think the trend to doubting climate change will actually surprise the government in a double dissolution election? Clearly they believe the electorate would pass their hijinks off by as high spirits. Either that or there was some bad acid in the punch at their Christmas drinks.

    Cannot wait for the next poll. Will there be a Newspoll on Tuesday morning?

  4. blue_green


    I am interested to know how taking an climate sceptic view would play for the NSW Nats at the next state election. I think it might work in the seats west of the divide but I suspect it would be damaging on the North Coast. Is Baranaby just inspiring more Rob Oakshotts?


  5. Frank Campbell

    John2066: Sorry mite, it’s all just weather. Tempting to attribute it to AGW, but resist the temptation. Sure Melb. has had a poor year for rain. Most of the state has done well, as I said.

    What if we have a cool, wet summer now? If we do, it will prove nothing.

  6. james mcdonald

    Minchin and Abbott I meant in the last post. Not Minchin and Tuckey. God, one of these days I’ll get sued for defamation for one of my name mix-ups.

  7. james mcdonald

    Labor Outsider – that’s what he’ll do. Turnbull will use this to clear out some of the troublemakers after a vote, which he will win.
    Something I read about Castro, he told a trusted army general to try and put together a coup against him. To flush out all those disloyal among the elite. All but the double-agent general were cleaned up at the end. Not that Minchin or Tuckey would sacrifice themselves for Turnbull, but that’s what they may as well be doing. After this Turnbull might actually be able to lead the party.

    It’s also interesting that the Libs, not the Nats, talked Labor into including rewards for farmers sequestering carbon in the soil. According to the Wentworth scientists group, the farmers would benefit from this even if the climate isn’t threatened.

  8. Labor Outsider

    “With the Coalition, the cost/benefit risk of their opposition to the CPRS is pretty dangerous – they’re almost caught in a lose/lose situation. If they pass the CPRS, 45% of their voters will disagree with the party’s actions, while if they prevent the legislation from passing, 37% of their voters will disagree with their actions – that is a substantial chunk of political grief lurking in the background regardless of what they ultimately do.”

    I wonder whether this is entirely true. This paragraph assumes that the opinion of coalition supporters on climate change issues is exogenous to the stance taken by the party on such issues. While true for some, for others, their own view is probably shaped by the party’s own scepticism. If the coalition leadership took a proper stand on supporting both the science and the need to act, coalition supporters’ views might be more sympathetic as well. I imagine there will also be a difference here between rusted on supporters and more marginal supporters and it is probably the case that at least some people in the ALP camp would think more favourably toward the coalition if they looked more sensible on the issue. Appealing to the party’s base just seems like a losing proposition unless they are convinced that support for the government’s position is very very soft. This is especially the case when thinking about the demographic trends running against the coalition.

    If I were Turnbull I’d call Minchin’s bluff…pass the legislation with some amendments and let him and his supporters cross the floor. If there is then a leadership challenge – bring it on. If he wins, his leadership is strengthened. If he loses, well, he can leave the party to its annihilation at the next election.

  9. Possum Comitatus

    Barking, you have to better than that here.

  10. james mcdonald

    (groan) … here we go …

  11. Barking


    You rather miss the point, the whole CPRS is a waste of time, the only reason that the COALlusion are the slightest bit interested is that the ‘futures’ players and the Dirty polluters are all circling like sharks.

  12. james mcdonald

    “Where is the polling or focus groups showing that people think that vested interests deserve $billions upon Billions.”
    Still thinking in terms of how the world should be, not how it is. It’s inevitable that som of the climate-action supporters will want to fix everything that’s unfair about the world on the way to implementing a climate change solution. I appreciate the view that a sense of emergency might scare people into remodelling everything at once, like a wartime pulling together. But in reality it won’t work that way. The reason is human nature. Even the majority of those who believe in AGW place a higher priority on what they can see and touch, above what they have been told and believe. So a solution has to be found within the existing system, as much as possible. A bit of concession to realpolitik, vested interests and all, is now a must. There’s no time to make everything morally fair.

