God it is frightening to think that a bloke as dumb as this could have been the shadow minister for science and the environment from 2001 to 2004. No wonder the coalition were & still are getting so much wrong.

CO2 can not cause run away global warming, with out a whole pile of mythical tipping points, now totally disproven, doing the job for it.

He is even silly enough to say "Yes, we can generate electricity cheaply with renewable solar and wind but we still need batteries or pumped hydro or some other way of storing that energy in a way that will provide dispatchable, non-intermittent", power. While any Liberals believe wind & solar are cheep, we are in trouble.

He obviously has a political brain, & realises the current range of renewables can't keep the lights on, but still falls for the scam.

I am as happy as the next Chappy, the grub who ripped-off the lowest paid, the cleaners, for millions, and raped a sixteen yo girl on his staff, is not to be PM.

But I'm not happy with a "log" high up in the National Party, who short shifted eighty million dollars of taxpayer funding to his big end mates, and walked away Scott free either.

In the end, the boring election figures prove the point. Both major parties actually lost primary votes, as the election outcome became the business as usual tussle of the swinging seats.

As boring as bat S* and nothing will change for the better for most of us.

Dan

Bernie, you maintain in your article that nuclear is not an option and Oz should invest into research into storage.

The problem is research is not a linear approach to the problem. You presume that throwing money at it will yield a serendipitous storage solution that viably makes intermittent renewables dispatchable.

We need a national education project on the facts surrounding nuclear energy before a debate on its pros and cons unsullied by the dogma that led to its prohibition.

Bernie. Our so-called Cheif Scientist Is contradicted by several NASA scientists and has remained stubbornly silent on nuclear energy. As I understand it, his salary and entitlements are paid for by the government And consequently limited in what he's allowed to say?

. And you have clearly not read or not understood anything I've proposed. Nothing on nuclear waste burning MSR, nor what Graphene highways would do for electric vehicles and their range. Little wonder we have the energy policy/shambles we have and our patently stalled economy, chocking to death on unaffordable power and unaffordable homes, etc etc.

And down to, I believe, self-serving recalcitrant tin-eared folk just like you all struck down with a very severe and enduring Sargent Schulz syndrome? One has listened to our Cheif scientist on numerous occasions and remain terribly unimpressed. He seems cast in your mould as a new idea-free zone or gagged?
Alan B.

"It may have always been the case but the ALP clearly believed that state voting results would translate into federal polling results. How else do you explain their belief that they'd win up to 5 seats in WA and several seats in Victoria?".

So, I'm not wrong then, Bernie? and it was only the ALP that believed the myth?

Ttbn.

If both major parties actually lost one percent of primary votes by comparison to 2016, then that really says the election was won on preferences.

Voters obviously didn't stampede towards the major parties. It was entirely an election fought on preferences.

So people didn't get what they voted for at all did they.
What they voted for would appear to be the minor parties.

It's a rip-off, how typical. If your happy with a rip-off election outcome, go for it China!

The only encouraging signs I observe, of manipulated election outcomes, are South Africa and Indonesia. People actually get off their back side and protest against the criminals.

Dan