" ‘wet’ liberals, or as they sometimes call themselves, Modern Liberals. Tim Wilson, Dave Sharma, Jason Falinski, Katie Allen, Angie Bell and Trent Zimmerman have even gone as far as joining the Parliamentary Friends of Climate Action group."

That says it all, could you imagine if the wet right wingers of Labour joined a "Climate realist/denier" group.. they would be thrown out. Proves these the Liberals are a broader and more diverse group than Labour and better for it!

I dislike/distrust libs and Labour both equally and dream of a time when are local MP (state and federal)…one must always dream! but never try holding your breath for them to come true!

The dissidents mentioned are not just wets; they are small 'l' liberals better suited to Labor or the Greens. Politics is so much a 'career' these days that these sorts of people latch onto the party that will get them elected. Ideology and personal integrity don't come into it. Malcolm Turnbull was one such creature; his first choice was Labor, but they had the good sense to reject him.

The only people who can rid us of these soldiers of fortune without a conscience or sense of honesty are voters; but they don't have the interest or the wit to withhold their votes from a dodgy candidate for just one election, because they think that their beloved party is the right one to elect at every occasion. And, of course, the Liberal party is notoriously stupid when it comes to choosing candidates. The ALP, rot its socks, selects true blues who rarely, if ever, deviate from the party line. Who knows what the Liberals will do anymore? What do they believe? They are certainly of little use to socialist-hating conservatives, who's votes they no longer seem to care about. And, despite the personal strength Scott Morrison has shown over the last few weeks, he is still not the man to command and discipline his mutinous (in the case of the aforementioned wets) troops. If he doesn't slap them down soon, he will be in big trouble.

Joel Fitzgibbon springs to mind. Amazing that you chose to criticise the Labor Party for being narrow, while missing the whole point of the article, which is that we may have another rebellion within the Liberal ranks. That is why I used the "replay" word. The fact that they have such 'dinosaurs' actually in the Parliament speaks not of their breadth, but of hopeless pre-selection processes. And from Labor's perspective, they would probably welcome Fitzgibbon's leaving.
Good chat!

A large number of members belonging to that mongrel bastard of agglomeration, the Liberal National Party in Queensland, should be factored into the equation. They will NOT stop denying climate change just because their leader-of-the-day has smelt the wind and has changed his view.Their paymasters have not changed their views. Coal exists to be dug up and sold for a profit.

Queensland is the elephant in the room. Morrison will always be looking to the far-right to see what he is allowed to say and to do. If the elephants dislike hi words or deeds, then he will be dumped without warning.

For the remainder of his term he will be no more than a puppet of the FRWNJs. There will be NO discussion of climate change acceptance or action, there will be NO national energy plan, there will NO policy concerning renewable energy sources, and there will be NO coordination at federal level of bushfire policy and action.

Gee, the vindictiveness of the peace-loving regress-orientated Progressives is reaching for new lows !

Yup and on the cards as the hard-right take wake up calls all over the country! And accelerated by the triggering of the world's most powerful weapon, the finance bomb

And exploded with the explosive news the biggest finance house on the planet with trillions under its control has told us they are getting out of or moving away from coal!

This is sure to rigger a traditional response in some conservative quarters, i.e., like rabbits caught in the headlights and frozen with fear?

Incapable of accepting current outcomes of the communities expectations but will do as they always do, say something like our view is evolving or similar garbage that allows them to kick countless cans down the road and make it someone else's responsibility!

As opposed to LEADERSHIP AND GETTING ON THE FRONT FOOT WITH VIABLE SOLUTIONS!

Charity (vote buying) is nice but not universally applicable nor are the loans!

Isa layi, cowa cowa kara.
Alan B.

As noted by ‘Individual’; just another example of ‘name calling’. It is the same as having a conversation/argument with a 6 year old. So very very depressing. As observed my Tony Abbott, the quality of the climate change DEBATE is crap.

‘name calling’
Prompete,
what'd be the alternative to wake these people up ? I'd gladly accept your advise if you can provide a way to stop THEM from doing it first !

I must say the energy some of you guys put into your comments is exemplary. Imagine if you put a similar degree of energy into producing articles. That said, generally if one is commenting on an article it is customary to keep the comments to the subject matter covered in said article. Otherwise you are wandering off-topic. The replay in the title is a replay of the leadership spills over the last ten years, but more recently when Turnbull was knocked off by Morrison, about PRECISELY the same issue which is raising its head now: emissions reduction, or climate change mitigation, or action on the climate; versus doing nothing. So I am alerting you all that the same tensions which released the Liberal demons last time we changed Prime Ministers, are rising. I thought it was an interesting topic; I hope you do too.

Oh Dear; taking it all into account means it is totally useless
arguing about how co2 is the cause of everything.
The amount in the atmosphere that we put in makes no difference.
No difference to the temperature and no difference to the bushfires.
So why argue about it ?
If you want to argue about it go and knock on the doors of the US
Chinese and Indian embassys.
Best we can do is get the fuel load down in the bush.

