According to Essential polling, only 7% of Australians are interested in the virtue signalling of climate change as an election issue. The top three concerns were: cost of living, 60%; improving the health system, 37%; housing affordability, 29%.

On the most important (cost of living), which is very much affected by the climate spending fraud, RET, and subsidies, 60% of Labor voters agreed, 58% Liberal, and 54% Greens. Others voted 51%%, 38% and 25% respectively.

It is not the people of Wentworth that Morrison needs to start listening to.

I still say it's BS that poll that claimed 9 out of 10 surveyed in Wentworth thought climate change was the most important issue.

Here's the link to the actual polling:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2018/oct/23/the-guardian-essential-report-23-october-results

According to this polling 63% though that climate change is
happening and is caused by human activity and 56% thought
that the government is not doing enough.

Also it needs to be pointed out that in the Guardian Sept.
polling on nearly every question they asked on climate
change and renewables - support for government action
sits at around two-thirds of all voters. 69% believe it is
important for the government to agree to a policy to reduce
climate change and 74% approve of government incentives for
renewables.

And yet here we have a discussion based on "virtue signalling."

It's noticeable how often "virtue signalling" consists of
saying you hate things.

A fabrication with no links to reality it just adds weight to the view supporters of this government have no regard for truth.

Given that only the indoctrinated true believers ever read the guardian, that almost 40% of the readership don't believe in global warming is a pretty disastrous result. Hell only half of them believe the government should be doing more. Looks like even the indoctrinated are starting to smell a rat, & wake up to the rip off.

Hasbeen,

The threat of human-induced climate change, accepted as
a genuine and very serious threat as a consequence of
the Stern Report released in October 2006 (close to
decades since the release of the Brundtland Report)
changed attitudes worldwide. Australia is one of the
standout countries in terms of science. It is not corrupt.
It's science is first class. Yet for some people none of
this matters.

To some people, any new ideas instead of being welcome
for the opportunities they open up for the improvement of
the human lot - don't count for much. They won't be around
to see it. And these new ideas are viewed as threats to those
who are comfortable in their ideologies.

Luckily, they are a minority.

My information comes directly from the Essential Report, not something that The Guardian has adulterated. The question was:

“ Which of the following issues are the most important for the Federal Government to address over the next 12 months? Select up to 3”.

The top three were as I stated. There was NO MENTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE at all in the question. What people think about climate change is irrelevant to THIS question and, no matter that: “ … 63% though that climate change is
happening and is caused by human activity and 56% thought
that the government is not doing enough”, that has nothing to do with what people think the government should prioritise over the next 12 months, and it has nothing to do with my post that Foxy has dishonestly attempted to denigrate by inferring that what she ferreted out in a left wing rag has anything at all to do with the post and the information therein. Her reference is definitely NOT linked to what I have posted. I mentioned climate change only because it typifies what I regard as the shameful virtue signalling that the liars and zealots claim is a top priority for government. Clearly it is not.

Then the idiot, Belly, accuses me of fabrication! Both he and Foxy are really feeding off the bottom now. They suck up all the rubbish from the red press at one end, and fart it out at the other end. They really are a nasty pair.

ttbn,

You poor, sad, little man.

When you've grown up - mis-educated,
surrounded by fear and hate, unaware of your ignorance,
lies sound like the truth.

I knew you wouldn't be able to respond to what I said, and would have to resort to the bitchiness that is never far from the surface. You don't have the knowledge or the training to do anything else. You can regurgitate all the left wing garbage you like, but you are not told what to do when when someone stands up to you. That's the trouble when you fling other people's arguments about without knowing how they would handle disagreement. The people whose ideas and beliefs you steal probably know why they think the way they do, and have answers when questioned. Copy cats and mimics can't do that. And, this time you were also caught out with hastely ripped off, irrelevant material to demonstrate your ignorance.

Your abuse is water off a ducks back to me; but it's all people like you have, so I suppose it will continue, futile though is.

Some statements are know to be untrue, in such cases reality and truth will not change the delusion lies work.

ttbn,

You are wrong about me. I know who I am and I will
match my qualifications, my posting record, my
work experience, with yours any day. The statements
you make about me - actually apply to you. You
consistently attack people on this forum whose views
do not agree with yours. And it may come as a shock to
you - but despite what you think or believe a large
percentage of Australians do believe in climate change
and feel that the government is not doing enough
regarding renewables.