  13. Barking

    Interesting Stuff.
    Global Warming is not like the debate over many ‘social’ isuues.
    The laws of thermodynamics do not respond to spin. They do not moderate due to appeals for compromise and pragmatism.
    Its one of the failings of the current approaches of the ‘old’ parties is that in their mad rush to find out what people believe and then parrot it back to them, mixed with a full frontal appeal to vested interests, they leave a policy debacle in their wake.
    Where is the polling or focus groups showing that people think that vested interests deserve $billions upon Billions. Its not there. Where are the polling? It would never get past the editors. They are all to aware that this issue is explosive, polarising and maddening for the pollies and their advisors.
    People don’t get why the Greens have decided no to suppor the ETS. The reason is that it won’t work.
    To expose the Greens to this would have split the party. Many members who are aware of the real dangers being shown by the science would have walked and formed another party instantly. If you want an example of this. the ACF is hanging by a thread. There exposure is thus, they got caught supporting the pathetic targets, why? Firstly they are linked to government funding.
    Secondly the ego of Don Henry, he see himself as a player. He badly miscalculated this issue, after all the rehtoric of the ‘Al Gore’ thingo he then walks out and supports the 5% thing. Madness. ACF memberships have collapsed.
    The Greens vote keeps increasing and importantly the reality of the situation continues to grow.
    The fact that the sceptics and their funded PR firms keep marching on amazes and will lead to an interesting place. There should be some media scrutiny of their funding, their science, etc.
    How can they say that the CPRS won’t work when by definition, they don’t believe in Global Warming, therefore , releasing pink doves at noon would have the effect of solving GW. Their positions are all over the place.
    The Greens are being very moderate in their message. Solutions, moving passed oil etc, Peak oil, 21st century jobs etc etc etc.
    What an amazing set of elections coming up.

  14. james mcdonald

    … and its in-principle opposition to nuclear power. All the anti-nuclear arguments are fair, and can be taken into consideration weighing options on their merits. Maybe nuclear is no good for us on balance. But ruling it out on principle is a luxury we can no longer afford.

  15. james mcdonald

    Excellent point. That’s why I’m a bit worried about the government launching special programs for solar or CCS development.

  16. zoomster

    which is why Labor is taking the ‘leave it to the market’ approach – there are solutions out there we don’t know about, perhaps having dreamt of, but will be encouraged if there is an incentive to do so.
    As an aside, I had to help fill out a candidate survey a couple of years ago, one of those ‘we’ll use your answers to inform the electorate’ things. One of the questions was “Would you vote for a new brown coal fired power station?” and you were expected to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
    I don’t think you can give that kind of answer to that kind of question, largely because fo the kind of scenario you suggest. If the power station is more efficient and produces less CO2 and replaces one that isn’t, then surely the answer must be yes?

  17. james mcdonald

    Thank you, I appreciate the interest and yes you’ve addressed my questions.
    A final point: the goal is not to reduce emissions from every single smokestack. The goal is to reduce the total concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Using the law of comparative advantage, there may be better ways to do this than killing the coal market, which as you say is excellent fuel. Maybe Australian companies and taxpayers could earn carbon credits helping set up low-carbon power stations in China, where it’s cheaper to build them? The offset credits could then enable competitive coal exports to continue. I don’t know. Just looking for out-of-the square economic angles, to compliment the abundance of technological ones.

  18. zoomster

    not quite as high up as you think I am but can certainly try and get some of this answered!
    (a) no you’re not. As is repeated ad lib ad nauseam, businesses are not charities. But they’re not ogres either. They’re just trying to make a buck. (It’s a bit like trying to make people understand that the law has nothing to do with what’s right. It’s just the law).
    (b) I’m sure it has, but will investigate. One of the surprising thing I find with the whole coal industry debate is where the pressures are coming from. I’ve never been lobbied by the coal industry (but, as said, I’m not high on the food chain). I did once have to delete every reference to ‘brown coal’ in a policy document but that was because of pressure from ordinary rank and file members. They weren’t even trying to protect their jobs or their unionists jobs, they were more generally trying to protect the economy of the LaTrobe valley, as people who lived there.
    The trouble is – I know everyone knows this, but let’s re emphasise – coal is a terrific fuel. A couple of decades ago we were all gooey over it because it wasn’t nuclear. And it’s cheap, and we have boundless plains of it to share. It really is hard (if you’re a government of any stripe) to just leave it there….
    As I say, I think it’s logical to assume that power companies will go on producing power, but simply from different sources. And I also think the CPRS (and its related bills) aims to encourage this. But I’ll have a poke around and see if I can come up with something a bit more profound.
    (c) No. However, it might be a game for wiser heads than you or I. This is the sort of thing I like to talk to the guys on the ground about – avoid the policy makers, the managers etc and chat to the engineers.
    (d) As I said, not at that dizzy height yet, but will see what I can do.