There is even an argument that co2 can make little or no difference
but that has to be an argument for another time, after the big
emitters have cut down. We may be saved from having the arguement anyway.

Well it wasn't just Turnbull who was undone by his climate hysteria. I'd argue that every PM since Howard, and maybe even Howard was a victim of the problem of reconciling what the elite and political class want to with what the electorate is prepared to do.

Rudd was sailing smooth until Abbott overthrew Turnbull as opposition leader (because of his climate policies) and developed a focus on the costs of Kyoto etc. It was the climate what got 'im.

So Rudd falls in the polls and Gillard takes over. No Carbon tax she proclaims, because its unpopular. And she scraps in. And, treating the electorate like the mere plebs the left has always looked down on, she brings in a carbon tax. Whoops, where did those poll numbers go? So out she goes, replaced by Rudd who is really only there to save the furniture.

In comes Abbott, having overthrown a Lib leader and two( three?) PM's by exposing the costs of their climate hysteria. So he undoes all the costs and, suddenly finds himself assailed on all sides for not paying homage to Gaia.

In comes Turnbull promising rainbows and sunny Sunday afternoons. And as the promise meets the cost, down go the polls and out come the climate realists. Morrison, sitting on the sidelines, picks up the pieces.

This week there is a fresh outburst of climate hysteria based on the media pushing the we're-all-gunna-die button. And the climate alarmists feel emboldened. Next week it'll be something new. Already the rains have pushed the greatest challenge of our times off the front pages.

The problem for all these leaders and their entourage is that they can't match the rhetoric to the economics. Everyone wants to do something about the climate, everyone dutifully nods when the issue is reducing emissions.

Everyone is prepared to pay the cost, so long as that payment doesn't come from them. If we really were sincere about the reducing emissions, politicians would be trying to increase power costs. But they know that's electoral suicide

/cont

/cont

So the solution for Morrison is simple. Ask those on his side of the tent who want to display their climate credentials if they are prepared to go out and campaign in favour of higher power. And until they are they need to pull their head in.

The electorate will never agree to pay for emissions reductions while-ever they are the ones doing the paying.
____________________________________________________________
I'm reminded of the late great Peter Walsh, once described as the last true socialist in the Australian Parliament.

Detour...when Rudd was telling us about the moral challenge of climate, petrol prices jumped. And what did he do? Tripped over himself to find a solution and blame someone (anyone) else. The greens went silent. But if they were sincere they should have been cheering higher prices and calling for higher still. And when electricity prices jumped, ever pollie in the land was talking about how they were going to bring them down. But if they were sincere about reducing emissions they should have been calling for higher not lower prices. But they are sincere.

So Peter Walsh. He was involved in discussions about the need to reduce the road toll by reducing speed limits. The month before he's been assailed about the need to upgrade roads. He suggested that if they really wanted to reduce speeding, all governments should stop fixing pot-holes.....stunned silence. You see they weren't really interested in doing everything possible to reduce speeding, they were interested in SAYING they were.

Same with climate hysteria.

If we are truly in an emergency Morrison needs to do something dramatic. My suggestion. Mandate so no Journalist, member of the media or media organisations, politicians, public servants and anyone earning over $150k p.a. can travel in planes or cars, no mobile phones, electricity off the grid only, no gas allowed either.
Let's see just how bad this emergency is when you have to pay for it rather than me. Any takers?

Those who claim that dealing with climate change equates to higher power prices haven't a clue!

And endlessly repeated BS won't make it true!

Simply put we can have carbon-free power and vastly lower prices! The two are not mutually incompatible!

Read Thorium cheaper than coal by Economist Professor Robert Hargraves

Or Thorium Super fuel, subtitled, green energy, by Prize-winning investigative journalist and science writer Richard Martin

China our largest trading partner bar one, went from rags to riches by investing in infrastructure and innovation.

Moreover, money has never been cheaper and one could argue a business case for capital expenditure on income energy projects, i.e., MSR projects that use thorium or burn other folks nuclear waste!

Waste we'd be paid annual billions to store. And nowhere does it say we can't reprocess it first to unlock the remnant 98% still available CARBON FREE energy! And requires tha the CCCer's inspired prohibition on CARBON FREE nuclear power be lifted!

Other than that both the major parties have to stop preferencing them! But in the interest of pragmatism and logic's rites, and getting rid of tails that wag the dog ned to preference each other in green held seats!

Imagine, One Nation and the Greens swapping preferences to retain damaging balance of power and tantamount for either in doing deals with the devil for a political outcome completely devoid of electoral integrity! It's the economy stupid!

One notes the term carbon-free energy has the cage rattlers going berserk with the cage-rattling commentary.

Mining jobs don't start and end with coal! Everything including our current energy exports can be replaced by other vastly superior alternatives, ditto mining!
Alan B.

Alan we are not allowed to have nuclear energy of any form.
Thats it end of story !

"Alan we are not allowed to have nuclear energy of any form."

That's true Bazz. But we can have as many of the plants AlanB is raving about, because they are all fictitious. They don't exist anywhere other than the fevered imaginations of Alan and his ilk.