In any case - you are a person who can't function without
negativity because trying to bring down others obviously
makes you feel better. However, as I told you previously -
if you're posting and talking about me on this forum -
it must mean my life is more interesting than yours.

You would say all of that Foxy: you would hardly come out and say that you are wrong and I am right any more than I or anyone else would in an argument. I am well aware, as is everyone else on OLO, that you think that you are the bee's knees and the fount of all wisdom, even though reality says differently. You have an ego that makes Donald Trump look like a shrinking violet, the difference being that he is smart, and very successful. You don't offer anything but second-hand 'fake news’ from you favourite Leftist sources.

Despite your queen size ego and fantasies about yourself, you seem unable to comprehend that, whether or not “a large percentage of Australians do believe in climate change and feel that the government is not doing enough regarding renewables” as you probably rightly claim, that has nothing to do with the poll question I referred to: “ Which of the following issues are the most important for the Federal Government to address over the next 12 months? Select up to 3”.

I simply cannot understand how someone as clever as you claim to be doesn't understand that question and the fact that that there is no climate/RET option in that question. I have to assume that you are blind to any text you find unacceptable. I mean, it's all plain English, no tricks involved.

You cannot “match” your qualifications against mine, because nobody knows what they are either in your case or mine. Once again you are mistaking social media for real, empirical life. Your concern with qualifications might suggest to some people that you have none.

Finally, I know nothing about your life. I would not find it interesting and, given your obsessive attitude and mania for trying to convince us all of your greatness, I suspect that OLO is the only life you have.

ttbn,

You stated in your opening post that "only 7% of Australians
are interested in the virtue signalling of climate change."
It was to that remark that I responded with a link. I did not
try to disclaim the order of importance of concerns that
Australians had. But I did find that as shown in my link
and an earlier one in September - that more than the 7% that
you quoted of Australians were concerned about climate change
and renewables.

As for my qualifications, experience, and what kind of a
life I lead - that has been well documented on this forum.

Whether you are interested in it or not is
irrelevant. It's there on file.

As for your
qualifications, experience, and life?
Your attitudes and posts
speak for themselves - and you are judged accordingly.

If you don't like my opinion of you - as I've told you
in the past - you can always improve.

Have a nice day.

cont'd ...

ttbn,

Your use of terms like - "bee's knees," "font of wisdom,"
also "clever," and "greatness" in reference to me - indicates
some sort of deep-seated inferiority complex on your part.
I suspect you really want to be liked. Change your attitude
it may help. Oh, and I do have a very full and rich life.
Now I have to go - and continue being fabulous. ;-)

Dear Foxy,

You are the only reason I even glance at his posts and even then it has been a while. If you were a kindly soul you would of course save me the bother by ignoring him but I know how it can get sometimes.

Be that as it may I did get a good laugh out of this;

"You have an ego that makes Donald Trump look like a shrinking violet, the difference being that he is smart, and very successful."

So 'my dad's bigger than your dad'.

However rewarding infantile behaviour with attention is a little self defeating don't you think?

Foxy and the moronic Steelerudux,

You just keep on sneering. You are less than nothing in the scheme of things. I recall that you wished me dead some time ago SR. I'm still here though. Are you two an item, or perhaps a threesome with Belly? You are well suited.

ttbn,
"According to Essential polling, only 7% of Australians are interested in the virtue signalling of climate change as an election issue."

A surprisingly high figure.
I'm interested in actually doing something about climate change, and I regard it as an election issue, but I'm not so interested in virtue signalling.

Of course the reference to "virtue signalling" was just your spin in a pathetic attempt to belittle the issue; nothing to do with what the poll really said.

The actual results are at http://www.essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport

"The top three were as I stated. There was NO MENTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE at all in the question."

Not in that question (the Important issues survey was the second question of eight; the fifth and sixth related to climate change) so even disregarding your "virtue signalling" lie, you're still wrong.

Now, looking at the results, the 7% figure was for those who regarded Promoting renewable energy as the most important issue. That's 2% short of Improving our health system (on 9%) and 1% short of Housing affordability (8%) and is ahead of National security and terrorism, and Promoting economic growth (both of which are on 6%)

The total figure for Promoting renewable energy was 20%

I think you owe us all (and particularly Foxy) several apologies!
Not that there'll be any, of course. Your attitude reminds me of a classic Fast Forward skit:
Sir Joh: "You are wrong, Jana! You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong....."