    I hope I’m understanding you here, please correct me if I’m not.

    And gusface, interesting stuff. I am reminded in this debate about Malthus – he predicted the end of the world due to over population and everything he said was dead right at the time. But technology changed and we’re still here (and still over populated!)
    I don’t want to rely on it, though!

  19. james mcdonald

    And I don’t need an answer straight away. Mainly I’m wondering:
    (a) Am I on the wrong track with the competitive-advantage / what’s-in-it-for-us angle (and judjing by your anecdote, no I’m not)
    (b) Has this already been discussed in the party room or with the industry (or does the industry avoid saying so for fear of sounding avaricious)
    (c) Am I in La La Land thinking there might be a way to tackle it?
    (d) If None of the above, would you be willing to bring up this point in the party room – in the off chance that it can lead to a breakthrough?

  20. Gusface

    [As for research: the most intriguing one I’ve heard is in the realm of the biological. Spiders, for example, can manufacture high grade, high tensile thread at body temperature and using only the materials to hand. If you could replicate this process industrially, the difference between the temperatures needed for (say) high grade steel and spider web equivalent produced at body temperature would mean massive energy savings.]

    This one is a showstopper
    [ what could be a major breakthrough, Joule Biotechnologies announced that it has directly produced fuel from the plentiful carbon dioxide in the air around us using highly engineered photosynthetic microbes.inside specially designed reactors, Joule’s engineered microbes thrive off of sunlight and CO2. In return, depending on the type of organism, they can produce straight ethanol, diesel or a number of other types of hydrocarbons.]


  21. james mcdonald

    Yes, I see what you mean. A world where the board would say “do it because it’s the right thing” would be nice, but meanwhile back at the ranch …
    That’s the key, I’m starting to think. Not, “how effective is this technology and how much money can it make?”, but “Whom does it make money for?”
    And the answer with wind farms and solar dishes and so on is: anybody! There are no “barriers to entry” as the equities analysts say. And without barriers to entry, it’s hard to convince those analysts to say Buy.
    That may be why the coal industry continues to favour CCS when many observers claim it’s very low down on the cost-effectiveness scale for reducing CO2.
    So I’m trying to think of mechanisms by which coal companies, with help from the taxpayer, could gain a competitive advantage in a future energy industry where dependence on coal is greatly reduced.
    And I also have my doubts about the Government’s CPRS scheme which hands out free permits instead of handing out some other kind of compensation, one which is future-building both for us and for the high-polluting company.
    That’s what I’m asking for your comment on. Not whether it’s fair to compensate polluters (I agree it is) but what form that compensation would take.