You climate deniers should just get off your soapboxes, and study the 'mood'. Most educated individuals, and some who have some sort of survival instinct, are already 'on board'. Glaciers don't suddenly melt, the Arctic Ocean doesn't incidentally lose ALL of its ice, the Antarctic doesn't start calving gigantic icebergs for no reason. Stop comforting yourselves with the bedtime stories of the elites, and stop confusing the elites with conservationists. Accept the future, and get with the programme. Who cares if your power comes from someone's roof? If it works, and we now know its price is putting coal and nuclear out of business in the US, then accept it, and enjoy! Australia has the capacity to lead the world in renewables! And for those who buy into Tony Abbott's aesthetic, tell me honestly if you REALLY prefer the look of a coal-fired power station to a paddock of wind turbines. And if you think about the orange bellied parrot being chopped up by a wind turbine, do you really care? You never objected when the loggers moved in. Take an honest look at your beliefs. Most of you right wingers sound like little school boys, scared of learning something new.

And if I am to receive a boatload of dopey personal comments, try and stick to the topic. Answer the questions posed!

Ah Bucko! I live in the Latrobe Valley and regularly go by our two wonderful brown coal plants. The air around them is cleaner than the inner city areas of Melbourne where I assume you sip your Latte's? What to do about those inner city areas? What about no cars allowed?
Solar only produces power when the sun is up, enough. When it goes down in the sky, no power. So back up coal is needed. The private power companies happily closed Hazlewood knowing they would reduce costs, ramp up existing plants and increase prices (Your super hero Danny Andrews estimated 20%) resulting in doubling their profits two years in a row. I could go on but you have your entrenched reactionary views and are unable to listen to reason.

Askbuko said; If it works, and we now know its price is putting coal and nuclear out of business in the US, then accept

Do you still believe renewables are cheaper ?
You had better go back to square one on that.
Make sure the X key works on your calculator.

Why are realists now branded deniers ? I haven't met anyone yet who denies that there is a climate change.
What no-one seems to acknowledge is that there are too many humans & they cause massive pollution yet no-one seems to be too concerned about that. Pollution is real man-made, Climate Change is a natural cycle. Why is that so difficult to understand for so many educated people ? Are they so educated that they've run out of brain space to hold common sense !
Looks like that to many I speak with !
lte's focus on taking action on issues we can effectively tackle instead of just crapping on & on about things/phenomenon we can't do anything about ! Is that so difficult to comprehend ?

more drivel from Mark Buckley who hides behind his pseudo science to demonise Morrison. Nearly as bad as his first effort. Saw Tucker Carlson making a complete fool of Bill Nye the other day on utube. Quite hilarious when even the 'experts' have nothing to offer except for pseudo science and lies. No doubt they have learn't most of their climate 'facts' from Greta.

prefer the look of a coal-fired power station to a paddock of wind turbines.
askbucko,
What number of wind turbines do you think would be required to keep the average consumer happy ?
How much pollution do you think the production & maintenance of all the turbines would amount to ? Considering that they require metal & plastics etc. I'd think the resulting pollution would out-do coal mining & burning by 2:1 !
Let's just focus on curbing population growth. If a lot of power is needed for towns then small, portable nuclear plants would keep pollution down, giving the environment some chance to recover.

Oh, well that didn't take long.

The author went from trying to analyse the potential conflict within the government over CO2 to simply demanding that everyone who disagrees with him "get on board". Because, it seems, he's educated..or something.

Additionally, apparently, we all ought to "study the 'mood'." Well I somewhat expect that the 'mood' is very different among those pontificating over a cheeky cab-sav as compared to having a XXXX after digging up another 16 tons..( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKnYN5C69RY ).

The different moods were exemplified by Shorten trying to walk the tight-rope between Melbourne Ports and Adani. He failed. As will anyone else who tries to reconcile emission control with economic necessity.

The author wants us to remain on topic. But his essay wasn't the topic he wanted to discuss

Hi Individual, I prefer the look of a paddock of wind turbines to a coal-fires steam-driven power station where the technology has been taken as far as it can go.

Wind turbines, on the other hand, are the technology of the future, particularly vertical axis rooftop models. The blades could be made from timber or even sealed papier mache. Together with anaerobic digestion of all non-meat scraps to make methane for cooking etc., tanks catching all the rainwater, photo-voltaic cells on the roof and battery storage the average house of a few decades down the track will not be connected to the grid.

On a slightly different topic, it is very interesting to see how much attention is being given to the Sports Grants fiasco. Good way to not have to talk about climate change in conservative party room(s)?

Sports Grants fiasco.
Brian of Buderim,
I have long said that I do not approve of Taxpayer Dollars to be used for the amusement of the masses.
Entertainment should pay for itself & if it doesn't it isn't good enough & the performers should look for alternative employment. They should rely on their competence instead of the Taxpayers.
Wind turbines, on the other hand, are the technology of the future,
You're right so let's not worry about them now. Wait for the future when they'll be as reliable as you say. All this experimenting is way too costly in every aspect.
Introduce technology when it works but not before !