Dear Steele,

My husband wants me to quit the forum.

He keeps asking me - "Why do you bother replying
to those people - don't waste your time on them."

However, it's not all doom and gloom for me. I do get
surprised many times. That's what keeps me coming
back. I've learned so much - even from who I considered
to be difficult people. And equally important -
I have learned to do quite
a bit of self-searching as well. And some of my
thoughts - I have begun to question too, so I don't
think that's a bad thing.

I keep hoping that our inter-actions on this forum -
will somehow end up in - some
sort of understanding and civility.

Then there are
posters like yourself, David F, Belly (whom I've known
for ages), Paul, and many others, that make it all worthwhile
for me. Reading those posts brings me so much joy - makes me
laugh, and even better - makes me think.

I'm not ready to give up just yet.

Dear Aidan,

Thank You for your further explanations of the
issues and the stats.

Much appreciated.

Dear Foxy,

It is certainly welcome having your voice continue on the forum. I have had the gloves on for a while now and I'm not sure I will know when to take them off. It remains quite combative in many forums, in our politics, and on social media. Hopefully this too will pass as they say. But it is more important than ever that people stand up for decency, compassion and justice.

From Orwell's 1945 essay on Nationalism;

“Indifference to Reality. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.”

Nationalist forces are growing. They have not gone away with the unseating of the likes of Abbott and the failure of Dutton. Countering these tides, where ever we may encounter them, will need all hands on deck.

That's my pep talk for the day.

Dear Steele,

You're so good for the soul and the heart.

Thank You.

Foxy I missed your post of the 26Th , but must answer it.

The Stern Report has been proven a dozen times to be one of the greatest piles of garbage ever dumped on Oz. For you to bring it up as proof of the global warming scam, shows beyond any doubt that there is no credible proof, or even reasonable evidence that CO2 is responsible for anything but well fed flora.

If that is the best a trained researcher can come up with, there is not a damn thing to incriminate that poor maligned molecule CO2.

Okay, if climate change is occurring, if it's due to more CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans rather than the conversion of massive amounts of energy sources into heat (mainly in the cities), then one presumes that average temperature and sea levels should be rising.

How to measure sea-level rise ? It's not as simple as some think: tectonic movements and tilting of plates, say, in the Bangla Desh/Bengal area give the impression that arts in Bangla Desh are being flooded because of sea-level rise; damming of rivers such as the Nile so that silt can't reach the river deltas and the sea moves in gives the same impression; on the other hand. that slow 'bounce-back' of areas formerly under ice caps during the last Ice Age. But there must be geologically stable coast-lines which, in 'normal' circumstances neither rise nor fall ?

Sydney Harbour, maybe ? The US eastern coast-line ? West Africa ? Brazil ? Libya ? Have sea-levels risen in those places, and by similar amounts ? Here in SA, there doesn't seem to have been any notable sea-level rise - the movement of beach sand with the dominant currents, yes, so programs to replace sand loss in some areas like West Beach (and build-up in others such as Largs-Taperoo, i.e. where the sand has gone to).

Okay, maybe sea-level rise is too complicated. Temperature rise ? It will be 36-27 in Adelaide this week: I'm sure someone will go on about how it's never, ever, ever been hotter in early November. Not so: I recall picking up a hay cut in 1976 in late October when the temperature was over the century. Not that that is any firm guide one way or the other. But have, say, decadal temperatures risen since the 1880s or 1920s and by how much ? I don't know, but someone on this thread probably does.

Joe

They measure with satellites, Joe.

Take 361 square km of sea surface, then place some 6 billion tonnes of shipping onto that & then work out how much the sea level rises due to the displacement. Not to mention man made fill by way of islands & airports etc.
Anyone have the answer how much that makes the sea level rise ?

Of course that should be 361 million

There is a science and there is activism in the name of science. The activist scientists prevail with their noise and lies because the more noise they make, the more of our money they get their paws on.

Climate 'science' is pure superstition that fools the gullible and the frightened just as the 'assurance' that the world was flat; bleeding and leeches were a cure for all ailments and, more recently, the millenium bug which was going to bring everything to a grinding halt. I could add the one where the 'experts' bellowed that Donald Trump would never be elected president of the United States. Shonky political science.