  22. zoomster

    A couple of years ago I got to tour a very exciting new clean energy development, with the managers of the board of this international company present.
    I wasn’t important enough to be spoken to personally, but I kept my ears open – one of the managers recounted to the VIP that he had gone to the board a couple of years prior with a scheme which would dramatically reduce their CO2 output at relatively little cost.
    The board had asked him what return would they get for this? The answer was, of course, none.
    So nothing happened.
    It would be great if we could rip up the whole fabric of our society and its financial structures and start again. I’d lead the charge. But we can’t, and we have to accept realities. (I would have loved it if the GFC had compelled us to do this. It hasn’t. Opportunity missed).
    And part of that reality is that, in a capitalist society, you can only compel businesses, industries, organisations and individuals so far. If you take something away from them, even potentially, you have to be able to give something back.
    The trick for government is working out what that should be (and it’s also one of the questions I’ve asked above).
    The big energy companies are the ones with the knowledge and the know how to make new energies competitive – we need to keep them on side, at least a little bit.
    I think it’s meant to work like this: under the CPRS, the price of electricity will rise (no one seems to doubt that). So, if I’m a business, and I can find a way to cut my costs for electricity, that means I will be able to compete more effectively against other businesses that don’t. So I’ll either shop around amongst power companies for the best deal, or I’ll look for alternative energies so I can supply my own.
    If there’s enough customers shopping around and going to the cheaper energy options, there’s more pressure on companies to produce energy more cheaply. Since energy prices will be linked to carbon output, this means there will be more pressure on the development and use of cleaner (and artificially cheaper) energy.
    According to the ducky way market forces work, clean energy doesn’t need to be much cheaper for this to happen.
    As for research: the most intriguing one I’ve heard is in the realm of the biological. Spiders, for example, can manufacture high grade, high tensile thread at body temperature and using only the materials to hand. If you could replicate this process industrially, the difference between the temperatures needed for (say) high grade steel and spider web equivalent produced at body temperature would mean massive energy savings.

  23. james mcdonald

    Andrew, the Greens also capture a lot of the protest vote since the Democrats imploded

  24. Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Reasons for opposing the ETS

    […] The Pollytics blog analysis of these results shows that it seems to be largely driven by partisan effects, with Labor voters becoming less likely to believe that concerns are exaggerated and Coalition voters more likely to believe that concerns are exaggerated (surprisingly, Green voters are also showing increased scepticism; if this is real it is perhaps a reminder that about a third of Green voters appear to be low-ideology, not-rusted-on, supporters). […]

  25. james mcdonald

    And by the way zoomster, I fully agree with you that “you do have to compensate industry and we shouldn’t let our prejudices get in the way of this.”
    It’s not just a question of whether your home is on mains power or you drive to work. If you have a job, you benefit from coal-boosted business. If you benefit from any public expenditure at all, some of that public expenditure came from taxes on the coal industry. The only ones of us who can truly claim not to have benefitted from coal are those living in poverty-stricken Aboriginal settlements, but that’s another story. So let’s get over any idea (stated elsewhere, not here) that particular industries should be the sacrificial goats for all our sins.

    My issue is with the form of that compensation, not with its generosity.

  26. james mcdonald

    Isn’t the problem with CPRS that instead of offering polluters a carrot, it offers to exchange the stick for a feather?
    It should still be possible to entice polluters to reduce carbon, by finding a way to give them a competitive advantage in the future energy market (I’m thinking mainly of coal miners here), once their current competitive advantage based on mineral resources no longer controls the energy market..
    For example, instead of giving them one dollar “compensation”, give them two dollars of R&D subsidy vouchers for developing sustainable energy, as well as strong protection of the patents they develop, and points towards having first option to build and operate future power stations. The extra dollar to be paid by the taxpayer.

  27. Tim Hollo

    Thanks for your openness there, zoomster.

  28. zoomster

    Apologies, Tim – I had been trying the http://www.greens.org.au site, didn’t realise there was another.

    Have had a quick read, but it would be foolish for me to respond on the basis of that. I agree that targets should be higher, but still argue that we have to go with what’s possible rather than what’s perfect.

    Anyway, I need to go back and read it again, a bit more carefully. Get back to you later!

  29. zoomster

    Thanks, Tim.
    I’d rather not be anonymous but I have to be. I’m a prominent ALP member in a very safe conservative seat and something of a public figure here. The sitting member is one of the nastiest of the nasty Libs and I can’t afford to give them any ammo to use against me.
    I have had the experience of my cover being blown on a site and know what the consequences are – they weren’t pretty.
    If you want to debate me without the cloud of anonymity, I am happy for poss to give you my email address.
    Meanwhile, I’m off to check out the Green site again. I am sorry if I’ve wasted your time on this, I really did look before!

  30. Tim Hollo

    zoomster, I’m sorry, I have to respond to that one. You went to our site and couldn’t find it? It’s front and centre of the front page. If you are interested in anything more than sledging, take a look. Then address the content.

    Perhaps you should consider that other individuals have backed me up because my arguments hold sway?