All that rubbish was out put about by the same sorts of people who tell us that an essential gas is the course of climate change, and that the country's economy and electricity consumers have to be impoverished to 'cure' what is an simply nature at work.

That's what comes from people without faith and a belief that mankind can alter nature.

Jennifer Marohasy had some interesting things to say about a science in The Domain yesterday. She likened some science to the police “fitting up” suspects because they are ‘ guilty of something’ even if it's not the crime they are accused of. She cited the scientific lie sugar farming was responsible for the deaths of dugongs twenty years ago, but the most interesting was this:

“ … an increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific studies are impossible to reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. Yet the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method; otherwise we are dealing with anecdote”.

The article, which deals with the heroism of Professor Peter Kidd and his sacking by James Cook University, is well worth the read.

Sorry, folks: the science on climate change is definitely not 'in’, and it is looking more like fraud every day.

individual,
Many have calculated it before, and the answer is very small.
You should be able to find the answer with google, or just calculate it yourself.
But since you've asked:

6 billion tonnes shipping displacement is close enough to 6 billion cubic metres (it's actually slightly less because salt water is denser than fresh,but the difference isn't worth worrying about here.

Divide that by a surface area of 361 million square km (each of which is a million square m)

6*10^9 / 361*10^12 = 0.0000166m = 0.0166mm
Far too small to worry about

The same goes for reclaimed land, even before you consider that this is often filled with dredged marine sediment anyway.

ttbn,
I'm quite surprised you've shown up again on this thread after I exposed the lies you started it with.

What puzzles me is the source of your preposterous claims. Did you make up those you started the thread from yourself? Sordid you get them from the Murdoch Press? Or is there some other organization you're outsourcing you thinking to?

If it's climate science, not climate denialism, that fools the gullible, then why does runner stick firmly to the denialist side?

Can you really not tell the difference between science and superstition? When superstition doesn't fit the evidence, its adherents simply ignore the evidence. A good example would be your belief that mankind can't alter nature, despite the fact that people have ben doing so for centuries. Many species have gone extinct despite the once widespread view that God wouldn't let that happen...

In contrast, when observations contradict scientists' earlier observations and models, the scientists seek to understand the source of the discrepancies, to improve their own understanding and enable them to construct better models in the future.

And when other scientists get different results, they examine each others' work to try to find the source of the discrepancy. But when the consensus is challenged, it's almost invariably found to be due to an error in the dissenting paper. There's a reason why there's such a widespread consensus, and it's nothing to do with funding or conspiracies. It's that scientists are swayed by evidence, and go where the evidence points them.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by a third since preindustrial times can not be dismissed as "nature at work" - it's a direct result of human intervention. And the country's electricity consumers certainly don't have to be impoverished - that was mainly the result of political decisions to load the costs of expensive new infrastructure onto existing electricity users. And the economy certainly doesn't have to be impoverished - but economics is one area where false assumptions and faulty reasoning are still rife even among the mainstream.

Aidan,

Well, pardon me for for ‘showing up’ on a thread I actually started! Do you really think that I actually read the crap you carry on with? I read only the first line of this nonsense. You are wasting your time turning out the slabs of garbage that you dream up. Your have a very poor memory. I advised you quite some time ago that I am not the slightest bit interested in anything you say, and I always scroll right past your posts. I am only here again because I was surprised that anyone would still have something to say on a done and dusted subject. I should have known it would be some obsessive crackpot. Buzz off.

ttbn,
>Well, pardon me for for ‘showing up’ on a thread I actually started!

Actually I was pleased you showed up. But I couldn't understand why, after your original claims had been so thoroughly debunked, you totally ignored it and came out with a new, less focussed set.

>Your have a very poor memory. I advised you quite some time ago that I am not the
>slightest bit interested in anything you say, and I always scroll right past your posts.

That explains a lot. It also means you're an order of magnitude more stupid than I presumed.

FWIW the reason I didn't remember you'd said it is that I hadn't realised you actually meant it; I honestly thought it was just rhetoric.

Though those who want honest debate will deplore it, you may be happy in your rightwing echo chamber, filtering out all the voices of truth. But as your idiocy gets exposed more often, you won't be able to filter out the laughter of the other readers.