    Far be it from me to say this on Possum’s site, given his previously anonymous history, but I do find it frustrating debating with someone when I have no idea who they are. Nobody has to guess that I am a Green – I am totally up front about it. I am a staffer for Christine Milne as anyone who cares to look can find out. I blog in a personal capacity at Rooted and elsewhere, but that’s who I am.

  31. zoomster

    And besides, I think it’s rude if someone has addressed a post to you to simply ignore it. I assume that posts asking me questions want me to answer them.

  32. zoomster

    No, I couldn’t access Tim’s links, I tried, and I asked him to explain what his information meant. That’s called having a discussion. I made it clear (I thought) that I wanted to understand his position.

    No, I don’t have much tact, willing to admit that. I’m into saving the world, which I think is far more important than people’s sensibilities.

    If you think that questioning the CPRS is a valid process, then what’s wrong with what I’m doing? I’m really trying to understand the basis for questioning it (and am on the record, maybe not on this thread but on numerous others, as saying I don’t think it goes far enough) so that I know whether I’m right or not. I don’t assume that I am, but I don’t just accept talking points either – I want to know whether they have a real basis and if so what that basis is.

    As I explained, I did try and read Tim’s link but couldn’t access it. I went to the Green site to see if I could find it there and couldn’t.

    I don’t see why it’s reasonable for people to accuse the government of deep and dark designs, and you do too, and then not be asked to explain what they mean. If they can’t, or won’t, it’s reasonable to assume that they’re just regurgitating what they’ve been told.

    I hope I haven’t been derisive of anyone. I have occasionally rephrased some comments, in an attempt to check that I’ve understood them properly. If I haven’t, then it would be courteous of people to assume that I need it explained more clearly than to assume I’m taking the micky.

  33. Mr Anderson

    No. My idea is actually discussing points and providing useful information and insight to back those points up. Don’t act as if you don’t love the opportunity to blow your trumpet in someone elses face at every opportunity. If you really thought people were ‘butting it’ then you’d ignore them and move on. Instead you just continue to make an ass of yourself.

    Tim provided us with useful information about questioning the CPRS, he backed this up with useful links and information. You provided us with a few hollow opinions that don’t have a logical backing or sense. I think you have the wrong idea that the ‘Green brigade’ is refruting your statements based on a blind idolization of Tim. Until this thread I knew very little about Tim at all, the reason I’m asking you to get off your horse is based on the content of YOUR posts, not Tims.

    I would have thought the fact that some fool denier thought you were in the same camp would have been enough reason for you to take pause and look at your ‘input’ to this conversation. Obviously you do take CC seriously and have some valid opinions about it but you have no tact.

    I think that questioning the CPRS motives and outcomes is a very valid process. Can we really trust a government that has the coal industry in their back posck to deliver us true CO2e reductions? Did you actually read any of the information Tim posted before ‘yelling’ over the top of him with the ‘lets take any action now to feel good’ statements you’re being preceived to make.

    Anyhow, if you don’t want to be engaged by myself or others, feel free to ignore everyone here aside from your target of derision.

  34. Mr Anderson

    “Astrobleme, the reason you don’t like engaging with me is because you can’t.”

    Ugh… please learn some decency and humility. Who the hell do you think you are?

  35. zoomster

    Thanks Mr Anderson for that helpful insight.

    Asking for information, asking people to expand on their ideas, asking people to explain what they mean IS having a conversation.

    Just skip over me if you don’t want to read me.

    I find it amusing that so many people feel the need to engage with me. Now, if you’d just let Tim and I have a conversation without butting it, it’d be all over by now. But no, ‘cos Tim’s Green and I’m asking him to justify his statements, the rest of the Green brigade have to come riding to his defence.

    I’m entitled to defend my own points of view and my own statements, which is what I’ve been doing.

    Your idea of a conversation seems to be everyone agreeing with the Green party line and condemning the ALP.

    Surely you can just look at how many people are doing one on this post and how many are doing the other and just feel smug that you’re obviously winning? If you can’t, perhaps you’re less certain about my ineffectualness than you want to be.

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/18/global-warming-and-cprs-polling-2/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.